*1 methods, ruthless knowing they full well that dare not use such a at the trial, then, confession part a the same continuing transaction and before the effects of the coercion can fairly said to have completely worn off, procure another confession any without immediate vio- being lence inflicted. The admission of a such tainted confession does not accord with the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s command state shall not convict a defendant on evidence that he was compelled give against himself. Florida, supra; Canty Chambers v. Alabama, v. supra; California, supra; Lisenba Tennessee, v. v. Ashcraft supra.
Me. Justice opinion. concurs Black
ADDISON HOLLY HILL v. FRUIT et al.
PRODUCTS, INC. Argued January 10, No. 5, 217. 1944. Decided June 1944. *2 for Ellis Davis George Messrs. Palmer Garrett and F. petitioners. R. Reeves, with whom Messrs. B.
Mr. L.G. Huffaker Andrews, respondent. on the for brief, Jr. were and C. O. Douglas Maggs, with of Mr. B. special Court, leave By Fahy, and General Messrs. Archibald Cox whom Solicitor Shelton, Margolin the and Miss Bessie were on James H. Wage of Di- Administrator the and Hour brief, for the curiae, amicus urging of Department Labor, vision, reversal. of the the opinion
Mr. Justice delivered Frankfurter Court. brought by of Hill Fruit employees
This a suit Holly wage under Fair Labor payments Ino. for the Products, A 1060, seq. 52 201 et §§ Stat. 29'TJ.S. C. Standards Act. re- here, was judgment employees, petitioners for the the Circuit Court of which held by Appeals, versed of (a) (10) by § were of Holly employees Hill’s virtue they “within exempted scope, Act in that were Administrator), (as defined production the area of commodi- agricultural . . . engaged canning in . . . con- court below reached this ties . market . “area holding portion elusion that a definition Wage production” Administrator made remaining Hour Division invalid brought portion afforded 2d 323. We exemption. F. here, 725, litigated case a much U. S. settle question of Fair in the importance administration Labor Standards Act.
Holly Hill, a citrus two cannery employing fruit some workers, hundred Davenport, Florida, located town awith population of two During about people. 14, May seasons controversy 26, 1938 to —November ,1939 1939, November March 16, 30, 1940—the regulations Administrator promulgated three based on scope *3 gave he (a) (10) § to his under authority production.” aspects define “area of of validity of regulations these is the crucial issue. regulation
By of 20, 1938, October the Administrator in production” (a) defined “area of (10) § as used include an engaged agri- individual in “if canning the or cultural horticultural are obtained the commodities establishment where he from in employed farms the locality immediate and the employees number of such establishment does not Reg. exceed seven.” 29 Fed. Code (Supp. 1938) 536.2 (b). § April 20, Effective an 1939', alternative definition, applicable to perishable or seasonal fresh fruits and brought vegetables, workers into the “area of if “in production” employed an establishment which is in the open country located or in a rural community which obtains all of its from products im- farms in its “ mediate It locality.” provided was ‘open country’ community’ or ‘rural shall not include any town city of 2,500 greater population according to the 15th Census, United States 1930, and ‘immediate locality’ shall not include any of distance more than ten miles.” 29 Fed. Reg. Code (Supp. 1939) § (e), pp. 536.2 2239^-40. Finally, this alternative definition, longer no limited to incorporated into vegetables,
fruits and substance regulations 17, 1939, in addition effective June an provided might it was individual be within also [canning] “area “if he production” performs those on materials all of which come from operations farms general vicinity of establishment em- where he is engaged in employees and the number of those ployed does that establishment not exceed operations seven.” Reg. (Supp. 1939) (a) § 29 Code 536.2 (d), p. Fed. 2240. question, Before the main coming validity that of the allowable adding a limitation number of em- canning establishment within one ployees exempted dispose we shall geographic bounds, of the applicability exempting the Administrator’s other definitions to Holly employees. Hill’s
The definitions which contain no employee limitation two essential conditions on an impose exemption sought (a) (10): 13§ under establishment must be located having a city or population town smaller than 2,50o,1 products all must be obtained from within ten miles the establishment. Since Davenport contains persons, than the first condition 2,500 less is met and we validity.2 on its pass need As to condi- the second evidence introduced tion, only that during indicates season, the 1938-1939 about fruit used came 2% air that for beyond plant, ten miles of *4 groves from season, about came more 1939-1940 3.75% Hill. Since all of the Holly miles from fruit ten air than Hill did miles, Holly not from within ten not come did City, miles with Davenport four of Haines within The fact that conclude district court to that 2,500, led the population greater than a country” “rural “open com or a Holly located Hill was not Reg. Code Fed. solecism. 29 munity.” plain to be appears a This 2239-40, (d), p. 2240. 536.2 (e), pp. (Supp. 1939) 536.2 § § specific ruling population criterion is that a is conceded It unnecessary. condition,
satisfy this of the Administrator’s definitions. There can be no justified doubt conclusion is a of the reading regulations, literal and the below, court in holding that the Administrator’s requirement that all the goods come from ten within miles must be construed to mean “substantially all,” entered the Administrator’s domain. What was said another connection is rele “Looked, vant here. at itself regard without to the necessity behind it point the line or seems arbitrary. It might nearly as well well be a little more to one side or the But when other. it is seen that line or point be, there must and that there is no mathematical or logical way fixing it the decision precisely, of the must accepted we can say unless [Administrator] it very wide of any reasonable mark.” Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting, Coleman, Louisville Gas v. Co. U. S. 32, 41.3
We come then to validity 20, October 1938, regulation and that of the alternative the June 17, 1939, regulation provide in substance that an in- dividual is employed within “area of production” if an establishment obtains the commodities from the “im- locality” (1938) mediate or all the materials come from “general vicinity” (1939), and addition the num- ber of employees establishment “does exceed In seven.” short, Congress exempted “any when individ- (as ual employed within the area of defined production Administrator)” (§ did authorize (a) (10)), only Administrator not designate territorial bounds purposes of exemption except but also to estab- lishments exemption according such to the number of workers employed.
3Holly finding Hill here attacked of the district court that all of the fruit did not come from within miles, ten but we see no reason to disturb it. *5 from con- exemptions for eleven
Congress provided wages to minimum or maxi- relating trolling provisions Act.4 Employ- of the Fair Labor Standards mum hours agriculture far-reaching in is probably ment most related to it Closely exemption is the exemption. immediate concern —those in engaged is our workers marketing agricultural for the of processes necessary prod- “within the of employed ucts and area of production” provisions (a) of sections apply 7 shall not “Sec. employee respect (1) any employed in executive, with a bona fide administrative, professional, retailing local capacity, or or in the (as capacity salesman such of outside terms are defined and delimited Administrator); any engaged by regulations (2) employee or of the selling greater part establishment the of.whose any retail or service commerce; (3) any employee employed servicing or or is in intrastate subject seaman; (4) any employee a carrier as or air a provisions Railway Act; (5) II any of title Labor or em ployee employed catching, taking, harvesting, cultivating, in the or farming any fish, shellfish, Crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, kind of or vegetable aquatic life, including going other forms of animal and returning including employment loading, work and in the un loading, packing products shipment or of such for inor propagating, processing, marketing, freezing, canning, curing, storing, distributing or products byproducts (6) thereof; any employee or above or em any employee ployed agriculture; (7) or to the extent that such regulations employee exempted by or orders of the Administrator 14; (8) any employee employed issued under section or in connection weekly publication any semiweeHy or newspaper with the with a major part than three thousand the circulation of less of which cir county printed where and published; (9) any culation is within or street, suburban, employee a or interurban electric railway, or local exemptions included trolley carrier, not in other or motor bus con (10) any employed section; tained or individual within the (as Administrator), engaged defined production area of storing, ginning, compressing, packing, pasteurizing, drying, handling, state, canning agricultural natural or raw or or preparing in their making market, cheese or or butter horticultural commodities operator (11) products; any employed switchboard dairy other exchange telephone which has less than five hundred public stations.” amended, 1266. 53 Stat. 1067, Stat.
613 phrase such commodities. Such was the such con its junction agriculture with the exemption of which it formed an integral part as the bill both passed Houses, that the except enumerated exempted employments sub sidiary agriculture varied the two bills.5 par The “(as enthetical qualification defined by the Adminis trator)” emerged the conference committee of the two Houses.6 textual meaning
The of “area of production” is thus reinforced its context: “area” calls for delimitation of 5 exemptions provided The (a) (10) appear did not § in the bill reported Senate, but in the debate on the floor of body exemption an effort was made to extend the agricultural accorded to workers, passed by and as provided Senate the bill that “The term employed 'person in agriculture’, as used in act, this insofar as it shall vegetables, refer to fresh fruits and persons shall include employed engaged production within the area of in preparing, packing, storing vegetables such fresh fruits or in their raw or natural state.” Cong. 7876, 7949, provision, Rec. 7957. This varied by extending somewhat coverage “agricultural (82 Cong. to all commodities” 1783- Rec. 1784), part remained as of the “Employee definition of employed in (H. Rep. agriculture” 2182, Cong., No. 75th 3d Sess., p. 2) until shortly finally adopted by before the bill was House, at time the so-called Biermann amendment included within the definition of engaged agriculture employees employed “individuals within engaged production, handling, area of in the packing, storing, ginning, compressing, pasteurizing, drying, canning products of farm making Cong. cheese and butter.” 7401, Ree. 7407. At the con disagreeing on the ference votes of the Houses, two the “area pro given provision duction” the form in which finally it was enacted, parenthetical phrase and there the “as defined the Administrator” production.” Cong. was inserted after “area Ree. 9249. 6 Compare provision (1) this (a) exempting with employees § executive, “a administrative, bona fide professional, retailing or local capacity, (as or in capacity of outside salesman such terms regulations defined and delimited Administrator).” For class, given authority the Administrator is to define and delimit “terms” used. But in the same section, subdivision 10 grants authority “area,” to define the term but to define the “area.”
rH CD in. territory complicated relation to the fac- economic operate tors that between labor conditions agricultural agri- enterprises and the labor market of concerned with produc- near their cultural commodities and more or less zone phrase designation of a apt tion. most within which may op- economic influences be deemed view, their force. In they erate and outside of which lose however, variety agricultural conditions and in- *7 throughout country, the the of these areas' dustries bounds it by Congress not be itself. Neither could defined to the deemed wise leave economic determination to' such litigation. and of And contingencies inevitable diversities experienced to the Congress boundary-making left the so Thereby judgment informed of the Administrator. and gave appropriate the Administrator discretion Congress subject to the the factors that matter, all relevant assess wages of minimum and fixing maximum hours. is, the may properly In the area the Administrator delimiting synthesize long all such factors. as he does and So weigh judgment belongs to him and more, aind no that authority him Congress upon For cast the the has courts. agri duty production” to define the “area and which exemption with reference to cultural commodities if Congress But subsidiary may operate. employments to discriminate be intended to allow Administrator zone bigger within and establishments tween smaller Congress wholly agricultural production, failed Congress Where wanted to1make ex express purpose. or three instances depend size, as it did two emption language.7 it did relevant, by appropriate not here so legislate quantity referred to' when it desired Congress quantity. on the basis of See n §§ (a) (8) dealing (2) (11) respectively with retail newspapers weekly pub establishments, semi-weekly
service exchanges. telephone lic
Congressional as purpose manifested text and con is not text doubtful by legislative history. rendered Meagre that is, Congress as it confirms what formally has only light Congressional said. extrinsic cast on pur regarding production” “area of pose is that cast sponsors range this provision enlarging ag exemptions. ricultural Senator frankly Schwellenbach that largest apple packing plant stated world if “work exempt would done in plant that de is as in the amendment.” 81 Cong. scribed Ree. 7877. And House, in the Representative Biermann, while explaining amendment Delphic somewhat terms, his did indicate he enough that had plainly mind not differences establishments within between the same territory but be rural communities urban tween centers: I “may say country all over it has been recognized that there be a labor differential between large should city Cong. little town.” Rec. 7401.8 light Congress From such gave beyond us its words, appear giving would exemption to an “area of without differentiating production,” as between estab- *8 area, Congress might within such lishments well have large that plant within an area should considered given an over advantage plants competing small for be within the locality, same while at the same time labor it 8 Representative his was asked whether amendment Biermann apply packing house located in “would to a Iowa Illinois in the employs production, of two area or three hundred men.” This complete “Speaking his frankly, was answer: I think that is some thing that worked packing would have to be out. There some in the of that apply houses State Iowa amendment would to country perhaps; may say all I that over this it has been rec ognized large that there should be a labor differential between the Certainly give the city and little town.” Mr. Biermann did not the production” convey of remotest intimation that “area meant to was any usually conveys. idea other that which area than ample power, in defining Administrator the
gave area, the the appropriate take due account of economic factors to Congress lines. In drawing geographic any event, the Administrator to decide whether did not leave to him the Act further bounds defined geographic within between establishment and estab- discrimination permits The employees. the number of de- upon based lishment delegated to a authority given extent of termination left for the decision of him in is not by Congress agency authority is vested. whom Congress made an delegation wider a
The incomplete more is a statute agency the administrative in, as it is scope filling called, for ampler give wide discretion Congress wants But when details. in the Com language. Thus, Interstate it uses broad a lower rate for a Congress longer Act, prohibited merce gave authority but it an to the Inter haul, a shorter than Commission, except undefined Commerce state Act for implied basis afford general purposes relief prohibition. from this grant exemption, ing Cases, Again 234 U. 476. Rate S. Intermountain Act, Congress gave Relations Board Labor National will action “as effectuate take such authority to (c), 49 449, 454, Stat. § this Act.” policies “policies” Act were so (c). § TJ. S. C. the determination Congress broadly defined peculiarly a matter remedy policy “the relation Dodge Phelps competence.” Corp. v. administrative In the Fair Labor Board, 177, 194. Stand 313 U. S. Labor very differently relation legislated Congress Act, ards sure, Fair Labor us. To before to the problem Labor the National Relations Act, Act, like Standards a declaration of But findings policy. broad based *9 proscribe generally did not or and then . Congress prescribe in relief as for administrative broad discretion give in for remedies as Act or Interstate Commerce 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 Administrator, some made by Congress itself, subject others to definition by other legislation), on size and on In areas. short the Adminis- trator was not left large. at A national new policy here formulated with catalogued exceptions, par- with ticularity and not left dispensing within the broad power Exemptions Administrator. made such detail preclude their enlargement by implication. a meaning of
We should of to the course be faithful statute. But after Congress expresses meaning all language, If legislative vague words. is couched policy easily susceptible meaning of one as well as another speech common not stifle men, policy we should a pedantic a let grudging of construction. To process general words draw one purpose nourishment from their thing. To unexpressed spirit draw on some outside bounds of the normal another. meaning quite words For we are here not dealing with the broad terms of the Constitution a continuing government” “as instrument of “subject but with part legislative a code continu- changing ous revision with the events.” United course Classic, States 299, v. 313 U. S. 316.
Legislation introducing system new is at best empiri cal, and not infrequently administration gaps reveals inadequacies one sort or another that may call amendatory legislation. But it nois warrant for extend ing that experience may a statute disclose it should have been made comprehensive. more “The natural meaning of words cannot displaced by reference to difficulties administration.” Commonwealth v. Grun seit (1943) 67 C. L. R. 80. For 58, the ultimate question *10 no commanded, given when has Congress what has it
is English except to its intentions familiar words clue that they hint the draftsmen of the words meant no any but an sense. idea which ordinary use them Congress sought grant by now to be read into is beyond of production” Administrator to define “the area phrase not so plain geographic implications of is English that words were complicated speech poor nor is so sug- easily the idea or at least to express not available legislation expressed when not tech- gest all, it. After of men and is nical to the common run terms is addressed according to the of the therefore to be understood sense right ordinary man thing, ordinary rely as the has him. words addressed to exemptions
The details with which the this Act have enlargement implication. made their preclude been construing legislation function judicial While ex judgment mechanical from which process not a very legisla different from the cluded, is nevertheless legislation not and must tive function. Construction is retrospective expansion meaning “that of avoid judicial legislation.” stigma properly deserves Walling, 517, Co. 316 U. 522. To blur Kirschbaum v. S. judicial the legislative functions of the distinctive legislation. responsible not conducive to processes is Appeals the Circuit agree therefore with Court We holding invalid the limitations as to the number defined area. But cannot follow employees within a we deleting administrative part that Court of the defini- what regulation and, applying remains Holly Hill’s from the tion, exempting employees require- the Act. to the number provision ments of Since authorized, the entire employees definition of which that limitation was a must fall. can part We hardly that the Administrator would defined assume have merely by deleting employee production” pro- “area It vision, invalidity. had he known of would be guesswork an to believe elimination of sheerest im- factor in the Administrator’s portant equation would if have left his unaffected equation even he did not here *11 upon importance. It not for to insist is us a write definition. is the duty. That Administrator’s
Concluding, then, Congress granted that when exemp- within the “area production (as tions for workers of de- Administrator)” fined it restricted the Adminis- drawing to the of geographic lines, trator he though even may take into account all relevant in economic factors of to' open him, the choice areas the regulations which within the made discriminations area defined by applying exemption to only plants with less than seven em- vires. are ultra But that ployees leaves the prob- difficult the proper disposition lem the case. is It our view be that the case should remanded district court with it until the instructions to hold Administrator, by making determination of the a valid area with all deliberate within the authority given acts him speed, by Congress. a disposition is most Such consonant with justice to all in retracing interests the erroneous course that has been law logic Neither nor taken. an dictates “either-or” con- is, clusion —that conclusion the employment that in entirely industries is exempt these because the Adminis- trator the bounds of his misconceived regulatory powers although enough he plainly meant to them exercise so as employments not to withdraw all these from the require- the Act, employment ments of or that in these- industries subject Act because exception no excludes it. opposing The two alternatives do violence to the law as it. that Congress wrote To hold all individuals “engaged handling, storing, packing, ginning, compressing, pas- in their raw teurizing, drying, preparing or natural state, canning agricultural or horticultural commodities for dairy other making or in cheese' or butter market, exempt operation of the Act is products” obviously fly Congressional the face of purpose. exempts employees Act some but en- all and it not for now to gaged industries, say these us postpone hold exempt. oper- all are would So instances for at of the Act the enumerated least ation years beyond by Congress. Equally the date fixed six offending Congress and therefore to purposes to the if ex- suggestion is the fairness this situation designated engaged all emption employees falls industries are covered the Act. assumes, what making
The accommodation that we are retrospec- Administrator will assume, that we must the bounds conscientiously within act tively as done he would have him power given Congress authority. his To he limited himself to initially had *12 law should retrospective judgment, will be a and sure this retroactivity as But other possible. pos- as much avoid dispositions retroactivity, likewise involve with the sible producing contrary mischief of a result added statutory design. an adaptation of court procedure
Such to a remolding nearly may the situation as as be to of what it should have initially unprecedented. is not essentially been Such was which was devised to the skein procedure unravel Morgan, States 183. United v. U. S. Court The did not feel itself balked the kind of considerations that controlling to a Baron Parke. The seemed creative analogies great the law upon by of were drawn equity judges, exercising imaginative resourcefulness, always escaped imprisonment have reason and fair concepts of the common See, ness within mechanical law. Florida, Line g., 301; e. Atlantic Coast v. U. S. Inland States, 306 and for 153; Co. United U. S. some v. Steel Hope v. examples Building of this see approach Graf 1, J., dissenting). Y. Ch. Corp., (Cardozo, 254 N. That large such were the considerations guided decision in Morgan case the opinion makes clear: in construing a setting up . . statute an administra judicial for review of agency providing action, tive agency regarded wholly are not to be as inde court each pendent justice, and unrelated instrumentalities statutory acting performance prescribed duty of its other in function of the regard appropriate without to the objects of the statute. securing indicated plainly to attain the adopted the means Court and agency are are defined far their duties prescribed end, and so be construed words should statute, those words action. coordinated through as to attain that end so made the mistake day in this repeat should body Neither recog struggling equity was by the courts of law when neither can justice; ameliorating system nition as an intruder, an alien other as rightly regarded by be encouraged or be if but never be, tolerated must aim.” the common in the aided the other attainment 307 U. atl91. S. Morgan the Court was case
If it be said that that be though dealing with a in court —irrelevant fund con such to the of that decision —no governing principles of our decision import can be made striction Co., General American Tank Terminal Corp. Car v. U. 422. like law That, this, S. an action at a in equity involving a res. The suit was seek respondent ing car-leasing recover sum due under a admittedly agreement petitioner. with Interstate Commerce *13 urged Commission that since the Commission had not, required, prac the law the passed upon validity in tice involved district was agreement, court jurisdiction. so, technically without And speaking, district court was. But this Court remanded the case to the district court with hold the cause instructions “pending appropriate conclusion of an administra- rehearing claimed The petition proceeding.”
tive
694. So
U.
retroactivity.
S.
our decision involved
con
we balanced the
retroactivity
against
did. But as
lesser
retroactivity
evil.
that made
seem
siderations
re
not without
short,
judicial process
In
though
courts
remedies,
flexibility
shaping
sources
them.
time fail to avail themselves of
from time to
of more
the evolution
equity
between law and
interplay
afforded, has
just
the hardened common law
results than
accommodating
in working out
properly
upon
been drawn
and administrative
judiciary
relationships between
those
such as
agencies.
certainly
cases,
And
specific
ju
with
it is consonant
already
this,
referred to and
dicial
not to be balked
administration
fairness
than courts
undesirability
any
retroactive action
more
ratification
legislative
found it difficult to
have
sanction
United States v. Heinszen &
originally unlawful,
of acts
Co.,
Forbes,
549;
Tiaco v.
228 U. S.
Gra
370;
206 U. S.
Goodcell,
409; Hirabayashi
Foster
282 U.
v.
ham &
v.
S.
States,
give
81, 91,
retroactively
U.
United
S.
Lumber
legislation
Pa ramino
Co. v.
scope.
new
prior
Marshall,
proceed-
corpus
370. And
habeas
309 U. S.
custody,
unlawfully
a
ings,
though
petitioner
\
even
custody
ft
retention of
allowed continued
this Court has
Eby,
made. Mahler
until
order could be
v.
a valid
|
Tody. Waldman,
Holly if contended that it also is not entirely ex- empt from paying the overtime rates here awarded, it is advantage entitled to the of the partial seasonal exempt- tions (b) (3) afforded §§ and 7 (c). The district ruled court to adversely Holly Hill on these claims, but the Circuit Appeals Court of did not reach them. It will enough be time them if they reach survive the disposi- tion now of this case. made
Accordingly, the case is remanded to the district court in conformity with proceed opinion.
So ordered. Me. Justice Robeets :
I with agree opinion of this court and with the Circuit opinion Court Appeals that the Admin- power (if istrator was without “area production” is to any meaning) have sensible exclude from the area and operation exemption from workers a process- ing plant within the clearly ground area that a certain number worked in employes If plant. Congress, when it said that the area of production should defined the Administrator, meant that that official roving have a commission to should create exemptions Act, provision the entire fall must as an un- delegate attempt legislative power. constitutional We never, however, construe an Act a sense which should if a it unconstitutional render different and per- would will construction save it. missible enough legislative history clear makes plants processing agricultural Congress exempt wished to produced of the farms locality commodities the ascertainment Realizing commodities. to definition would be essential particular facts cases *15 the delimitation of area served, Congress, by the phrase Administrator,” the “as defined meant to him permit to lines delimitation of appropriately draw areas to “define,” the I the correspond to facts. construe word context, to and this mean “ascertain the facts announce opinions of the of such ascertainment.” the result court below elaborate view.
I be may order well allowed think the Administrator’s of illegal the unauthorized feature to stand with and Appeals the Court of de- deleted. This is what Circuit right. features of cided and I believe it was Other the not, not, if, and for the future, order were are attacked desires, aspects, in other to amend the Administrator his nothing to This would lead to order, prevent. there is Ap- Court of judgment the Circuit affirmance of of the and, end, if I make effective peals my could vote I for The other members of the should vote affirmance. are however, reversal, for divided court, judgment whether of the District Court question in that court pending be affirmed or the case held should the Administrator. Enter- amendment order by I I cannot affirm do, vote to taining the views which be but that will the effect judgment Court, of the District if I my simply judgment action vote reverse the of of I think Appeals. While the Circuit Court none of the opinion in the of Me. Justice authorities' cited Frank- there I am justify procedure outlined, con- furter with his opinion. strained to accordance vote that, permitted I if Administrator am clear be order to enter a new order, to amend effective from his attack, may he date the one under resort to any or to device to gerrymandering accomplish by other indirection he cannot what the decision holds do directly. personally I scope believe his discretion is more than my colleagues limited some of think and I do not my wish concurrence remand the case to the Court, District to be there held pending promulga- order, tion of an amended order, or new taken approving advance the expressed views as to the extent the Administrator’s discretion. Me. Justice Rutledge, with whom Me. Justice Black Muephy concur, dissenting: Me. Justice In my opinion the Administrator has defined “area of production” in a valid manner, and therefore the em- ployee petitioners prevail. should if, But as the majority hold, his definition not valid, then exemption is not operative, reason the petitioners likewise *16 should I from prevail. dissent, therefore, the Court’s con- that the definition is I clusion void. equally dissent wholly disposition novel it makes of the cause on that in remanding it to await hypothesis, the Administrator’s rights. parties’ redetermination of the retroactive I. issue,
The basic as the case was presented, is whether in the Administrator can include the definition only spacial upon but also limit of limits the number em- in ployees exempted The establishments. Administrator factor in first reexam- definition;1 included this his later in hearings;2 ined it extensive concluded on the record geographical no definition could purely thus made that announced major legislative policies be conformed to the it in each of several later has retained statute;3 1Promulgated 20, 1938, days October effective four later. 3 Fed. Reg. 2536. Hearings Proposed (area See 536.2 Amendment of Section of production) Regulations of issued under the Fair Labor Standards 1938, Wage Act Division, Department and Hour of Labor Ref. 54; 73; 162a; 162b; Nos. 162c. proposed Tests and considered mapping produc included: ing territories; mileage-population definition; a flat a “first concen point” criterion; tration a standard only which would include estab- exten
definitions, varying other framed after details, earnestly it, and now insists or hearing.; equiv sive an included, limitation on size of plant, alent must may make any definition is work havoc with unless he major Act, by exempting large either policy some employees5 by creating industrial or disturb numbers situations, both for farmers and for competitive ances of sought expressly canners which the statute packers,6 avoid. It highly complex. in- Administrator’s task is defining exemptions employees throughout for volves engaged “handling, pacldng, ginning, nation storing, drying, preparing in their raw compressing, pasteurizing, canning agricultural state, or or or horticultural natural market, making or butter cheese commodities (10). All dairy (a) opera- § these products.” other and removal from immediately upon harvest follow tions done on the farm and All can be milking. the field or elsewhere, there, may be done frequently are done stages prep- the first All consist often factories. aration for market. the farmer prepared for the account of which handled
lisbments others, All retained title. these were to which he commodities *17 being urged administrators, opposed and after rejected successive insuperable presenting industry representatives, as obstacles major policies. carrying statute’s out the Reg. promulgated 20,1938, October Compare the definition Fed. Reg. 1655; 20, 1939, April 4 Fed. June 2536, with the of amendments 1, 1940, Reg. Reg. 2436; 2647; 5 Fed. and 1939, 4 October 17, Fed. 1,1941, Reg. April 6 Fed. 1476. 1939; 18, R.-226, Department G.-60, Labor Release March 5Cf. of July 24, 1940. during part mileage in of the time mate A definition was force flat effects, way after its of creat case, in this but was abandoned rial competing between establishments ing unfair discrimination serious narrowing outlets, Department evident. Cf. of grocers’ became and July G.-60, 24,1940. Labor Release specified operations But whether the will on be done farm, part of work away the farm from and it, neighborhood larger either small in- establishments or plants, upon will depend variety dustrial factors as great as that which comprehends the process whole vast starting the nation’s 300,7 over their crops, on respective marketing steps courses. The initial in marketing such widely different products as cotton apples; and tobacco milk; potatoes fruits; and citrus legume crops, wheat, corn other grains, hand, on one tomatoes, strawberries, truck garden on products, etc., the other, are within delegation.
The mere enumeration of these instances indicates some of the variables involved. add to the Others difficulty. Highly perishable crops, as vegetables, fruits and require immediate action in stages handling. these Cotton, grains, crops, etc., root perishable, may longer less wait on farm, some for months, before these processes be- necessary. crops come Some highly are concentrated for in a production regions, few such as citrus in Flor- fruits Southern ida, Texas, and California, Southern but are marketed a nation-wide scale. regional Others have production, areas of like cotton South, celery Michigan, tobacco the border states and north- a few regions, yet depend ern on the national market. Still regions greater have others or less concentration, but grown all nation, over the like wheat and grains, other potatoes, etc. apples,
Obviously, “area of production,” the sense where commodity produced purposes of commercial marketing, will vary from the whole nation, in the case grains, of the more common fruit crops and root crops, highly down to a few concentrated regions or areas in Schedules, Cf. Farm and Ranch U. S. Census of Agriculture, 16th States, Census of the United 1940.
628 dependent upon special others more climatic the case of And combinations. between extremes soil highly production nation-wide and localized all ranges production and regional of sectional areas.8 regards the “area of Respondent production” a region commodity grown, whole where therefore no more says Administrator has to do than locate the South, existing these criterion the By limits of areas. unalterable including California, would be the perhaps eggs, nation for the whole production” cotton, “area of for dele- nullify the conception would wheat, corn, etc. This surveyor a merely of the Administrator gation, making making clearly was wrong Congress place. geographical of the only namely, him fact, a finder of commodi- different regions 300 surrounding where limits 8 13-16, there shows, *19 produced. ties are Such a view would exempt all em- engaged ployees operations specified (a) § (10). objections
The forbid same regarding the “area of pro- region duction” as the from which the particular plant purchases its raw material. The only substantial differ- ence would be to make the fact-finding Administrator’s impossible task a more A one. definition would be re- quired for every plant engaging in any of the specified operations for each the more agricultural than 300 produced horticultural commodities annually Congress hardly United States. could have intended to upon load the Administrator a task these pro- infinite did it portions. Nor intend the employer to define its own exemption, exemption to make that automatic. Congress intended the Administrator to define the area It production. did at the same time intend him with making overwhelm myriads of particular and variable highly definitions operating unit, each or to him merely a make runner of courses distances, large or small. It rather him whether intended to make generic workable practical, and therefore and stable definitions. necessarily
It follows power Administrator’s discretionary important questions is and the are to what and in what extent manner his discretion may work. (a) (10) Neither subdivision nor as whole supplies § supply these answers. section itself does not all the necessary for definition standards term. At most exempt it affords direction some not other em- ployees engaged specified activities and that those production.” be within the “area of exempted must This region necessarily where the commodity includes some region quantity an unknown produced. But since that question employees what within and so also is the either must be found other exempted, solutions provisions of the statute inor the legislative history, delegation unless 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 (a) (10) subsection to employees engaged in specified operations initial of marketing. They must work within region. some producing Apart from exemption they *20 are within Act’s but close coverage, major to the line it workers, draws between farm who are from, excluded labor, and industrial which is within coverage. its De- pending, not upon they do, what but upon where and they fall they work, how do this would on one side or the within or other of line and the incidence without sought the Act to eradicate. These were evils “the existence, in industries of labor ... conditions detri- the maintenance of the minimum mental to standard of necessary efficiency, general for living health, and well- Congress exercised of workers. ...”9 its being authority commerce, “to correct and as as rapidly practicable over to above referred to such indus- eliminate conditions curtailing substantially employment tries without (Emphasis added.) (a), (b). earning power.” §2 farming industry and runs line between The broad basic line of the statute’s Act.10 It is throughout Congress (a). commerce, found conditions burden These 9 Section orderly and disputes obstructing it, fair interfere with lead to labor causing by channels of com spread marketing, themselves and marketing among goods states the the several used for merce to be Ibid. produced under them. 10 «'industry’ industry trade, business, in which in means a ... “ (h). ‘Agriculture’ employed.” includes gainfully dividuals §3 any practices (including any . . . and
farming in all branches a farmer or on performed forestry lumbering operations) farming conjunction operations, such with inor farm an incident to as storage or to delivery to market market, including preparation for (f). pro Section transportation market.” § or to carriers functioning, to which the their and industry committees vides for policy between coverage noncoverage. .and line The not only is pertinent to each of the provisions statute’s but, where the contrary is clearly unambiguously not stated, controlling. is can be assumption There no Congress employees group intended be trans- one ferred to or such being the other where no treated clear mandate can found.
In dele- what determining Congress intended gation, it is de- that, crucial to mind whatever keep cision the may Administrator make and whatever em- criteria, effect of action some put his must be ployees on opposite one side of on the this line others side. That And, consequence escape. he cannot because he cannot avoid pertinent the line and material it, is choice, his itas to all he make in perform- others must ing his duties. It is the statute’s lodestar. distinc- tion farming industry between the essence of his determination. An determined production” “area without reference to contradict, this distinction would *21 policy. appears, statute’s basic And this not enforce, from the solely itself policy and effects failure to it into account, take but from a consideration of other de- terminations the Act to the Administrator confides and the manner which it him make requires to them. in issuing minimum Thus, wage industry orders and classifications, industry he committees must have and regard competitive “due to economic and conditions,” and not “substantially act so as to curtail employment” or “give to competitive advantage any group.” a And there specific prohibition against fixing wages is a or classifica- “solely regional tions basis.” Rather the governing competitive are to criteria be wages conditions, for com- Administrator submits data and which he receives recommenda- reports approve tions which he must making before them effective wage form of minimum industry rates and classifications. Cf. §8.
632 bargaining volun- parable fixed collective work (c), wage (b), (d). § 8 stat- tary plans. minimum design bring industrial workers under primary ute’s possible as protections rapidly and to eliminate But this was to be substandard conditions of such labor. eye one, done with an two other matters: also to two, rapid curtailed; and, too be employment advance not competitive conditions the affected industries unduly advantages competitive disturbed or created. Cf. 2.§ prob-
These were to the purposes inescapably pertinent exemption arising (a) They lems of under (10). § pertinent exemptions; (c) § were likewise to other cf. delegations and to still compare (b), other § Congress statute confided the Administrator. That did the books “an catalogue”11 not burden with itemized gives of delegation, standards each instance no basis believing that permeated what all else found these clearly parts insulated. The Administrator power, had duty, take more, account these factors. escape If he could not so; question of And size. deny indeed the does not Court this. Size is not certainly distinguish any within group irrelevant do may essentially the same work two different ways, one the industrial one. farming way, other It is not ir- to economic or to relevant dislocations curtailments of And it employment. things is relevant to these as much an of production.12 within as without area Broadcasting States, National Co. v. United 190, U. S. 219. 12Respondent, however, consistently with its “fact-finder” *22 “surveyor” theory says function, the Administrator’s purpose specified distinguish, activities, was not to within the between farmers workers; go step was rather to exempt and industrial further and they only well, provided were within an produc the latter as area may exempt- it. That the Administrator respondent tion as conceives workers, some, many, are fact industrial because who perhaps object ex- legislative history The discloses one of the was to small farm- emption originally proposed protect ers, perform operations who are unable to these at the dependent nearby and therefore are upon farm whatever may exist, large establishments whether Vari- small. ous members of the and of sponsored Senate the House for purpose.13 amendments As the bills went to con- ference each contained flat exemptions, substantially cov- the activities now ering specified (a) (10). But § the debates both houses show that even the sponsors of the various amendments differed or were doubtful concerning whether the amendments give exemp- would to large tion There plants.14 general agreement was that they doing activities under factory these methods, conditions and may exempt them, be conceded. That he must larger all of or some judgment, considering facts, number than his formed after policies, may do, and the effects of what proper, statute’s he finds can- Respondent exemption accepted. claims an not be fixed the Act. only given when, The statute has it one in the judg- Administrator’s arbitrarily formed, ment, not it meets the conditions which he finds legislative policy. will execute the suggestion production” Senate’s first of “area of came from Copeland, Cong. 7656, although Senator Rec. Senator Schwellen- proponent concept bach became the chief there. Black, Senator sponsor bill, scope was concerned with the sought of “area” and limiting a more term exempt accurate its effect as not to so workers large plants, Cong. 7656-7660, 7876-7878, cf. 81 Rec. and others expressed opinions large operators exempted. should not be For portions Cong. discussion on the floor see also 81 Senate Rec. 7648-7673, 7876-7888, 7927-7929, 7947-7949. Repre
In Representatives, sponsor the House of of the bill was involving proponent “area sentative Norton. Chief of the amendment production” Cong. Representative Biermann. Cf. Rec. 7325-7326, 7401-7408. 14 Responding inquiry packing whether houses in Iowa Illinois exempted by amendment, would be Representative his Biermann said: “Speaking frankly, something I think that would have Cong. worked out.” 83 Rec. 7401. clearly Senator Schwellenbaeh recognized exempt large his packing amendment would as well as small
small coverage.15 ones should relieved from Senator Reynolds further went and proposed several amendments to all small from plants relieve the Act’s provisions, not merely engaged those in the limited operations specified (a) (10). the bills or 13§ These were defeated.16 And vigorous demand, there was from sponsor of the bill in others,17 the Senate and restricting the scope of the amending exemptions to plants. small These differences were not settled on the floor of either house. But when the conference, bills came to they were resolved by changing the flat exemptions into discretionary ones to be defined by the Administrator. the delegation
Since feature did appear not until report conference and there is little in report or in plants, Cong. and similar Rec. 7877,7878, expressed opinion “any large there would not be plants” or enormous specified in the operations. response In to Senator inquiry Black’s concerning the of “area” indefinite effect without definition, further he said: “I gave thought considerable to that. I do not believe it is possible, and that something board, which the which has been accused of receiving too power, much would have to decide. It would provide have to a defini- ” production Cong. tion of ‘immediate area.’ Cf. 81 Rec. 7876-7878. 8,13 the discussions cited in *24 of to show that great variety complexity there was and opinion, question and that around the of this revolved unresolved,' con- size. That question up continued either ference and decision there, by was resolved be way, but It must reference to the Administrator. taken him dis- purpose give therefore that was to cretion to con- make the between the necessary choices flicting viewpoints situations particular facts of give seem, would it would doing. And, occasion for preponderance exempting of sentiment small favor plants, large but not instances ones, except occasional farmer, where this would necessary be the small protect legislative well could be guiding light. taken as his The clearly history, at therefore, light all, so far as it sheds done, is not Administrator inconsistent with what the has the contrary supports it. im- The Court not find the Administrator acted does He properly by taking these considerations into account. And only must not them definition. state his matter of mere formulation is the crux of the case. “in complicated
definition must be relation to the made agricultural factors that between labor operate economic labor market enterprises conditions and the concerned agricultural near their with commodities and more or less production.” added.) The Administrator (Emphasis given discretion to the factors “appropriate assess all one subject matter,” essentially relevant to the which is litigation of “economic determination,” complex too such “may weigh synthesize to solve. He all properly factors.”
In Ad- making synthesis, however, his economic surveyor’s ministrator only must state his results “re- Congress, granted exemption, terms. when it drawing geographic stricted Administrator to the he account all relevant though may take into lines, even within which eco- economic . . .” The factors. “zone and outside may operate nomic influences be deemed directly their force” cannot they lose be defined to draw the line between the zone purposively This must be done farming industry. the zone of only way. roundabout indirectly, awkward, an
Nothing drawing the Administrator prevents suggestion spe- lines as he best, thinks unless the cially they must concurring opinion followed no in regular squares. drawn The courts have circles him define business to tell where to them. He can put distance air lines or road He can lines to market. big run fac- big towns, the lines around but not around *25 Martin’s excluded, tories. Baltimore could but not be bomber and plant it, methods, proc- one like size essing vegetables. go or canning may fruits and Towns out, though farms, surrounded truck but not commer- apparently, cial canneries. Residences, must surround cannery. short, In the Administrator can draw what- will map ever he thinks achieve the appropriate lines eco- adjustments, nomic except perhaps one leaves out biggest canning can in- factory all, and no court I gave terfere. do not believe that Congress, when it complicated Administrator his task and authorized all the him to consider relevant and economic complex him factors, only power not denied those execute in his but action, compelled considerations him to frus- in defining them “area of production.” trate The Court not deny may does the Administrator consider size his plant, and make this even the crucial factor in it only impede judg- decision. Yet would or defeat his proper formed on ment, considerations, as well as the stat- him to not purposes, require exemption, ute’s state the in the best chosen to simply express meaning terms his clearly and but definitely, pure others couched According though geography. experience tortured to his adminis- judgment, and confirmed shared successive or modified, require and never reversed lat- trators nigh make well ter method of formulation would his task if that, or, incapable being discharged impossible major purposes to' the doing violence Act’s without standards.18 authority power much of to defeat the
So statute’s given cannot be operation intended to mere verbalism, word, one torn in context, function especially more “Area,” the remainder of the Act. purpose production” But “area of means more. true, means area. plain, words of a notion that because the statute “The merely pernicious oversimpli- meaning plain, is also rather recent English It is a wooden doctrine fication. occasion been lip service has to which vintage ... of Marshall days which since the but given here, A statute, ... especially practice. rejected, has Court and sus- significance derives living organisms, like other it cannot environment, from which from its tenance And mutilated.”19 so does sec- being without severed 13§ as used production” “Area of in a tion statute. persons per- limited to exemption, an (a) (10) means producing within a operations forming specified exercise of by an from so situated all selected region, with the in accordance judgment Administrator’s limitations, among chief objects and prime statute’s If that is so, plant. the size of necessarily is *26 Administrator forbidding good no reason I see say so. exer- improperly not has Administrator
It follows the respond- valid, are function, the definitions his cised statute’s exempt were not employees ent’s provisions.
18 supra, 1-6, and text. *27 the beyond of inventive escape genius without exercise applied here, right apply which, of either as court makes the cure than the disease. worse invention, Ap- and likewise the Court of
Respondent’s the limitation on the number to strike peals’, employees remainder of apply the definition. This here, one, agreed Hence all but emasculates it. liberty taken such cannot be with the Administrator’s invention, however, function. This Court’s does it equal think, I in greater first, emasculating violence, it; second, and even more lacking justification, requir- ing it to be with backward-reaching exercised effect.
If sought had escape finding Court that there control were no standards Administrator’s discre- applied or that he the wrong tion had one standards, might understand its refusal to sustain the definition. mean that petitioners But that too would would recover. There claim, The Court neither. is no except does a sem- in a suggestion separate opinion, blance supplies no standards gives statute therefore roving Administrator “a commission to create exemp- one that the Nor is there wrong tions.” standards were is called forth only invention used. correct a mode statement. all, If that were there would not be much room to com- But, compelling addition plain. Administrator a manner to make definition which frustrates his and the statute’s objectives, only function partly ful- them, opens fills the decision general door to a novel, and I think expansion unauthorized, of the practice of retroactive administrative determination of private rights. That true, petitioners unless these are to be although specially treated, less than majority agree Court authorities cited to sustain justify procedure But if outlined. the procedure justified case, in any it is other where an administrator
mistakenly in regulation includes a a factor later held to make it invalid. No reason stated makes this case a one. And special there is none. It cannot be taken that parties singled these are to unique out for treatment, be in merely legal consequences order to avoid the normal in- invalidating Hence, administrative action. every terest affected such action now must take two risks normal, inescapable in risk that place first, of one: in that governing regulation may invalid; second, be held event, regulation, wholly the novel one some future relate back an indefinite quantity, unknown will over time unexpected different and entirely rights to create new or and liabilities. in analogies course must be room for creative
Of there desired from mechanical con- give escape the law to shaping its remedies. But we are as cepts permit Congress perform told that the creative act often should This most true where what Congress' field. should be Congress’ recreate own handi- upon we are called is intended the Administrator Congress If act work. .to wholly express failed to retroactively, Congress this purpose. rights but
Moreover, it not remedies are thus is equity And not law remolds them. refashioned. redefinition, persons may what knows, before Who not coverage? Or whether have may in its included be included. persons The cannot again? same to be made If no to this decision. point there would be Otherwise coverage the same rephrase can the Administrator delay re- terms, apart only wholly geographic If language. criticized his he cannot be to have will sult tell in no one can advance how persons, do this some rights, given altogether of others many, deprived will be liabilities. So with them who had none. if this case confined innovation would be serious what conse- beyond prediction Act. is It be, uncertainty, injustice may hardship,
quences rights, right windfalls of to others, deprivation wholly unexpected new and liabilities and laying if anticipated ones, retroactive administra- relieving from practice. refashioning general becomes the The al- tive regulation, to sustain or to hold void ternative, either accepted accordingly, rights only fix the one which men can only It one. and established they time become at they assume the risks know to them. subject *29 favored law. For this there are
Retroactivity is not
reasons,
cases constitutional ones.
some
Cf.
sound
Commissioners,
Line Board
Pioneer Boat
v.
Forbes
Morales,
139.
y
Hernandez
230 U. S.
338; Ochoa v.
U. S.
work
retroactivity does not
occasions when
There are few
legislatures
the state
fairly. Congress,
than
unfairly
more
where
sparingly,
even
apply
principle
courts
and the
Goodcell, 282 U. S.
& Foster v.
Cf. Graham
they may.
Co.,
&
The administrative enough Ordinarily it does legal system. in our functions begins itWhen tomorrow. today care of if it takes mandate, congressional clear without yesterday, add has not any event, that In great. may become too burden task If that its task. been considered generally heretofore body by be made added, is to be the addition should derived, not this power whence administrative imaginative resourcefulness. Court’s retroactive Finally, respondent has asked this good its may entirely And be for reasons of “relief.” this sought in the District what respondent Court, own. What sought and what it Appeals, the Court of has secured dec- have, judicial entitled to is a here, clearly is not have employees a would that, law, laration as matter of Administrator under definition the exempt any been valid exemp- claim effect, In this is a might adopted. have itself, nullify tion one would statute sought Relief not should not power. Administrator’s inven- respondent by an exercise of Court’s forced on should this not be done on genius. especially tive More any without motion, parties own hav- the Court’s to consider or it in opportunity had an discuss ing generally Under argument. policy, such briefs or kind gift know with what litigant never can followed, a if out, in this may come even successful. And horse he have faced the double parties uncertainty, case of creation here and unanticipated, re-creation wholly *30 latter relieving when the undertakes Administrator, to await duty his further the District Court action.20 judgment Appeals of the Court should be re- be remanded to that court for and the cause should
versed of the other issues the case.21 determination Douglas part in that of this dissent joins Mr. Justice defined the Administrator has would hold manner. a valid production” “area of appeared suit, has party to this is not a The Administrator amicus curiae. participated here as Appeals disposition case, the Court of did In view its (c) (b) and 7 respondent’s defenses under not consider §§ petitioners. Court held for District Act, on of which the both notes legislative history text at As the cf. infra specified fairly agreement part work general that some was on done (a) (10) exempt, not it was 13 whether or should § opinion existed both beyond this, great variety of the farm. But economic basis exemption go and as to the as to how far the should Among exemption should be for it. the latter were views that Cong. work, Rec. cf. made because the farmer bore the cost of the performed it 7656, 7877, 7880; many in fact or because farmers 1060; (f), 52 part operations, cf. 3 Stat. their farms and as of their § Cong. 7657-7659; resort because others who had to Rec. independent it discriminated contractors to have done would be Cong. 7656, against exempt; cf. Rec. 7658- unless the work were exemption 7660, legislators have the 7876. Some were concerned to plants; apply large others whether the work were done small only; completely it and still others it to limit to small ones to secure particular crops. tendered, amendments were for Numerous part the most not until the Commit defeated. It was Conference report problem referring was tee’s was framed that the solved proponents But to definition the Administrator. even recognized adopted problem amendments were decide,” Cong. “the board . . . would have to Rec. one which out,” 7878, “something Cong. would have to be worked Rec. 7401.
Notes
See notes and 14. Cong. Respondent argues Cf. 81 Rec. 7948. from this that in Congress tent was shown not to authorize the by Administrator, distinguish amendment, among plants later conference to within production” argument, the “area of on the basis of size. The however, ignores proposed the fact by Reynolds the amendments Senator exempt operation were drawn and intended the statute’s all plants having employees (the fewer than the number of amendments varied from five ten respect), merely plants in this engaged in particular marginal operations specified in the various forms the during Schwellenbach Amendment took the debate. The conclusion to rejection Reynolds be drawn from the Amendments is not that exempt plants, large small, intended all Senate covered (a) Amendment (10) Schwellenbach the form taken 13§ conference, unwilling except but rather that the was Senate even plants having employees coverage. all as few as five from the statute’s 17Cf, 14, supra, notes 13 and and the cited discussions. discussions upon light, debates to add the previous wholly in one This inconclusive, except respect.
notes
Cf.
19
opinion
Monia,
dissenting
424,
at
States v.
U. S.
United
431-432.
II.
But if the definitions were invalid,
holds,
as the Court
I
agree
could
to the
it
extremely
disposition
not
novel
dealing
exemption,
makes
the case.
are
with an
We
not
primary coverage. Concededly
with the statute’s
mini
respondent employer
petitioners
liable to
for the
mum wages,
pay
statutory penalties
overtime
under
(a) (10)
if
(b),
they
exempt
§
§
were not
under
not
exemptions
some
are
exemption. Ordinarily
other
If the
Coverage, not exemption,
preferred.
favored.
is
ambiguous,
If
given
exemption
dubious,
is
it
effect.
is
application.
it is
resolved
favor
statute’s
strictly
States, Spokane & Inland
R. Co. v. United
Empire
Interstate
Ry.
Northern
Co.
U. S.
v.
Piedmont &
344;
311-312; McDon
Commission,
Commerce