*1 will fall if the skies the Court suppose does I do not rig handy this device for up policing Arkansas to allow that it forbidden ground is not the com- liquor on doing already but so adds another clause, merce burdensome numerous and state restraints national too a trend with which I would commerce have pursues part. no THE DIRECTOR OF BITUMINOUS COAL
GRAY, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE IN OF DIVISION al. v. POWELL RECEIVERS. TERIOR, al., et et Argued 21, 22, 1941. Decided December No. 18. October *2 Stern, Mr. Robert L. with whom- Assistant Solicitor Fahy, Attorney Arnold, General Assistant General and Demuth, Richard H. Levy, Messrs. Arnold Jesse B. Messitte, and Abe Fortas brief, were on the for petitioners. Cocke, with whom
Mr. W. R. C. Messrs. Jos. F. John- Delaney H. were and Wm. on the brief, ston respondents. Reed delivered the of the Court. opinion
Mr. Justice Air receivers of Seaboard Line Respondents, Railway from the Bituminous Coal Division seek of the Company, exemption of the Interior an of Department certain coal ground Coal Code on the from the Bituminous that they consumer of the If producer were both coal. Sea- held to be a producer-consumer, board is is entitled to an (1) virtue of 4-II exemption by § 4-A. These sec- § together pertinent with others to the tions, discussion, are in a note below.1 set out 1 seq. 828 et. 1937, 72, 15 Bituminous Coal Act of 50 Stat. S. C. U. “Sec. (a) hereby imposed
(1940). There is the sale or other produced within the disposal of bituminous United States when by producer disposed thereof an otherwise excise tax sold or pounds. cent ton of two thousand per of 1 ‘disposal’ used this section consumption “The term as includes (whether fuel, otherwise) coke or production by or use by by any producer of title other than sale. producer, and transfer imposed (a) “(b) subsection In addition to tax this sec- disposal hereby imposed upon the sale or other of bitumi- tion, there States, produced when sold or within United otherwise nous coal disposed thereof, would be exemption was filed
The before the application Na- August 4,1937. tional Bituminous Coal Commission hearing first before the September, 1937, examiners After passage Reorganiza- for the Commission. tion Act 1939, acquiescence and the Stat. Congress Reorganization Plan II, No. Stat. application of provisions the conditions provided of the code for in 4-A, section or of the of section an excise tax in equal an per amount centum of the sale at the mine 19% disposed mine, in the case sale at the of coal or in case disposed mine, than sale of otherwise at the and coal other- sold length through wise transaction, per than arms’ centum of the 19% disposal fair market value of such coal at the time of such sale. In any producer provided the case of who is a member code in section 4 so certified to the Commissioner Internal Revenue *3 disposal by during Commission, producer the sale or such the continu- membership produced by ance of his in the code coal him shall be of by exempt imposed the tax this subsection. provisions promulgated by of section 4. The this shall the
“Sec. Code’, ‘Bituminous Coal are herein Commission as the and referred to as the code. accepting membership provided in the code
“Producers as in section (a) be, as, members, herein referred and are code the shall and only apply code provisions members, except such code shall to such of by (h) provided part subsection II of this as otherwise section. carrying policy out purpose Act, “For the declared of this the the following provisions, which code shall contain the conditions are regulate interstate commerce in coal and intended to bituminous directly only matters and transactions in or applicable shall be affecting in bituminous coal: interstate commerce Marketing. II —
Part subject provisions this “(e) to the section shall be sold coal No the minimum at a below or above or delivered or offered for sale by Commission, the sale therefor established the maximum price below such minimum delivery for of coal at a or or offer sale violation of the code: Pro- constitute a such maximum shall or above Director by division headed was established the Sec- known as the retary Interior, Bituminous Coal Division. Order amended Order No. 1399 No. hearings July 5, 1939, Thereafter, P. R. 2947. proceeded denying before the and the order Division, exemption passed by 1940. Director, June vided, That lawful provisions paragraph apply to a this shall not prior bona fide written into contract entered to June
“(1) provisions apply con- section shall not to coal this transported producer sumed or to coal consumption by himself for him. investigation upon 4-A. Whenever the Commission instituted
“Sec. upon upon any petition member, its own motion code district or counsel, board, political thereof, or subdivision or the consumers’ State hearing after finds transactions coal in intrastate commerce by any person any locality any or in cause undue or unreasonable ad- vantage, preference, prejudice persons or and localities in as between such commerce the one and interstate in coal on on hand commerce any undue, unreasonable, unjust hand, the other or discrimination against affect any directly coal, interstate commerce in or in manner coal, by order declare interstate commerce in Commission shall so sold, for sale in such intra- thereafter delivered or offered subject provisions state of section 4. commerce shall be to the “Any producer believing any commerce may . . of section 4 .. file the Commission an application, exemption, setting for verified oath or affirmation the facts which such claim is based. . . . Within a reason- forth receipt any application exemption time after the able Com- granting, or, opportunity mission shall enter an order after notice and denying application. hearing, disposing otherwise of such . . . *4 by applicant aggrieved denying disposing an order Any or otherwise may exemption the Commission obtain a review of application an provided (b) manner in subsection of section 6. such order in the Any person aggrieved by (b) an order issued “Sec. 6. person proceeding party may which such is a Commission in a obtain Appeals order in the Circuit Court of of the United a review of such person any such States, princi- within circuit wherein resides has his pal business, Appeals or in United Court of for the place States 406 might suggested
Better
have
a
practice
dismissal, since
producer.
the Director found
was
a
Seaboard
Subse-
sought
(b)
review under
ob-
quently, Seaboard
§
decree,
consideration,
tained the
now under
reversing the
The opinion accompanying
Director’s order.
the decree
brought
held
facts of this case
under
Seaboard
producer.
the classification of
Seaboard, a consumer coal. The arrangements question bituminous here District Columbia, by filing court, sixty days in such within after entry order, of such petition praying written the order of the Commission be part. modified copy or set aside whole or A petition of such shall upon forthwith any be served member of thereupon Commission certify the Commission file shall transcript court complained of the record which the order Upon of was entered. filing transcript of such such court shall jurisdiction have exclusive to affirm, modify, enforce or set aside objection part. such in whole order, or in No to the order objection Commission shall considered the court unless such shall urged finding have been below. The of the Commission as to the , facts, supported by evidence, conclusive, if substantial shall be . . “Sec. 17. As used Act— in this
“(c) 'producer’ The term individuals, firms, includes all associations, corporations, trustees, engaged and receivers mining in the business of coal.” 1937, Bituminous Coal 72, Act 50 Stat. has been extended April April 11, 1941, 1943. ofAct c. Stat.
2 Cf. Consolidated Indiana Coal Co. v. National Bituminous Coal Commission, Keystone 124; 103 F. 2d Mining Gray, Co. 120 F. 2d decided after allowance of certiorari. *5 significant dif- no there are but as with three mines;
are we extracted, coal is which the plans by ferences relating one only, contracts describe shall Coal United Thacker by the Mine, owned William-Ann Trust. Estate Crane Real the Cole and Company and originated It arrangement. This the earliest was Industrial code of the National 1934, when the May, was a lease of step The first Act in effect.3 Recovery was which landowners by the Seaboard lands for fourteen to mine coal right granted Seaboard orig privilege yearly renewals, with months, 30, 1939. beyond June Successive to run inally were not time. Dur its effect continued since have extensions weeks two extensions of six each ing spring 1936, in view of the case of Carter specifically upon, agreed were May 18, decided Co., Coal 298 U. S. v. Carter Act of the Bituminous Coal involved The Carter case per-ton A as present royalty, act. predecessor mini annual to the landowners an was reserved rent, ter The lease was quarterly. mum of $16,200 payable notice, if the termi days on fifteen landowners minable about to be referred lease, to, the contractor’s nated the contractor’s default. for the arrangement in this land- step second just simul- lessors of the lease described to lease
owner mining selected taneously a contractor Seaboard consisting on the of build- premises, demised equipment neces- ings, machinery appurtenances and other tipples, sary extracting equip- or convenient for the coal. This reasonably mining. ment economical was sufficient in the coal lease the term and was further provided Recovery Administration, Registry 702-45, Approved National No. Competition of Fair for the Bituminous Coal In No. Code Code dustry, September selling listed promulgated 18,1933. Article below VI practice. code unfair . privileges equipment
the renewal lease should be *6 those the coal coextensive with lease.
The final was step operating contract between the H. Pritchard, Daniel referred in contractor, the land lease as the lessee of the facilities for Sea- mining, and board for the the extraction of the contractor or supplier delivery and the it to for consump- Seaboard tion. This contract also was made with simultaneously the coal lease. a provision contained con- requiring the tractor to in mining obtain lease of the ac- equipment, segment cordance with that plan the entire referred in the preceding paragraph. For a per-ton flat on a cost sliding dependent scale upon volume, agreed the supplier mine the coal. compensation His to varia- tion in fluctuations beyond costs his control, such as taxes, wages, machinery explosives. and Alternatively, payment could be made on a cost ten per basis cents plus ton for the compensation. contractor’s operating This contract ran the for same term the and had same renewal privileges as lease contract heretofore described and has been continued in effect by for extensions made the same as terms the extensions of the coal The lease. supplier independent was called an contractor in the doc- ument. he This was, at least that he man- sense aged the mining way right his own of direc- without agreed tion Seaboard. He supplied the coal would i. e., free clean, of non-combustible and would matter, pass inspection of Seaboard compliance specifi- its cations. supplier The paid obligations assumed all to the except including landowner He taxes. royalty, employer’s carried liability casualty insurance, agreed to bear the cost of all additions or better- repairs, ments, even under alternate well cost-plus plan, as as those described as commissary or welfare expenses. Seaboard, in an extension privi- obtained the agreement, lege of on sixty days’ termination if notice, the supplier his contract to meet lowering price defaulted coal. of similar price market landowner, Seaboard, by the contractor and this synchronized contracts, caused coordinated
series the mine to be delivered to output entire Seaboard price, subject a fixed to variations consumption, for its at beyond supplier contractor’s control. The for factors employed. was not Under cost-plus plan alternative the contractor assumed all risks agreement, contractor’s explained, obligations heretofore and all operation, as except royalty landowner, pay- of Seaboard fixed to Seaboard, coal, This made a cost ments. plus royalty contract ton rent. supplier’s per *7 year, one contract with the con- term, price It was a short competitive the market in view of the price pro- trolled furnished no facilities or equipment vision. Seaboard mining loading. with the arrangements, Glamorgan
The other two one Corporation, landowner, Glamorgan Coal Lands for which latter Coals, operator, corporation Peer- Inc., Corporation by consent, less Coal substituted and the Block Company Dingess- with Chilton Coal other Coal landowners lease and in Company, Rum fee, Pritchard, operator, vary only Daniel H. details from contracts set out above. the William-Ann arrangements From the several the Seaboard obtained about half of its annual estimated requirements, for 1936 no million There is question at one tons. as to the inter- state character of commerce involved. The coal is Virginia mined in Virginia, and West and consumed a number of other Atlantic states. South
The Bituminous Coal Act of 1937 followed invalida- tion of the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935 Carter Carter 298 and the abandon- Co., Coal S.U. ment of the N. A. of Fair after the Competition R. Code States, decision in Corp. Schechter v. United 295 U. S. 410 legislative sought enactments a These solution of of the soft coal industry, difficulties economic bringing operators and an even bankruptcy worse
were unemployment, miners. Each condition, leg- time the conclusion was reached attempted, islation was offered the best The price remedy. industry stabilization Coals, Appalachian found the answer. same Inc. v. States, United 288 U. 344. This Court has determined present 1937 act is within the constitutional Congress. Adkins, Sunshine powers of Coal Co. v. U. S. 381.
This purpose of stabilization of conditions through a fixed scheme met difficult problem a in the captive coal mines. taxed such at act the value of captive including the mine. It defined coal as “all coal produced at a mine for consumption by the subsidiary or affiliate thereof.” 1008. As Stat. by producer coal consumed apparently was deemed considering when Congress, present act, disturbing offer the same effect to prices as non-code, open coal,4 market a method of exemption provided. (1) supra. 4-II note 4-A, Congress, §§ however, did not define exempt captive as had coal in the 1935 act. While a definition was inserted the Senate,5 it
4Testimony of Chairman Hosford of the Bituminous Coal Commis *8 sion, Hearings Commerce, before on Committee Interstate U. S. Senate, Cong., Sess., pp. 74th 2nd 4668, on 32 and S. 5 Cong. 3136, Rec. Cong., 75th 1st Sess. proposed, page “It is on line period to strike out the after 'him’, the word and to insert a comma the words 'and for the purpose of 'producer’ this subsection indi- the term also includes all viduals, corporations partnerships, by which found are Com- mission, upon the act, effective of this date bona fide and not for the purpose evading provisions act, by, of this to be owned toor be under common ownership with, producer, provided a producer such a any part does not sell production of his on the commercial market.’ . . . The purpose simply of the amendment to exception extend the a report.6 result, As in the conference eliminated to was left the administra exempt determination supra. note 1, body. 4-A, tive brought are thus Producer. —We
Determination finding Director’s that Sea decide whether to squarely this coal is to sustained. producer not the board is of this issue determination supra, the 4-A, note By § subject review, to the as obtained Director, rests by (b). § 6 provided of Appeals, a Court herein, by Circuit believing any com “Any 4-A states: Section of section is not to merce veri application, . with the may 4 . file Commission . setting for forth exemption, or affirmation by fied oath a . Within which claim is based. . . upon facts such any receipt application time after the reasonable granting, enter an order exemption Commission shall hearing, denying notice and or, opportunity after In left matter disposing application.” otherwise of such a Congress the determination of an ad specifically was here body, question exemption ministrative as the 4-II the function of review (1) 4-A, placed §§ they the courts when deter (b) fully performed § mine that there been fair with notice and an hearing, has a arguments opportunity to the circumstances and present the decisive application and an statute body, Co., just manner. and reasoned Shields v. Utah Idaho R. 305 U. 177, 180, 181, 184, 185, 187. belongs
Such a determination as is here involved Congress, usual administrative routine. could have (1), carried page 30, subsection to include under the defi- on so as 'producer’ wholly subsidiary legal nition of the word owned or other entity having ownership. purpose. identical That is the whole agreeing
“The question is on amendment offered the Sen- ator Ohio. agreed “The amendment was to.”
6 Rep. 578, 75th Cong., Sess., pp. 1, 8. H. 1st No.
412
legislated specifically as to the individual exemptions from it more code, found efficient to delegate that function to those whose experience particular field gave a promise of informed, a better adjustment more equitable, con- flicting of price interests stabilization the one hand and producer consumption upon By the other. thus com- mitting policies the execution of its the specialized per- sonnel of the Division, Congress Bituminous Coal practice.7 followed familiar Of course, is no dif- there ference between the skill employees a division of a department and those in a board, commission or adminis- tration.
Where, here, a determination been an has left to ad delegation ministrative this body, respected will be and the left administrative conclusion untouched. Certainly, finding on Congressional admittedly reference con applicable stitutional act is to a particular situation does require not further scrutiny. Although such we have here dispute no as to the evidentiary facts, permit does not judgment a court to substitute its for that of the Director. United States & v. Louisville Nashville R. Co., 235 U. S. Swayne & Ltd. 320; Hoyt, States, United
314, v. 300 U. S. Helvering 304; Clifford, v. 331, 309 U. S. 336. not province of a court absorb the administrative functions to an extent such that the legisla executive or agencies tive fact-finding become mere deprived bodies advantages prompt and definite action. Congress gamut could “define whole of remedies in an policies effectuate these infinite variety specific Phelps Dodge Corp. Board, situations.” Labor v. 313 177, 194. U. Just as Adkins case U. S. [310 381] sweep determination of the of the term “bituminous 7 Interior-Swamp Treasury Johnston, 236, 249; States v. S.U. - United Ry. McComas, ds-N o rthern Co. v. U. S. Pacific lan Appraisers States, United 392; v. Customs 148 U. S. - Passavant Payne, & Guild 219; Post Office - Bates Co. U. S.
CO *10 agency, for this same administrative so here coal” subject it, prerequisites be left to basic there must the determination of adjudication, “producer/' of lawful consumption complete separation production totally from a buyer supplies obtains seller free when a when identity connection. Their undoubted buyer from from its extracts coal own land its the consumer two in- Between the extremes the are employees. own arrangements bring the closer numerable variations range between exemption or the other of the pole to one determine which side of To the and inclusion. instance falls calls for particular line the the median judgment of those familiar with the experienced expert, say we can a set industry. Unless circumstances bring them within the the con- Commission deemed tasks unrelated the entrusted by is so cept “producer” in to deny effect a sensible Congress to Commission duty it is the Court’s to leave the judgment, exercise of undisturbed. judgment Commission’s coal are naturally of bituminous desirous Consumers tax free free of of the obtaining supplies risk If typical production. independent investment employed extraction, are for there is an ob- contractors consumer-producer identity. in the full breach This vious if which would not follow the en- consequences may create through itself, employees, accomplished its own terprise in Often selection law, ultimate result. the same instance, carrying on as, business form of a particular through corporations, may two create common business Co., Copper 270 U. Edwards Chile legal liability, v. result may relation to other connections
456, although such Compare, instance, treatment. diversity legal in Co., S. 366, & Hudson 213 U. States Delaware United v. Delaware, Co., R. &L. W. States and United S.U. leases,
The shortness of the the freedom from investment or mining coal lands facilities, improbability profit mining right or loss operations, to can- may market, cheaper open cel when be obtained deny position all of producer to the railroad. it We view as the Company might immaterial that have itself operated a mine and captive escaped so of the act virtue exception 4-II note (1), supra. It chose to employ the scheme question advantageous here. considered to avoid production the risks of and now must bear the burdens of *11 determination that other entities than itself the are Cf. producers. Superior Department Coal Co. v. of Finance, 377 E. Ill. 36 N. 2d 358, 360. The choice disregarding of a deliberately chosen arrangement for conducting business not affairs does lie with the creator of plan. Higgins the Smith, 308 U. S. 473, Coverage. Code contends the that coal here —Seaboard involved not by is affected the § code 4r-II because is there no sale other or transfer of title the to the coal by the As to producer. this point, view, Seaboard’s since it the rights as lessee of mineral is the owner of the coal it when is extracted and until it is consumed and therefore
no title it ever is immaterial passes, whether or it not or suppliers its the are coal determined producer. to be the Support for conclusion that there must be a transfer bring of title to the coal under code, 4-II, § is found by Seaboard the preoccupation Congress in sales, it which.attitude is by feels shown the continuous refer- in the provisions ence of the toAct sales or other transfers of title. Further support is drawn for the position by (a), reference to 3 “disposal” is § declared to include where consumption by a producer any or transfer of title other by.sale. than is placed Reliance also on (b), § 3 a tax by per cent of the selling price impels ad- 19% herence to the code when “which subject coal would be of the provisions and of the conditions the application provisions of the in section provided code disposed otherwise 4r-A” is sold section producer. the perti- producer, held that Seaboard
Had we disappear Seaboard would because argument of this nency therefore consumer, this both be would 4-II (1) entitled to under exemption §§ coal would it is essential determine otherwise, however, As we 4—A. asserted Sea- position the soundness examine coal the instrumentalities produced board, wit, provisions of 4^-11 § the reason disposed of nor otherwise pro- not sold that coal extracted under the conclude cir- We ducers. scope is within the of this case code cumstances 4-II. § code discloses that minimum prices Examination by joint action coal are fixed district for code boards (a). 4r~l (a), § Director. II Thereafter no code less than fixed minimum may prices be sold at ex- coal penalties. the risk of severe Code is that pro-' at cept e., i. producers code who members, accept duced All (a). the code. of bi- membership producers *12 statutory coal within districts eligible tuminous the are therefore coal membership, produced by any and all of potentially regu- code coal. The code producers these In and not the order to force the producer. lates the coal eligible within the an excise tax of of the code, coal 19%% or other- price placed upon sale all bituminous coal “sold disposed by wise the which would be producer thereof, subject to the of the conditions and application code,” exemption with a blanket this tax or disposal by sales other code members. Act requirement put core the is the that coal be
under the code the cent excise. We said pay per or 19% Adkins, Sunshine Coal in that the v. U. Co. 381, 392, tax to non-code applied sanction members. Since they were not it was there members, contended that their coal subject be to the code, would not but it was explained in Adkins that case the code was intended to apply to directly sales “in or affecting interstate commerce in bi- coal,” 4,§ tuminous 3rd paragraph, that non-code subject coal “would be” to the code when it was interstate affecting coal interstate commerce and therefore regulatory Congress. power of So here, purpose Congress, which was to stabilize the industry through price be regulation, hampered would inter- by an pretation required a transfer of title, technical sense, bring a producer’s consumed coal, by another party within ambit of the coal code. We find no neces- sity to act. interpret so This conclusion seems to us plain language accord (a) (b) §of 3 pro- viding on for a tax “other disposal” as well as sale. The including definition of disposal as “consumption or use by a producer, any transfer of title other than put meaning sale” cannot be said to disposal on limited to the inclusion. Federal Land Cf. Bank St. Co., ante, Paul Bismarck Lumber cited p. 95, cases n h-II at It speaks 99-100. is true that (e) a violation of the price provisions by delivery “sale or offer for sale of coal at a below” the price without refer- minimum, ence to “other disposition,” phrase generally used; but the failure to point include words at that those does not, justify we think, interpretation covered code otherwise than may disposed a trans- fer of title language think the penalty. without We (b) findings § 5 relating on for viola- punishing orders tion of the code shows this far reads, to be true. so pertinent, as follows:
“. . . . . the Commission shall find . specifically quantity of coal sold or otherwise violation disposed of the code market . . the sales at the mine or the .; value at the mine if sale disposed than at of otherwise
417 through if than an arms’ length or sold otherwise mine, or disposed the coal otherwise transaction, sold regulations in of the or code member violation code such thereunder.” 50 84. Stat. fortified of the
This conclusion is an examination the present act 3 is tax section act, captive In the first or 1935 obviously derived. The tax was along taxed with other laid was coal. all bituminous coal disposal produced or other “sale per centum on
within States.” “15 United captive at the case sale mine, the fair market of such coal at the mine.” value 49 Stat. thought the draftsman Evidently 3. sale of 993, § “other disposal” captive free coal and of the coal. See meaning on the In question of re further, sale, Co., Terminal F. 2d 661, Bush 663. if respondent contends the act
Finally,
is construed
that,
arrangements just
apply
contractual
considered,
beyond
power
Congress
it is
under the Commerce
and Due Process Clauses of
Constitution. This is said
be so
there
no power Congress
regulate
because
for the
price paid
mining
service
coal or the consid-
for mining
eration
and to do so would violate
rights,
Fifth Amendment. We
this review by
are,
certiorari,
determining only the question of whether the Seaboard is
Congressional
under the
Act.
power over that
problem beyond dispute.
Currin Wallace,
v.
Reversed. part Mr. took no Justice Jackson the consideration the case. decision of Mr. Justice Roberts: judgment think the
I should be affirmed. There are limits to which administrative officers and courts may ap-
418 in a go reconstructing statute so as to
propriately accom- legislature might had plish the have but which aims which legislative history, the statute and its do itself, not dis- present The it seems decision, me, passes close. to that limitation. Act Congress
The involves an in which, imple- case menting purpose carefully its declared and delimits intent, and exclusive definition who inclusive those shall and subject those who not be its regulatory provisions. shall to in single a record which there is not a Upon disputed fact, presented the question bare is whether the the words the Congress bring respondents used within the Bitumi- nous Code or exclude them operation. Coal from its In question, that the answering Director made no contro- finding of verted exercised no fact, judgment as to what were, merely the relevant circumstances but decided that meaning the of the statute was that the respondents’ required they transactions become members penalty Code suffer tax 19y2% for failing If in join to the Code. the Director was his error, error was the Act misconstruction his a created office; subject all relevant authorities, under is error, to court is specifically made so review. review in question.1 statute its Act, preamble Bituminous Coal declares, regulation prices
aimed at unfair methods in competition marketing of bituminous coal in inter- commerce,2 as the of promoting state means that com- relieving merce and practices and methods which obstruct it. The body burden and of the Act is confined these purposes enforcement of and none other. accomplish end, To the declared the statute adopts regulation scheme comprehensive prices (b) (d). Section 6 Adkins, 381, 388, Coal 310 U. S. Sunshine Co. marketing trade practices bituminous coal in It creates a interstate commerce. Commission and, by promulgate directs the Commission to § Bituminous Code, producers to which coal Coal who are “code mem- subject. By bers” are made Part II of § the Commission fix given authority to minimum and maximum prices for code members conformity specified standards. Sub- (i) II, division Part specifies methods of competi- marketing tion of coal which are declared to be *15 unfair and violations of the Code. (a)3 imposes
Section a tax of cent per ton on all coal disposed “sold otherwise the producer” and purposes defines for the of this section disposal, alone, including “consumption or use” a producer and any transfer of title a producer other than by sale. The acknowledged purpose of this subsection is the levy on taken ground, all coal out and used by whomsoever, of a small tax pay expense to of the administration of the Act. The respondents admit their liability for this They have paid exaction. this tax and question no arises of it. respect Section 3 as a means of (b), securing compliance regulatory provisions imposes § a penal tax of sale of the or of its coal, fair market 19%% disposed value when otherwise than by a sale, on all the coal sold otherwise disposed of aby producer to the regulatory provisions whom as to price and unfair competition methods included in § 4 are applicable. producers those who are Only of coal and would of the provisions to Code are liable to the penalty as an alternative joining tax the Code and thus com- within the ing regulatory provisions applicable to such Code members. Such regulatory provisions are concerned only with those who sell or market coal.
Subdivision (1) of Part of § II 4 declares: “The provi- of this sions section shall not to coal apply consumed by the himself transported by producer or to insist that respondents him.” The consumption mem- becoming them from exempts plainly
this subsection subsection, of the that, pursuance the Code and bers application their granted have Director should exemption. (c) §on 17 petitioners laid
Some stress declares that: Act, in this
“As used individuals, firms, includes all 'producer’ The term “(c) engaged and receivers trustees, associations, corporations, mining coal.” in the business this in- enough provision was not plain It seems Part II. nullify (1) subsection The evi- tended that, make it under was to clear whatever purpose dent should come operator business was done, form the statute. This sub- applicable under question presented relevance to the no this has section case. not a term technical or a term “producer”
The term *16 has not left the Director the statute or the but art, meaning the guides respecting of the word without courts duty It the Director’s to statute. observe as used if in the statute he applying and, fails so guides those obligation the to courts observe them in it is to do, statutory duty to review his determina- their performing of the and the means context, purpose Act, The tion. meaning effect, them into make clear adopted carry in the statute. This court as used “producer” the word duty in and abdicates its its obviously performing fails if it as the accepts, opinion review as a court of function definition of “producer” the Director’s seems do, meaning pro- related accommodate the then proceeds do a definition. So to predetermined visions to the the normal and usual method of reversal con- complete struing a statute. legislative history3
The and the opinion demonstrates, that the purpose (Pt. (1) of the court II concedes, ) from the of the Act was to exclude regulating competition and other matters of prices interstate mar- produced “captive is, keting, mines”; that by the a mine and produced by owner of consumed him without it on the market. placing as it must is, be, conceded that subdivision excludes from the (1) also opera- of the Act one tion who mines coal his own employes, land owned or leased it in consumes him, industry. only possible his business or differentiation respondents’ method conducting between the busi- of the captive ness and that usual mine lies the fact respondents’ that the coal is mined independent con- by employes. tractor instead of That circumstance, how- justify will not the statement ever, respondents do than produce coal, any more it would justify the they would not transport statement coal to them- meaning within the if selves, Act, they shipped common carrier who was an independent contractor. The circumstance that the coal is mined by a contractor transported of an instead employe, common car- more, rier, any any different, cannot have effect upon subjects regulation prices and unfair methods of — case competition one than In other. both —in the owner would consume coal which cases, would other- In come on the neither wise market. case would the coal brought competition into marketed In coal. each the owner would remain free to buy coal case, on the mar- the market price ket whenever fell below the cost of pro- his at own mine. duction
3Hearings before Committee Interstate Commerce on *17 Senate, Sess., Cong., 2d 74th pp. on be (1) appropriately construed
Subdivision cannot to right to excluded from the deny respondents opera- their tion the Act application provided 4-A plainly § when there are no affirmative provisions of regulation. them to will subjecting Act its hardly respondents’ be denied total coal that, is operation, If produced. not the they are because producers, they pay wages a contract instead of for its production, they subject to the tax applies are only 19%% they to are producers; exempt thus from the only sanction which would to compel them become Code mem- subject bers to the regulatory provisions of the Act. Since they coal, market no 4 relating to prices competition marketing methods of of coal applicable them. are not On the hand, other if the independent whom respondents contractor employ to mine coal is deemed the he coal, likewise is from exempt regulatory provisions and also exempt tax. if penal For, even he pro- be called a 19% % ducer, he neither markets nor sells he cannot dispose be said to coal which he does not Disposal own. something must mean more than physical de- production, transportation of the coal of If livery, another. it otherwise, superintendent were of a captive mine subject to the tax would be because he is engaged mining delivering coal and the owner who consumes it. It is in many well known coal fields, gotten that, out who in miner turn employing employs his own gang him in to assist the mine. If the Director’s position is cor- this method of rect, operation would the owner and operator regulation mine under captive the Act. plainly That view would be untenable. in the
The vice construction which the court now adopts, apparently only because the Director has adopted it, lies practical fact this construction significance *18 of features regulation it is only preliminary competition methods of prices other than industry fit Congress seen has not marketing of coal. attempted that the It is clear regulation. such prescribe control of the Commission subjection respondents to authority. congressional without Byrnes join in and Mr. The Chief Justice Justice opinion. this EMORY
UNITED STATES et al. December Argued 1941. Decided November
No. 33.