Lamar Bowers v. United States

City’s attempted denial date. fixed the instrument application obliga- change of its status could not incidents, payment or affect tion for interest, commencement such as the obliga- nature attendant le- in fact tion, was the contract where situation, controlling gally being to have been. held Supreme Court Nebraska Cameron, Judge, dissented. Circuit goods part of sale

has held that agreement express goods, an made under shall price purchase therefor gives date, rise paid a certain independent favor demand in price, purchase seller for such thereon interest

seller is entitled obligat buyer from the date that payment. Beck Dever

ed to make the eaux, Gar 2 N.W. Neb. Printing Co., Neb. neau v. Omaha is the 361. And this 72 N.W.

general sales, where rule in all cases parties by have fixed their contract payment pur definite date for goods. price specific See

chase Mfg. American Iron and Steel Co. v. Sea Ry., 261, 265, 34 Air Line

board 502, 58 L.Ed. 949. judgment cases each the two

involved is affirmed. BOWERS, Appellant,

Lamar America,

UNITED STATES Appellee.

No. 15275. Appeals Court of States United Fifth Circuit. Albritton, Ala., Andalusia, W. H. Al- Oct. Rankin, Andalusia, Ala., brittons & Rehearing Denied Dec. counsel, appellant. Davis, Atty., Hartwell U. S. Neil Brooks, Solicitor, Associate Donald A. Campbell, Washington, C., Stephen D. J. Asst, Jr.,

Doyle, Special Atty. Gen., Rooney, Dept, Howard U. S. ap- provision of C., Sec. Washington, Another was that the Agriculture, for D. U.S.C.A., 1359(a), Title under pellee. assessed, allegedly penalty “If the was Judge, . HUTCHESON, Chief Before * * * any producer fails to account CAMERON, Circuit and TUTTLE and any peanuts, disposition an for the Judges. peanuts equal normal amount of to the yield in of the of acres harvested number acreage shall excess of the farm allotment Judge. HUTCHESON, Chief in be deemed to have been marketed suit collection was for the marketing quota excess of the farm, for the penalties defendant assessed the penalty respect in thereof and the Agricul- 1359(a) of the under Section by pro- paid remitted the shall be and Adjustment as amend- Act of tural ed,1 ducer”, either created a rebuttable to account for of his failure because sumption fact, plaintiff mar- had that by disposition peanuts him raised peanuts, keted excess which defendant’s years 1950-1951. attempted, rebutted, evidence had or it appellant in 1950 The claim was: that Constitution, violation of the to establish engaged production and 1951 peanuts fact, an that irrebuttable farm, his and harvested on peanuts, defendant had marketed excess acreage allotments; excess of his farm and was invalid. comply and that he failed refused alternative, In the moved for defendant request a written from the State Com- summary ground judgment disposition of mittee to account for the genuine any was no issue as to thereupon peanuts; and that be- support material fact attached subject to and he became cause thereof affidavit of himself and his wife to penalties for which assessed the was planted effect while defendant had plaintiff sues. peanuts in 1950 raised with the idea any if he were allowed market filed motion to dismiss Defendant so, grounds. and in 1951 them he would do with the was on several One knowledge would be that he allowed complaint in that it was deficient failed planting so, primary purpose in charge do marketed, sold, that he had or years was to use in each of the them any them disposed peanuts har- otherwise for feed for his livestock when in during by him either 1950 or 1951 vested year any, he was unable to market each farm, in such manner from his or under did use all of them feed. he subject him such conditions as to make any imposed penalty by Plaintiff, part, requests lawful filed Title on its 7 U.S.C.A. Rule Fed.Rules § Civ. admissions 1359(a), here, equivalent pen- 1. 7 material § U.S.C.A. an amount to the duct alty provides price paid produc- as follows: to the from the * * marketing “(a) any peanuts any producer falsely If er. iden- marketing quota disposi- excess of the or fails to account tifies peanuts any pea- farm on which such are tion of an amount of duced, any peanuts equal yield normal of the nuts acreage farm for which al- no number of acres harvested in excess of determined, subject acreage lotment was be shall farm allotment shall be penalty equal per at a rate to 50 deemed to have been marketed in excess marketing, quota (cal- farm, centum the basic of the rate loan for the cent) penalty culated to the nearest tenth aof thereof shall be marketing quota peanuts paid producer. ; for farm and remitted marketing year August July disposition 31. Such 1— penalty person paid by peaauts shall be who amount of required is not furnished buys acquires peanuts Secretary, acreage or otherwise or, peanuts producer, from the if the are allotment next established for the farm producer through produced marketed on which such shall agent, paid by percentage similarly- shall be reduced ” agent, person agent may computed. and such de- quest; penalties U.S.C.A., ad he notified defendant and the Proc. mitting: did, plain against him; as claimed and that had been assessed tiff, plant peanuts from his and harvest paid penalties; plaintiff he had not allotment; acreage farm in of his excess judgment. summary There for moved years had received that in the he each of granted judge mo the the district marketing request committee the from filing findings and, con tion fact and of production; report his for a of written 185,2 law, F.Supp. clusions of complied with the re that he not had he, the defend- mission ant, defendant “This the Unit- an instituted is action disposition collecting purpose failed to of account ed marketing penalties the States for peanut crops, writing, the in to of his in Sec- Marketing Adjust- 1359(a) Agricultural Production and Committee. tion ment the of (7 support Defendant, his mo- “7. in of Act of as amended dismiss, seq., 1359(a), contends that Section tion to the C. et from above govern U.S.C.A., does not Title named defendant. appli- production peanuts,’ “Findings ‘the of but is Fact of governs only ‘marketing’ Defendant, during the to and cable 1950 and “1. allegation plain- peanuts; peanuts engaged production in of that the in the of on complaint ‘peanuts County, hauled tiff’s were Ala- farm No. C-7 Coffee away jurisdiction bama, the does farm’ that not constitute the of within allegation peanuts were the court. Act; County within ‘marketed’ the of the “2. Coffee Production and fact, peanuts Committee, Marketing as matter of the Administration defendant, provision the but were not ‘marketed’ of and the Act accordance stock; Quota Regulations Marketing fed to his live that certain were of the the 1950 for established for 1359(a) peanuts, crop the Act Section unconstitutional, peanut acreage as if failure to to farm a allotment opportunity planted afford defendant an har- 14.7 acres. Defendant vested 26.8 in excess of his the and especially explain court, hearing, acres, at a to this 12.1 which was acres disposition peanut crops. allotment, his his and hauled peanuts “Conclusions of Law farm owned to another Act, Covington County, “1. The him and the decisions inter- Alabama. it, empower County preting and “3. Production The Coffee Production and Marketing Marketing Administration Committee to Committee Administration peanuts acreage supply peanut avail- control able of individual total reduced defendant’s market, acres, for which includes control allotment for farm No. C-7 zero to supply planted to the extent that a but defendant 25.2 and harvested producer grows acres, production peanuts, who harvests which he also Covington them, County threshes must hauled make written to his farm. accounting Sept. to the Committee dis- By letters dated “4. position peanuts, failing or, of excess to Alabama State Jan. disposition, Marketing account for Administration so Production requested deemed to marketed excess to have them in Defendant sub- Committee marketing quota covering produc- reports his his that farm. mit written 1373(b) Act, year “2. Under Section peanuts and to account each tion of required disposition, the defendant was to submit a the defendant which for its report production pea- written not do. did C-7, regulations, Farm nuts on No. defend- account “5. Under disposition crop for bama State Production and of said the Ala- card for to a entitled ant was Marketing enabled him to would have 1950 which Committee, repre- Administration which Com- which sell allotment his requested report, provid- marketing quota, pen- mittee ed such free of his sented alty Act, subject peanuts and the burden excess his penalty. was the defendant show to also entitled an ex- would have en- He was Committee, by report, written what cess card disposition subject pea- peanuts made was excess sell his titled him to nuts, engaged applied or that penalty, he them. had production peanuts summary judg- Plaintiff, seeking of such for market. “6. pursuant “3. The burden not on the Produc- 56 of Fed- ment to Rule Marketing Procedure, tion and to show Committee of Civil eral Rules produced C.A., were for mar- fact neces- contends ket, penalties sary support burden is on the defendant claim pea- years involved, to show Committee that ad- for each of judgment assessing penal quoted provision entered a “1. The of Sec. prayed. ties as 1359 did not create a substantive law, rule of Appealing judgment appel from that conclusive, “2. A irrebuttal lant, brief, position in his thus states sumption of fact violates the Fifth “A. The District Court erred Amendment and Art. Ill of the Con- rendering Judgment Summary stitution of the United States of Appellee. solely favor of is based America. on— If attempt “3. the Section did “(a) by Appellant The admission create gress law, a substantive rule of Con- that he failed for the dis- to account did not intend the rule to position peanut crop, of his in writ- apply producing peanuts to farmers ing, to the Production and Market- domestic, for consumption, or farm ing Committee, and but Congress “4. If did intend to cre- “(b) The of Sec. ate a applica- substantive rule of law any pro- Title 7 U.S.C.A. that: ‘If producing peanuts ble to farmers domestic, for ducer fails to for account consumption, or farm such disposition peanuts, the an rule would be unconstitutional and peanuts equal amount of to the nor- being beyond void powers as the yield mal of the number of acres I, under Art. 8 of Sec. and harvested in excess the farm in contravention of the Tenth acreage allotment shall be deemed Amendment to the Constitution of have been marketed in excess of the the United States of America.” marketing quota farm, for and Proceeding, then, argue in thereof shall in turn paid points be and remitted each of his judg- four ment, appellant managed ducer.’ has his presenting, diligence earnestness in his regard for “Without the actual developing, supporting and his skill in peanuts fact that the were ‘mar- not points question his to invest the under- and, Appellant keted’ did not lying here, question decision which on dispose peanuts manner of the quite simple, its face seems to us the an- voluntary involuntary sale, or quite plain clear, swer to it and with an gift barter, exchange, or inter appearance difficulty complexity and vivos, but in actual fact used them argument impart impres- and to his an for his own seed and feed for his own siveness which has convinced the court judgment Hence livestock. must complete sincerity as a whole of his and holding upon quoted rest his confidence the correctness of his provision of Sec. either created views, and has evoked from one member (1) law, (2) a substantive rule of support of the court a dissent of them. absolute, presump- irrebuttable Appellant respectfully Impressed, however, might fact. tion of as we appellant that— submits with the contentions of through Act, explanation not were marketed. Under nuts his Administrative required proper, defendant was to account to channels that are reasonable and disposition preferring judicial the Committee to await determina- provisions failure to so account to the tion to rebut of the Act Committee created which make failure to account to the peanuts produced market, disposition peanuts were Committee for subject peanuts and made the defendant conclusion that were mar- penalties Act. under the keted. requirement provisions 1359(a) “4. that written re- “5. The of Section ports be made to the Committee was rea- the 5th do violate and 10th Amend- sonable and in accordance with the Act. ments nor III Article of the Constitu- plaintiff may present not refuse to tion.” arguments complete agreement find marshal- ourselves in and authorities agree findings support, ed in if we could of the dis- conclusions judge trict and with with his views the contentions and remitted of fact the law, tended that nuts to account was ed for have been penalty peanuts language ticularly marketing jecting construction clare a ly strained ject thorities as provisions ant peanuts lant on Without, tutional founded authorities he cites in ties ple under the lant in this case failure to account for their created appellant and clear statement his wholly were claims, upon charges it; was to excess substantive rule rebuttable propositions, his same as penalty meaning, purpose affirm to assumptions then, joining issue with assessed and operate a for the authority quota for the of Sec. free from the wholly otherwise, collected arguments declare: marketed presumption of contention, simply were based claims means lay in its terms and marketing. of a substantive the statute imposed review * and that the down disposition not as inapplicable his thereof shall be statute, 1359(a) shall be what arguments, producer” was in- contrary: otherwise, support of the un- with which in excess does, recovered, is sim- having or which the entirely as a rule of law of law that “an not, for the failure a defects, makes, in our farm and the discussing In and effect of note fact, we are and exacted did disposition. of the amount the deemed as defend- here. Re- short, but marketed producer penalties 1, supra, operates that the we rule of not and au- provid- opinion its but of the we re- quoted consti- penal- appel- appel- mere- paid pea- par- con- the we de- as ion.” failed to commerce clause er to lative nuts disposition count for the table substantive law that are constitutional. nuts penalties. table require tory provisions ing. position count accounting and is er of account for substantive the statute brief: appellee n »**** “C. “A. “II. “A. The “C. “I. The Act and the “B. them producers produced appellant person. produced the peanuts 5 presumption; presumption; for penalty The The The each make the of all produced is within the penalty provisions.” the as of all appellant law, Act creates an irrebut- creation of statutory requirement provisions statutory producer Constitution. disposition disposition provisions, subjects they failed to make such peanuts produced subjects to account require each account that failure disposition peanuts produced required are thus set out purpose liable i. e. a rule i. e. admits that the Constitut failure to ac- scope and the of the Act for the dis- an irrebut- regulations of all peanuts is not vio- a rule of producer account- produc- produc- and effect all regula- person. 4 of all pea- civil pea- ac- Wigmore Evidence, Donnan, Particularly Ed. on 3rd Vol. Heiner v. 1352; Phrases, Deem, 11 Sec. Words 76 L.Ed. 772. p. be”, or taken to as “considered Cunningham support United 4. See cited, King and cases v. McEl 714; City States, Cir., New 5 67 F.2d roy, 238, 21 P.2d 37 N.M. Deposit Co., Fidelity Richey & Port d 1352; Darby, Cir., States v. 312 123 A.L.R. 5. SeeUnited U.S. 105 F.2 5 609; Corp. v. 1010.61 S.Ct. L.Ed. Petroleum Amerada 99; Dairy Wrightwood Land, Cir., Co., 146 F.2d Unit United States v. Acres of Jones, Cir., F.2d ed States v. deemed”, etc., views, does create an irrebuttable these correct in If arewe plain are, presumption, equally but it then we doubt we are not argued not for is one of argument appellant falls for the whole not, appellant It as fact of law. untenably view: but based it fact, maintains, presumption of a penalized in this omission the act appellant report did market these the failure case was not law, re- because of his failure to the statute disposition of the charged port disposition he became liable to complaint provides as the doing so, a coupled failure but that measuring contrary purpose penalty he is peanuts had been marketed as he therefore, provi- be treated would have been treat- quota; guilty ed if excess he had been market- pea- amount of sion statute that an ing. been mar- nuts deemed to have “shall be marketing quota keted in right. excess judgment is af- create, and was intended to for the farm” firmed. fact; create, presumption of does Judge (dissent- CAMERON, con- that for the court to construe Circuit making pen- clusively ing). him liable alty fixed for such either my opinion, the announced result the mean- is an incorrect construction majority opinion tor- is reached ing or, statute, and intended effect of the plain tured construction one, in- the statute correct renders having definitely ascertain- of a statute creating valid as irrebuttable appellant meaning, able and denies sumption of fact. rights guaranteed by him the Consti- dissent, therefore, and forth I set tution. appellant’s Thus contention the reasons therefor. penalty wrongfully was assessed against him the statute because either I. presumption fixed an irrebuttable of fact included construed The statute peanuts that excess were marketed Adjust- Agricultural portion undisputed proof him overcame exclusively to devoted 1938 ment Act of presumption this or if the “Marketing Quotas— VI, peanuts, Part invalid, was irrevocable the statute Act bears of the This section Peanuts”. is seen without For no mat basis. “Marketing Penalties”, heading, might ter what be said of such a statu begins words:1 these with tory appellant’s theory effort were cor any marketing pear “(a) The rect, theory application can have no marketing quo- of the nuts in excess penalty here for the was assessed for fail pea- farm which ta for the report ure to and the function of marketing produced, or the nuts are objected say clause is to that be any farm for which report acreage cause of the failure to there shall determin- allotment was no penalty penalty subject providing ed, at a be exacted the to a for ex be shall marketing. percentum appellee equal of the ba- cess to 50 is true that rate * * * argue language loan of the does sic rate “shall be dissenting argument 726; Royal Co-op., of Mr. Justice Stone States v. Rock United page Donnan, 533, 993, 285 at U.S. in Heiner 307 59 83 S.Ct. L.Ed. U.S. 365; page 338, 1446; at eases 52 Smith, S.Ct. Mulford v. U.S. cited, particularly Iron Belle Works La 1092; S.Ct. L.Ed. Wickard v. States, 377, 41 v. United Filburn, 317 U.S. 63 S.Ct. 998. 122; L.Ed. Island Farms Mandville Crystal Sugar Co., emphasis American 334 U.S. § Where U.S.C.A. quotation, here, any L.Ed. Unit other shown Walsh, supplied ed States v. 67 S. it is us in unless otherwise Ct. also the 1585. See dicated. forth, ly quota peanuts farm and set in the briefs is directed * * marketing year question to the quoted *.” whether the last words created a conclusive portion of this statute we presumption. or a rebuttable I think we called quoted, to construe follows above should hold that these words create a page after the omission a half presumption, rebuttable ing and such a hold- directly provisions involved, not bring will portion of the statute is thus worded: harmony it, into with the remainder of falsely producer identifies “If give will to the words a definition in line disposition fails to account understanding average with the of the any peanuts, pea- an amount man, and will remove the statute from yield equal normal nuts unconstitutionality the taint of with number of acres harvested in excess majority opinion which the invests it. acreage farm shall allotment be been deemed to have marketed in II. marketing quota excess of words, (a) The “shall be deem crucial farm, and the marketed”, should, if ed to have been paid and thereof shall be remitted meaning given possible, producer.” average carry they man. would upon the its majority back turns construing Court, a stat emphasized vintage far not ute of a character give declining quotation, lan expressed one, the idea from this removed meaning; ordinary guage usual ques the ultimate in these words: “For hand, fiction 1a but, creates a on the other Congress commanded, tion what has language used. springing from the given its intentions no clue to when has except funda violence to procedure does Such a English no words and familiar universally of construction mental rules recognized of the words that hint the draftsmen and attributes the courts they use them meant to at war used a the words leg all, ordinary After sense. Agricultural Ad portions other expressed in technical islation when not dealing justment the other com with Act run terms is to the common addressed by it. covered modities to be understood of men and is therefore according thing, as sense of the to the the decision on The fiction right rely ordinary a on majority. the ordinary man has the discovered based was him.” argument words addressed made before us oral- The entire facilitate majority modifies which would of has substituted the 1a. The quotas. quoted paragraph in of excess last its words of the import: own of words Holly 2. From Addison v. Prod- Hill Fruit any producer fails to account “If ucts, 607, 617-618, Inc., Ü.S. * * * any peanuts disposition of the con- 64 S.Ct. penalty from the be collected the struing language Fair the Labor penalty same as be the the ducer shall seq. Act, 201 et 29 U.S.C.A. § Standards marketing.” assessed excess language following relevant is used opinion does contain the both before and after the course statute not in Of remotely resembling pages quoted language, those. at words 617=> actually appearing Moreover, page the words at 1221: paragraph in in the statute are a head- “We of course be faithful should to the “Marketing ed, Nothing meaning Penalties”. in But of a statute. after all non-reporting Congress meaning by expresses indicates its statute words. legislative policy vague suffer a as such should and no If is couched in relating language, easily susceptible of the Act other of one mean- any penal- ing inflict other commodities does in as well another the common ty non-reporting. speech men, pol- is clear of we should not a stifle engaged providing icy by pedantic process grudging in or of prima just general had as it construction. let words To draw facie purpose com- all other nourishment their one Court lied Holmes first to ascertain should be will not be extended to criminal will warning words would have When mind speculation in words that n tends to do if a certain possible text of the law before moving » had because it To make the In another similar “Although place, the words heavily upon steals, ^[*] involved ordinary, thought understand, used graphic is of similar a rule of conduct only policy applies, >* interpreted where should be it is similar land, recent so warning fair, everyday language it is carefully line should reasonable that defined. Webster’s evoke it, meaning of the word picture of vehicles dictionary seem the common very given language: import: not case4 what the aircraft statutes line is likely senses”, to us that likely consider is laid the common been legislature Mr. be clear. so possible in murders definitions broader passed. law simply should far as a fair world world “In the down used. Justice in- New re posing, tionaries such as words tribute to the dinary have been words have a tentative therefrom. judge, ity, of conclusiveness. The ment fore, sides marketing quota for the farm fiction which the law and the courts have decided making before us which has a debatable judicially created. tion and the give is the buttable gument defined (b) them concept possession them. The the clause would word, deem, according meanings But the contains man is believing, in favor of a conclusive brings up his mind the presumption, defined as such a controversy marketed must take into account To the argument thinking, considering, word under consideration to mind a average justified the idea contained “shall judging. and that way majority opinion average man, supporting normally word carry connotation; none truth as men, be considered to man must know meaning in picture about words has excess of in favor word has hearing in the clause giving judg ascribing All of those support smaller he will never strongest, presump- found thought gleaned the ar- he will there final what a re- been both been sup dic has at in Dictionary5 defines the thus Practical position The Government’s set forth in think; suppose”. verb, “To deem: argument adopted —but College New of Webster’s Edition majority deem, used, when creates —that Dictionary is defined thus: deem fact, sup- World a conclusive believe; judge”. think; If the or ported “To several cases.7 The Govem- unexpressed thing. legislation on some To draw ‘that and must avoid retro- expansion meaning spirit spective of the normal bounds outside the which * * quite meaning stigma judicial properly another. is of words deserves the system introducing “Legislation legislation’. a new To blur the distinc- infrequent- empirical, legislative judi- not is at best tive functions gaps processes ly inade- reveals administration cial not is to re- conducive may legislation.” quacies sponsible or another of one sort legislation. amendatory it is But call for 3. McBoyle States, 1931, v. United extending a statute that no warrant 25, 27, 340, 341, 51 S.Ct. 75 L.Ed. 816 may experience that comprehensive. it should disclose (a case). criminal made more have been Commissioner, meaning 4. Crane cannot be v. of words natural ‘The 1047, 1051, displaced ad- reference to difficulties in 1301. ministration.’ Co:, 1953, p. 5. & Marriam 175. G. C. judicial function constru- “While the proc- ing is not a mechanical legislation Publishing Co., 1954, p. The 6. World 383. judgment excluded, is it ess from which Douglas Edwards, Cir., very v. from the different nevertheless Davis, 229; legislative States v. function. Construction E. United D.C.W.D. City heavily 5 O.C. sidered tenants in common’”. our case of ment leans Fidelity Deposit Richey That found & L.A. 70-205. court v. § of New Port “usually implies Maryland, Cir., word 105 F.2d a conclusive Co. of 348, declaring sumption adjudication, it or an but as 123 A.L.R. word, deem, disputable connote a one”. statute of the the use presumption. conclusive establishes a Virginia Supreme Court West show case will An of that examination only held the word to create a rebuttable position. it does not sustain involving wheth in a case11 Negoti- considering the We were there cooperative company asso er was a the. of Florida Law able Instruments Tax Law. ciation under the Sales presumption in spelled “ a conclusive out provided that, association ‘Such precise words.8 nonprofit’ shall be deemed ”. Code W.Va. (c). 19-4-1 court held that While the validity defining the nature and company by the facts showed that the presumption created the conclusive organization, profit used this lan merely statute, used the Florida word, deem, we holding guage refusing make the words some- as one of the presumption: under the designed employed times statutes time, But, ordinarily result. at the same reach that “The verb ‘to deem’ is “pre- think,’ sup- we used such an innocuous word as mean ‘to ‘to defined to illustrating thesis, al- Therefore, sume” as the same pose,’ opine.’ ‘to the last though admittedly more word quoted mean- carries the creating commonly ing found in statutes that such association does not presumptions. case beyond One peradventure rebuttable have the stand- strongly upon by ing organization, non-profit relied the Government9 but reality supports opposite position prima it shall have that facie rating.” because the court there held that deemed having was to same be construed as To the same effect is a decision regard, presume, or consider. Virginia12 Appeals Court construing provided up a statute which Appellant lines on the other hand spirits possession person deny- of a respectable array of authorities bearing required ing in containers not quality with to “deem” absolute stamp throughout or seal “shall Government be deem its ar- which the Government purposes gument Supreme ed for the of this act to have invest seeks to it. illegally Va.1936, acquired”. Oregon10 parties been Code held that the Court 4675(50) joint amended Laws c. 234. may by express ten- § words create though The Court declined to hold the statute ancy the statute abolished even “ declaring cre joint tenancy unconstitutional that it ‘All having ated not a conclusive presumption.13 a rebuttable persons undivided interest in property and con- are to be deemed real Hunter, 1938, McCluskey 903; Irwin, Mo.1930, 33 Ariz. Harder v. F.2d F; D.C.N.Y.1923, 402; 266 P. 18. Leonard C.C.Or.1880, Grant, 5 F. First Na 1941, Erickson, 1, 10. Erickson v. 167 Or. Eugene Dodd, 1926, 118 Bank v. tional of 172,173. 115 P.2d 503; 1, 245 re Waldron’s Es P. Or. Sanitary Milk & Ice Cream Co. v. 11. 1, tate, 1928, 267 P. 84 Colo. Irwin 351, Hickman, 1937, 119 193 S.E. W.Va. Stages 1933, System, 134 Pickwick

v. 553, 555. Cal.App. 443, 25 P.2d 998. Commonwealth, 1939, 12. Miller 172 Va. Compiled General 8. Section 639, 343, 2 S.E.2d 346. 674.18, Florida, 1927, F.S.A. § Laws very is much the in- 13. The same where the in these words: “But is previous case: as the a holder in is in the hands of strument word, therefore, delivery “The has more than a valid thereof all course due' meaning. meaning is Its often de- parties, prior one him make them so as to pendent conclusively presumed.” the circumstances in con- to. him is liable meaning “conclusively presumed” as Ten- Similarly Supreme Court the Government, synon- the this stat contended was held that “deemed” nessee paradox e., permit the ute would create a in ymous “presumed” used with —i. ting presumption re considered; a conclusive Su- the statute signifi pelled. The decision is further that held preme Court of North Dakota15 pre- cant that it demonstrates the extent only a rebuttable the word created sumption goes Supreme provided which the Court statute where the striking prima presumpt down even a certain file an order within failure to facie bring ions.17 days a sit- about should number “deem- where matter should be uation the III. against ap- have been decided ed” to plication placed upon the (a) construction question16 majority in question clause charge of the “deem” as used in the word brings penalty setting up fiction “clearly equivalent court ‘presumed’ applying into colli provisions Schuyl- ”; in Dilworth v. governing cognate provisions sion with 47, etc., Co., 1908, kill, 219 Pa. 69 A. regulated by the the other commodities Pennsylvania held Court of Adjustment Agricultural of 1938. Act import the term the same as should nearly comprises a hundred That Act18 “shall mean”. cotton, apply provisions Its sections. Manley corn, tobacco, wheat, is rice and interest of unusual A case applying Georgia, and some to all S.Ct. some sections only v. State reversing A Ga. individual commodities. 170, 177, provided in which each is 144 S.E. Georgia A stat in violation of was involved. of these commodities of deem “ ‘Every insolvency of provided is made Act19 and terms ute fraudulent, separately deemed for the enforcement shall be a bank commodity by applying penalty establishing shall be sever each president and directors * i:' *; provided, presumption ally punished the case * * * may repel except wheat. the commodities defendant of each of showing tobacco, presumption fraud In the case of Section ” * * Ga.1919, pp. with is used as statute § Acts same word *.’ emphasized words show that now concerned. In the we are 28. 1325(b), pre corn, presume intended to have are case of Section deem and spelled meaning. sumption and is out If that word should is rebuttable same having wheat, explicit universal In the case of terms.20 be construed presumption Its “If the which it used. use 217: nection cases, justify, it not con- the inter- made not in all unreasonable and does pretation signifies arbitrary person rights ex- that it clusive of the may signify judgment; raised, does not a de- it constitute de- ercise whom subject proof. process to other law. A liberate exercise nial due “ * * Legislature] creating in- that is [the Had it ar- possession operates deny bitrary a conclu- or that tended to make fair liquor repel opportunity had been it violates the due sive acquired illegally process it could have used the *. The connection clause ‘conclusively’ proved before the word fact and that word between the Reasoning is not sufficient. does ‘deemed’.” sumed not lead one to other.” Moody State, 1929, 14. 159 Tenn. Chapter 18. Title 7 U.S.C.A. 919. S.W.2d penalties under the These Kleppe Township, 1918, v. Odin N.D. following of Title 7 U.S.C.A.: sections 595, 169 N.W. 313. Tobacco, 1314; Corn, Section Section Cooper Slaughter, 1912, And see 16. also v. 1325(a); Wheat, 1339; Cotton, Section 211, 477, 175 Ala. 57 So. 481. 1346; Rice, 1356; Section Section Pea- nuts, Section following 17. The disconnected sentences opinion, 6, 1325(b): are taken 279 20. Section If corn under U.S. stored 434 stated, shift ties dealt with in is made for same Act under the no

as ing brought lighter presump- in cases burden of a rebuttable the burden tion or under no penalty burden at all. All six of enforcement. these commodities are dealt with respect presumptions to cot- with Agricultural Adjustment Act, which respect 1346(b), ton, and with Section ought symmetrical to be construed as a rice, 1356, are couched Section whole. To construe it as the Government “regarded” words and use the word same majority contends and the holds would key farm as the word: “The bring tend to distort the statute and to rice, case as the excess of cotton [or disharmony. its different sections into regarded as available shall be be] marketing ought That avoided unless and the amount compelling reason to assume that Con- computed upon normal shall be gress single intended to some out farmers * ** duction ”. covered it for harsher treatment than that accorded to other farmers. pre- We appears, therefore, that no ought to look to the as a whole to respect provided sumptions with meaning determine the of each presump- wheat, mild rebuttable that a parts. respect explicitly with tion is presumption raised corn, and that the to by 21 Jurisprudence American distills the “regarded” prescribed the word rule established the cases and sets it respect rice. The cotton with provi- out in these words: “The various “regard” acceptation verb common sions of an Act should so that be read all treat, as to such to it ascribes may, possible, conjoint have their due regard g., consider, upon, I e. look repugnancy without or inconsisten- effect enemy. my does not word him as That cy, so as to render the statute a consistent absolute, imply conditional. harmonious The text of whole”. hardly that Con- be contended It would Corpus Juris is to the Secundum same pre- gress conclusive intended raise a parts, provisions, “All or effect: sections it used when sumption a farmer read, section, or must con- of a statute sidered, hand, other theOn a word. so mild together, or construed and each raised is clear to, must be considered or in presumption. rebuttable is a word light of, provisions all the or other majori- connection, holding sections, and construed in (b) Under harmony, So, peanut with the placed and tobac- whole. deter- ty, has mining meaning heavy particular word, growers of a burden under the co subjecting clause, statute, phrase, in a as used while conclusive four commodi- entire statute be considered.”23 growers other seq. Statutes, p. storage C.J.S., 345, equals et amounts 22. 82 § seal . storage plus other amounts farm language of the texts is 23 The above two presumed not crops, shall he “the farmer taken from series of Court violating provisions suh-see- to he Freeman, United v. in decisions: States * * * (a) the stored But when tion ”. fra; Hoffman, Market Co. v. U.S. applica- the amount is less than amount 782; 112, 116, 25 States L.Ed. United crop storage plus amounts ble to Lexington, etc., Co., 410, U.S. crops, shall he “the other farmer 34 S.Ct. L.Ed. Federal marketed, farm mar- to have while sumed Panhandle, etc., Power Commission effect, keting quotas in vio- corn were Co., 498, 514, 337 U.S. (a)”. sub-section lation of .large L.Ed. number of brought condi- these action state court decisions assembled in the tions, burden “shall have farmer expressed it: IV. Supreme Court24 thus is, interpretation rule of correct holding “The majority same relate to the if divers statutes that thing, creates a in a statute fiction the form of they ought into all to be taken establishing rule of a substantive law construing any one consideration them, against presumption, conclusive as a rule law, rule of it is an established establishing of evidence a rebuttable pari tak- acts materia are that all sumption is further erroneous in that together, they law.” as if were one en principle runs afoul the that courts will symmetry and enforced the rule We way not construe a in such as statute declining follow equal treatment25 to require to declared it be unconstitu- wording requir- of a statute the literal bring to tional or it near the border-line ing to act three of a board members unconstitutionality. elementary “It is affirmatively matter because constitutionality when the assailed, of a rule, new a rule “That would introduce reasonably if the statute be sus- unanimity, quot- at war with other ceptible interpretations, by of two one of majority.” ed references to a it would which be unconstitutional and valid, plain duty the other it is our to way also of in the rule stands That adopt that construction will save Congress holding in majority the statute from ty.”28 infirmi- constitutional of substantive rule establish a tended repeated same idea mechanics providing for the law when Association, American Communications enforcing penalty as to O., Douds, 382, 407, C. I. 339 U.S. respect to is conceded while it 674, 688, 94 925: S.Ct. embraced commodities the other power “It within the and is the (except Adjustment Act to Agricultural duty of this Court construe a stat- nothing Congress bacco) had danger ute as to so avoid the of un- It would evidence.26 a rule of than more constitutionality if it be done in Congress intended presumed that not be legislative pur- consonance with the provid pattern of depart from set pose.” evidence, the mechanics ing, rule And the words of Mr. Justice Holmes Act with re of this enforcement in Federal Trade Commission v. Ameri- commodities, major like spect 298, 307, Co., 264 can Tobacco U.S. shifting rice, by com, wheat, cotton 338, 696, point 336, S.Ct. law with of substantive rule to a here: should follow “We can- course we tobacco, commodities peanuts and an intent to de- attribute not fy importance.27 relatively minor Fourth Amendment even to Freeman, legislative history per 3 How. But States v. acre. 24. United tendency 556, 564, 11 L.Ed. 724. not have to estab- does Congress essayed the thesis that lish Fayette etc., Austin-Western, Co. 25. against peanuts setting up discriminate Cir., County, F.2d 568. machinery enforcing penalty. the Assuming that “what is well established such a discrimination presumption’, practiced compel- a ‘conclusive termed if based could actually argument a rule of sub- ling reasons, instances is most the whole falls Henderson, Cir., supposed law”. Ellis v. stantive it relates to the establish- as author- F.2d and the ment of conclusive versus cited. ities and a rule of a rebuttable law substantive rule of evi- legislative out the sets Government 27. The appears reason because sound dence no history such a discrimination. peanuts, most related to Act argument & establish is that States v. Delaware Hudson tends United the Congress companion cases, penalty provisions Co. amended the pound substituting per place price 53 L.Ed. 836. original penalty much based on so 436 injure doing' some more a sion would other cause as to raise se- come so near to so truth, help question than it would the cause of constitutional law”.’ rious injury and because the avoidance of that deny a serious no one can that And consequence is considered of more than question is law raised of constitutional possible harm of truth”. to the cause given language the construction establishing subject question The whole is and effec- a conclusive treated as tively disposed Supreme presumption. rule fundamental Court It is a litigation Donnan, System 312, in Heiner v. 52 285 U.S. S. of the American that placed 358, 772, be the facts Ct. 76 L.Ed. wherein the court shall be decided basically repug provision in court, declared unconstitutional a and it is fore system shall the Internal Revenue ing establish- nant to that rule Laws31 that recognized presumption free off a conclusive trans- which shuts that be property contempla- its fers of were the court. made flow facts before Law, years American tion of death if made within two text on Constitutional Jurisprudence 29 largely lays rule thus: thereof. The decision was based down the decisions, pre presumption, on or two former a Court “A conclusive Schlesinger deny op Wisconsin, operates a sumption full v. State of 270 that 557, it, 230, repel portunity the due 46 violates U.S. S.Ct. Hoeper Commission, hurts and that Tax process Even statute clause. 120, 206, in re offered be 52 S.Ct. the evidence held, presumption is invalid 360] court among U.S. S.Ct. [285 buttal »* (cid:127)** things, made dif- other it no question ference whether the arose language quoted from a Su- This Fifth the Fourteenth Amendment Amendment, a case preme decision30 Court the fundamental rejected the then well- which the court vice in the was that it “made presumption that conclusive established regard actualities”; conclusive without capable of was- bear- married woman concept person shall be one long lived, ing she children as required to unconstitutional submit an to be rebuttable held exactment, necessary in if this seems knowledge. light Dur- scientific readily order enable the Government ing the court of the decision the course charges to collect lawful from another language, quotes textbook this from a “Rights person, wrong guaran- because page page at 291 U.S. at by the are not teed federal Constitution arbitrary “By rule, preclude 391: treated; they superi- lightly so adducing which, party evidence necessity”. supposed or to this received, compel decision would jus- used the court favor, can Similar is an act which his expediency a sufficient v. Donnan constitutes and Heiner clearest tified * * * argument ”; made quotes policy to much answer soundest 11, by effect Wigmore Evidence, here 2d Ed. Par. the Government engaged in stating interposition an effort the basis strengthen those hands of enforc- of an irrebuttable Agricultural Adjustment ing Act of certain kinds of holds that evidence machinery by penalties providing excluded, whieh is “because' admis-

facts containing 1094) Law, these words: Sec. Am. See. 29. 12 Jur.Constitutional «He years prior within two pp. "Where 317-8. * * * death decedent has to his Co., Trust 30. United States Provident * * * 0f made transfer 281-282, property such transfer trans- L.Ed. 793. held fers shall he deemed and to have contemplation 302(c) made in Revenue Act of been death Section (U.S.C. Title within the this title.” c. Stat. majority opinion to sense seems might easily applied U.S. [285 more be holding step Heiner its is out of with 812, 362]: 52 S.Ct. aid32 the v. Donnan since it calls to its validity ir- of this sustain the “To dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Stone argued, presumption, it is rebuttable authorities dissent. and the cited conviction, apparent any event, In does condemn con case orig- prima facie presumptions, whether construed clusive inally a loss there had been in force rules of evidence or rules of substan as holding revenue, and decisions of to no tive law. And we are referred Su gifts particular not made were preme upholding pre Court case such a contemplation are cited. of death sumption. saying very that the near to This is evasion, may individual, of effort is made in a series anno- innocent of 33 to set stripped tations from the cases a of his constitutional distill be by rights principles a more of which the constitution- further order to ality creating presumptions thorough of the tax statutes enforcement guilty, new and start- be decided. The foreword to a ling doctrine, note last mentioned this condemned its contains sum- mary: distinctly statement, repu- “In with this treat- accordance mere Schlesing- following ment the later cases have been in the diated this court 240, 260, supporting (270 collected the rule that stat- er 46 S.Ct. 70 U.S. 557) (284 Hoeper utes which declare one fact conclusive L.Ed. U.S. 248) 120, evidence of another material fact in con- cas- 52 S.Ct. 76 troversy involving for- es similar situations. unconstitutional not, itself, by emphatically mer that such and of virtue Both declared rights force, superior own sup- conclusive." to this were necessity.” posed formulating statement All efforts at a general qualified principles have been categorically held court also the effect that it next remarks to calling statute not saved speaking impossible to do. so law, of substantive 285 at it a rule U.S. “* * * Mr. Justice Cardozo used effort page page at 362: S.Ct. language: “The decisive considera- However, whether the latter variable, too too much distinc- tions are as a rule evidence or of sub- be treated dependent degree, last too tions law, attempt, stantive it constitutes an analysis upon estimate common sense a legislative fiat, to enact into existence proof, of fairness of facilities not, a fact which here does and cannot be into One can do no crowded a formula. actuality, to, and the made exist result them; sharper than adumbrate def- more legislative If is the same *. a specific inition must await the case as body power without to enact as rule a arises.” denying litigant of evidence reading right case, prove the facts of his A of the cases fails to disclose certainly power cannot be made instance in which conclusive emerge by putting sumption permitted has to rest on the enactment been guise proved relationship a rule of law.” between the fact substantive 5, Majority opinion. Support Presumption”, 32. Note ence to So. Cal.L.Rev. 48. 1149; A.L.R. 86 A.L.R. 182; People see Cali- 162 A.L.R. Morrison v. of State of following fornia, 82, 91, 54 Law Journal Articles: Bros- man, Statutory Presumption”, “The and see for illustrations 178; Keeton, L. Amer- Tulane Review “Statu- statements McFarland v. similar tory Sugar Refining Co., Presumptions Constitutional- ican 86, —Their ity Legal Effect”, (both 60 L.Ed. 899 L.Rev. Texas 34; Statutory presump- “Constitutionality of Pre- eases involved these rebuttable sumptions”, tions). 46 Harvard L.Rev. Hale, “Necessity Logical Infer- casting presumed no more the occasion of on the defendant which shows the fact obligation exculpation.” The fact rational than here. connection absolutely majority which the counts It is clear from the above that the Su- appellant marketed established is that preme Court has even re- stricken down (which shows certain presumptions buttable mity with near unani- dispute did not market without nothing and that it has done or said proven market); fact ever intend to hospitable thought appellant answer a was that failed to upheld statute would to be construed has never letter. The Court presumption. establish a conclusive presumption sustained even a rebuttable resting stigma order to rescue it from the of un- so tenuous a connection constitutionality, therefore, is neces- that. sary to avoid the harsher construction advocated adopted by the Government and now argu- The burden of the Government’s majority. evidently majority ment, found which the Appellant requires sound, difficult, further contends that is that it is and regulations requiring many operatives, statutes employment and him of too report prove to make a written are unconstitu- to what a man has done with they Supreme tional peanuts because do not meet the re- he has harvested. quirements argument process of due He de- of law. answered that Court Congress striking require further claims that to him to cision down act creating reports make the demanded of him is to :35 “It a rebuttable give testimony against say presump- force him to him- is not too much to violent, self in violation of the Fourth Amend- tions and created the law are argument ment. To the latter contention the drawn Gov- inconsistent with responds exception experience. ernment that an from Nor can the fact made with in- to those records which means of the better the defendant has requires kept. standing alone, justify the law to be But the formation, * * * require keep law does not presumption. a farmer to of such a creation only purporting therefore, records. to would, to convenience be a It rely upon pre- deal with this feature is 7 U.S.C.A. § the Government warehousemen, requires which sumption the defendants and cast on processors, carriers, coming common with evidence brokers forward burden of handling shown, But, it is and others the commodities as we have rebut it. keep covered the Act to permissible the burden records and thus to shift not by arbitrarily making fact, makes it a misdemeanor one which has to fail to do so. guilt offense, Nowhere does the Act mention relevance to the no worthy States, only of note also 35. Tot v. United 1373(b), pur- Act, 468-469, § porting reporting applies to deal with producing market; to farmers argues engaged production further “Farmers The Government * * * require right peanuts Congress rec- had the to penalize market kept failure to be and to shall furnish ords such acre- * * Assuming true, keep age, yield, storage, marketing this to be and them. ”. logical apply still some and ra- must The words of the Act do not appellant producing and tional connection between who was not keep records. For in- market. the failure 1373(a) stance, Moreover, assuming the Act does Section warehousemen, processors, require pen- (b) bro- could have alty in Section dealing peanuts (a), and others kers similar to that in Section it did keep certain rec- other commodities not do so and it could not establish reports, penalty having relationship make certain ords and to no rational reports, mis- violation of the statute with the makes failure to make such Subparagraph (b) demeanor. as the establishment marketing of a requires were, fact, same section farmers to make which keep any reports, but not records. not marketed. required pellant production producers disclose the total farmers or appellant do and that could not keep record. pea- because he and used the harvested (b) does of Section Subdivision weigh nuts himself and did not them * * * require that, shall “Farmers produced. otherwise ascertain amount acreage, yield, proof of their furnish such right review access to storage, This ”. courts, opportunity of notice to be bring reports does not exception requirements heard are minimal exempts ceedings by administrative bodies application the Fourth Amend- procedures which do not afford those kept. required ment records play of fair rudiments have been univer- Moreover, provisions of the stat- sally stricken down.38 requiring reports made do not utes to review, appeal provide means of V. permit to the courts. and do not access Agri- (a) Appellant contends that the reports 1373(b) requires the to Section Adjustment Act, as it cultural insofar Secretary has issued be made and the solely applies peanuts, those relates to to regulations37 requiring that a farmer producing and not for market to those report of him within make the demanded producing consumption. The for home registered receiving days fifteen after language gives substance of statutes Production and letter Marketing from the State to that contention. Committee. Administration making requirements sole such a letter caused Failure to answer reports of in 7 contained U.S.C.A. § penalties recovered the infliction of the 1373(b) reads as follows: and against appellant under the conclusive this court. sanctioned Acreage of Yield Proof infirmity pro- of this The constitutional engaged pro- “(b) Farmers cedure lies in the fact State corn, rice, wheat, cotton, duction of say respect with has the final Committee peanuts, market shall or tobacco reporting. requirements for of for to all acreage, of respect furnish yield, the other features of With to marketing storage, and Act, acreage allotments, such as commodity records, of the form quotas like, establishment of and storage marketing reports, cards, appeals and elaborate scheme reviews seal, or otherwise the Sec- provided. 1362 of Title 7 Section retary may necessary prescribe as mailing farmer, for of notices to the vides for the administration section provides review 1363 for Section of this title.” 1301-1393 committee, review disinterested Sec- 1365, up tions 1367 set a detailed ar- applies alone to This section farmers rangement review in the courts of the producing market and it is undis- committees, of these two includ- actions ing producing puted appellant was not right additional to adduce evi- market, is no and there dence. requiring him to make re- entire law ports. salutary provisions But of these none (b) heavy of the remain- penalties The same is true apply to the which fol- ing essaying reg- provisions respond to of the Act failure to the Committee’s low growing peanuts. ap- ulate While That letter demanded that letter. 818; 384, 40, 729.161(b), L.Ed. Jo- 46 70 St. States, 15 F.R. S. S.Ct. 4743 729.261 seph (b), Yards v. United Stock Co. 16 F.R. 5673. 1033, 80 L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. Telephone Washington Co. v. ex Bell Public See State of rel. Ore- Ohio Comm, Fairchild, gon Ohio, R. & Nav. Co. v. Utilities U.S. State exam- North, ples. Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. U. rice, provide it was shows that Section ex- the Act Congress purpose plicitly over-productionf penalizing control the cotton, covering- production com, provisions it while the wheat and clearly equally 1359, penalized shows that it intended Section market- ing marketing showing peanuts. points alone.40 control This uner- ringly to the the- conclusion that neither legisla- Congress example, For made Secretary nor the Committee had findings wheat, respect tive with statutory right upon appellant call “is source that it a basic U.S.C.A. § any reports any penal- make or to inflict * ** of food for [that] the Nation failing respond ties him for to> abnormally supplies overtax excessive request. the written foreign facilities of interstate and trans- * ** importance foregoing portation, dis- otherwise marketing Congress, orderly only right rupt such com- manifest because the ** modity. Agricultural Adjust- had to conditions enact [And that] affecting production ment Act is derived from the Commerce- fact, Congress finding necessary] cooperative plan for Clause. made a [make finding production producers”. wheat, like is made andl wheat A corn corn, commerce, cotton burdened interstate but. Sec- cotton, finding respect and it did not tion Section make and that findings peanuts. import (which to the clear found the- of those It that marketing peanuts establish a differ- of inter- rational basis for the burdened treatment) produc- state in ence commerce. The absence of such is that mere finding destroys bur- the sole tion those to basis commodities tends right Congress legislate to on the sub- den interstate Based commerce. ject expressed legislative at intent, all. the Su- Filbum, preme held, Court in Wickard v. VI. Ill, therefore, clear, in- (a) the It production consumption came for enlarge beyond disposition to of courts under the control of the Act. penalty expressions clear forming statute; findings to legislative the inclination of a the visions bring harmony parity legislative and all into action with for basis legislative cognate enact- no such of a contains terms peanuts, Section impera- ment; reluctance of the Su- the marked words, that “It is but concludes against marketing peanuts attack on preme for Court to sustain tive crushing grounds shelling cleaning even rebuttable and for constitutional and foreign complete presumptions, absence com- and the in interstate for oil ** regulated part in favor or on its The dis- action words *.” merce be Congress presumption, admonish all persists set about of a conclusive when tinction ascribing lan- “market”;39 penal- to the refrain from and in the us to define arbitrary aspect 1325, guage question com, in ty provisions for Section by cotton, It the Government. wheat, contended Section Section peanuts peanuts, peanuts, (6) (A) in or clean Subdivisions 39. Section voluntary by processed form, or involun- (C): sale, by gift tary barter, ecoehange, or or corn, “Market, (6) (A). in case of vivos." inter wheat, rice, tobacco, means cotton, form, processed dispose of, or in raw “Marketing titled Penal- 40. Section barter, involuntary sale, voluntary by or provides (a) : ties” Section vivos, and, by gift exchange, inter or or any peanuts marketing “The in ex- wheat, by corn, and the case quota feed- marketing the farm- cess of poultry any.form) livestock ing (in or peanuts produced, which such or on >>*** farm pea- acreage “Market, (C). for which no (6) case of allotment was de- subject termined, dispose peanuts, nuts, in- shall be to a means to ’< cluding shelled stock farmers’ view, my nate statute43 the reason that duty, to con- under our clear had not of fair word, deem, in this observed rudiments used strue the given by play opportunity having such as notice and statute as hearings by average equivalent be heard conducted him man, of such fixing stockyard consider, presume; of maximum regard, words weights. most, be- the court used the statute at and to hold general expresses presump- attitude of a rebuttable fore us creates subject: the courts tion.41 expansion persuaded majority “The vast of this field But the regulation problem re- of administrative It finds the such considerations. simple sponse pressure one,42 simple social so a expedient —made substituting possible of its is made our words needs system by place used adherence of the words basic own selection Legislature principles by Congress. reached sets special shall The result appropriately apart peanut harsh determine the stand- farmer to as ards of not sufficient administrative action treatment. It Congress possibly proceedings had the administrative severate that right quasijudicial farm one of erty character the lib- discriminate property is sufficient citizen in favor another. shall er and protected rudimentary say not do so unless re- did play. quirements of fair enact These de- inserted into its words are to be open hearing,’ construction as mand ‘a fair and es- such strained ments legal validity majority. adopted alike to sential regulation the administrative majority, (b) The decision of public to the maintenance of confi- moreover, step of with the out attitude dence the value and soundness of sup- have ever since courts posed demonstrated governmental important proc- given necessity has rise to the re- hearing ess. Such a has been de- governmental enlargement cent vast safeguard’. scribed as an ‘inexorable powers in with the connection intimate ** * details of the lives of the citizens. The “For, outset, courts have been unanimous in the de- we said at the agencies multiplying process, termination in the the con- these deemed rights necessary complex stitutional individual to be our soci- citi- safeguarded. ety jealously purposes zen should be example, For are to serve the they Supreme are Court twice re- which created and endow- Secretary Agri- powers, they versed actions of the ed vast ac- must cog- by acting culture taken in connection with a credit themselves in ac- by ness, “held”, 41. Tliis conclusion is buttressed a con- and it chose word by adjudge, decide, of the used Con- sideration gress means to decree. by precedent Congress set forth in the thus set guide ought point way Revenue Act construed in Heiner Don- safe a nan, supra 359]: [285 U.S. the action which we should take here. “ shall be ‘Such transfer or transfers did not Government consider and held to been made deemed have simple. problem Its brief accus- [one ’* contemplation of death ”. litigation with the tomed to Government accepted Congress was en- normally expects to receive a brief of a gaged creating presump- a conclusive sixty-eight plus pages] pages, dozen tion because the Court struck it pages authorities, index and seven ground. deem, word, down on that cases, separate cites 153 sections of manifestly by was not considered Con- statutes, page Constitution and gress adequate standing alone to and a half publications. miscellaneous Government presumption. create conclusive On the hand, recognized other Stockyards compelled Act, stronger Packers word if to use seq. express it would et § the idea of eonelusive- U.S.C.A. guaranteed by protection deis:45 “The judicial cordance with the cherished broader the amendments is much embodying con- the basic tradition scope. our The makers of Constitution play.” cepts fair favorable undertook to secure conditions They pursuit happiness. rec- to the VII. ognized significance spirit- of man’s (a) the Gov- The bold stand taken feelings nature, in- ual of his and of his epitomized in brief: ernment is thus They part of tellect. knew that applicable statutory penalties “The are pain, pleasure and satisfactions failed, appellant within because period things. in material life are to be found They sought allowed, re- to submit the of time protect Americans quired report com- administrative to the beliefs, thoughts, their their their emo- disposition respect mittee with to the They tions and their sensations. con- expression peanuts. To borrow ferred, government, Judge Hand, if ‘whole Learned right compre- to be let alone—the most ** Bishops’ now testi- House of rights right hensive of and the most val- appellant fed the fied that the protect men. To ued civilized ap- hogs, his cattle and nonetheless every unjustifiable right, intrusion penalties plicant for civil would be liable government upon privacy failed, within the time allow- because he individual, employed, whatever the means ed,' required report or ac- to submit the must be deemed a violation of the Fourth counting Administrative to the Commit- Amendment. disposition of the tee with “ * * * Experience should teach us peanuts”. guard protect to be most on our liber- indeed, Here, is the sublimation ty government's purposes when the implemented bureaucracy-concept now beneficent. Men born to freedom are farthest constitutes decision which naturally repel alert to invasion or discovered. case cited out-reach liberty by great- evil-minded rulers. The goobers may plant Appellant a row of dangers liberty est lurk in insidious family them around munch night zeal, encroachment men of well- he has unless of a winter fire understanding. but without govern- * * *» permission of some obtained functionary. (unlike his And ment Perhaps appellant (b) like those —and rice, wheat, corn, neighbors plant who willing him who are to bet their sub- the courts etc.) access to is denied triumph on the eventual those stance principles himself, because exonerate that he get consolation, when —can in- fiction discovered a has the law tempted truth to consider as “forever on magic that, a word vests advance, “ * * * by recalling scaffold”, a liar”. “Truth to be deems sways the that scaffold less, too, future”. Doubt- complete contemplates concept That find he will comfort in the as- System indi- subservience surance and for- the citizens vidual liberties “Truth, crushed to earth will rise ages has gets wisdom again: genius freedom to be declared years hers; eternal Th’ God are way glory American error, wounded, pain, But writhes in worshipers.” life. among dies And our sense of maintain If we would Rehearing denied; ought pause ponder CAMERON, portion we Cir- dissenting. Judge, Bran- oft-quoted Justice of Mr. cuit words States, Olmstead v. United 45. His dissent Morgan 298 U.S. v. United States, 438, 478-479, Id., 56 S.Ct. 564, 572, from which 14-15, we States, quoted Cir., in Brock v. United L.Ed. 1129. 223 E.2d notes to the texts. And Brown v. cf. proving market corn in did not Duchesne, 19 How. ” provisions. 'of the violation L.Ed, 595, People 194, 15 of Puerto Co., Am.Jur., p. Statutes, Rico v. Shell S. Sec. 36S. 21. 50 Ct.

Case Details

Case Name: Lamar Bowers v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Dec 1, 1955

Citation: 226 F.2d 424

Docket Number: 15275

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.