*1 asking A this Court to review for certiorari petition Appeals the Circuit Court of was re- judgment 607). (287 It stressed fused October proper fair and point that —“A construction of the stat- requires that it be confined its operation ute to aliens who are members of or affiliated with proscribed a or- at th<3issuance of ganization the warrant of arrest.” importance question The unusual was not appreciate. difficult'to positive clear and presence
In the expression of intent Congressional contrary we do not feel at liberty conclude that an alien who entry after has contempt shown his for our laws deliberately associat- with a ing proscribed organization himself al- must be if resigned remain he lowed to or was debarred day, year month or a before his arrest. An experienced court years ago declared that would be “no less than an circumvent attempt the law itself.” MULFORD SMITH et et al. al. Argued March 8,
No. 505. April 1939. Decided 17, 1939. *3 A. Avriett Little, C. with whom A. J. Messrs. Mr. appellants. brief, were on Heath L. E. McCon- Mr. Robert K. Jackson and General
Solicitor General Attorney Assistant whom naughey, with Stern, Cox, L. John Robert Hugh B. Arnold, and Messrs. Shields, and W. White, H. Yost, Robert Mastín G. S. L. brief, for the Hunter were on Carroll appellee. (intervening defendant), appellees. ah, for Smith et W. Franklin Mr. Omer opinion delivered the Roberts Justice Mr.
Court. tobacco, assert flue-cured producers of appellants, uncon- 1938,1 is Adjustment Act of Agricultural 1938 crop. it affects their
stitutional those included the statute are involved portions marketing quotas for flue-cured III, providing Title found supply that when the The Act directs tobacco.2 Act as defined1 the the “reserve sup- to exceed the.level effec-. quota national shall become level” ply enough be flue-cured tobacco to permit which will tive ensuing marketing year to during the maintain marketed supply quota is to at the reserve level. supply The. grown. to the farms on which tobacco is apportioned by tobacco auction paid warehouse- Penalties are to from1 farm in marketing tobacco excess of its men quota. *4 , 26, 120, April 7, amended March 52 31, 1 52 as Stat. Stat. 1938 , May 31, 586, 20, 1938, 202, 52 and 1938, 52 Stat. June Stat. 1938 seq. et 1281, 775; Supp. IV, Title S. C.
52 Stat. U. §§ B, Marketing marketing quotas— III, Quotas, I, Title Subtitle Part 311-314, also Definitions. tobacco, inclusive. See 361- § §§ §§ relating provisions; 388 and 375, inclusive, administrative §§ personnel. by 311 is a finding
Section that the Congress market- ing industry tobacco is a basic directly affects foreign interstate commerce; and that stable conditions marketing necessary in such are general welfare; that is sold on a national tobacco market and it its and wholly move almost products and foreign interstate commerce; that without federal assistance the farmers bring orderly about are unable marketing, with consequence abnormally that excessive supplies are pro- dumped duced and the national indiscriminately mar- on ket; disorderly that this supply of excess bur- obstructs dens and interstate foreign and commerce, in prices reduction consequent causes injury to com- between merce, disparity prices creates of tobacco in foreign interstate and commerce the prices of indus- products commerce, trial such and diminishes the vol- commerce in ume interstate industrial products; and that the establishment of provided by necessary and appropriate to promote, foster and obtain flow of tobacco interstate orderly an and foreign com- merce. no provision regulation
There is continuous of to- but, by marketing, regulation § (a), bacco becomes any only year if, on November 15th, effective the Sec- supply the total retary finds tobacco as 1st of July supply the. reserve level which exceeded in the defined finds, If he so he shall, Act.3 December 1st, proclaim supply a national marketing total quota shall be throughout marketing year in effect which commences following July quota 1st. The is to be the amount Secretary which the finds will make available during year a ensuing marketing supply equal total'supply, carry-over marketing year, for a the reserve supply level, supply, year’s consump the normal a normal domestic tion, year’s exports, are a normal defined §
43 passed level. As it was not until supply reserve after provided, the Act respect November with year July beginning 1, 1938, for which the in this involved case were effect, that the de- proclamation the termination national marketing days should be made within fifteen quota after the stat- ute’s approval.4 after days
Within thirty proclamation, the Secretary is of the producers referendum to conduct the crop year they ascertain whether preceding the favor or If imposition quota. more than oppose one-third Secretary is the result oppose, proclaim before Janu- ary is not to be quota 1st effective.5 (a)
By it is the quota § directed is to be first based among states on the apportioned quantity total in each produced state during tobacco the five years immediately year preceding question, plus the of any normal production acreage diverted under any adjustment agricultural conservation program in any the years. The basic determination is to adjusted allotments, giving to correct state due consideration to plant bed or other diseases, production seed trends, producing abnormal conditions which produc- affected during the several five-year tion states period, and required make for provision allotments to small farms. quota A limit is set below which of any state may not be reduced. provides apportionment of the state amongst the
allotment farms which produced year the current produced or have previously one or preceding more of the four years. Apportionment 4 312(d). § respect (c). quotas, proclamation With 5 § forty-five result of the referendum was to be made days within after (d). approval of the Act. § marketing, of past on basis these to be made farms is and other ab- drought, flood, hail, after allowance due diseases, conditions, plant bed and other normal weather for the production land, equipment available labor, *6 practices, and soil other crop-rotation of tobacco, A fixed affecting production. limit is factors physical below, adjustment may produc- not reduce the which the farm. Allotment to new tobacco farms given tion of a different slightly made on a basis.6 is to be quota amongst of individual farms Apportionment the of farmers to stand- according local committees by to be is by Act, amplified regulations in the prescribed ards Secretary. Each farmer to by instructions issued the is in- his quota the be notified of kept available for public inspec- farms are to be dividual If the farm located. county tion in district where is the may his allotment he have farmer is dissatisfied-with the if committee, and, a local review quota by reviewed his committee, determination of that with the dissatisfied judicial review. may he obtain if in excess of the provides that tobacco Section is- produced the the farm on which tobacco is quota to the must through warehouseman, pay latter a marketed cent, equal fifty per of the Secretary penalty the an amount excess, and deduct price market price paid from the the penalty equivalent producer.7 (c). (b) and 313 6 §§ 7 directly person outside the marketed .a is If tobacco' the If required pay penalty. is the producer the United grower directly purchaser to a without' by the sold
the tobacco buyer re agent, or other the the warehouseman intervention equivalent may deduct an amount but penalty, the quired pay 372,. penalty 373. The is to price. purchase from the §§ higher the rate is than market pound if that per 50% three cents price. § gives Section States civil action a. recovery unpaid penalties.8 days A before few auction sales to take were who appellants, produce flue-cured place, Georgia southern northern Florida, filed bill in a Georgia state court equity against local warehouse- men to restrain from deducting them penalties under the from the sales price tobacco to be at their auc- sold tion warehouses on behalf appellants. The bill alleged that Act is it illegally com- unconstitutional; mands the defendants to deduct them penalties, pay over Secretary, must cover them into treasury who if States; that, the defendants should make required payments, paid by amounts them would aggregate large so a sum that would they be unable to satisfy judgments brought actions illegal to recover the payments. granted court a preliminary injunction- *7 ordered the defendant and warehousemen to pay the amounts the penalties of into the registry of the court. The cause was removed to the United States District the Court for Middle of Georgia. District The District the Court continued injunction, modified the order to' require the to payments made into its registry, the held, auction sales were and payments into the court were made. The United States was permitted intervene as The a defendant.9 warehousemen and the United States answers.' The cause was down filed set before a court regulations Secretary necessary make identifying subject quotas, 375; requiring keeping the of § making reports. imposes and the of upon records handlers producers upon $500 other than a fine of conviction of failure to any report any record, keep making make any report or for false (a) (b). or record. § August 24, 1937, 1, of 751; 9 Act Supp. c. 50 Stat. C. §
Ill, Tit. § stipu- which heard on it judges,10 three consisting of dismissing a decree the entered of facts and lation ' biU.11 the inquire the merits we whether coming to Before a federal court or jurisdiction had as court below citizenship of Though diversity equity. no court of controversy as to any amount asserted so nor alleged, (1)12 subsection jurisdiction § under confer (8)13 case falls within which Code, Judicial the subsection jurisdiction upon District Courts “of all suits and confers any regulating under law commerce.” arising proceedings injunction bill for is not forbidden Maintenance of the only to a as 3224,14 applies suit to restrain by R. S. a tax. Under the sessment or collection of averments wrongdoers bill defendant warehousemen would the the the paid prescribed penalties, over they if deducted and adequate law would be redress the but no action at It the total of the appears inflicted. damage thus some The al $374,000. this suit is involved penalties re warehousemen would be unable to legation that has, aggregating this amount actions sums spond any basis. Before action could therefore, reasonable such paid sum would have been penal be initiated him to the Treasurer of Agriculture Secretary general into the funds of' United States covered could Treasury. against No action be maintained or either these officials for disposing warehousemen in accordance with the the Act penal sums terms of upon notice not do so had been served each unless prior In re light fact that appellants of them. *8 quotas only a few days of their ceived notice before 10 III, (a). Ibid, Supp. Tit. 380 C. U. S. § Supp. 11 24 12 919. F. (1). U. C. 41 S. Tit. § (8). 28, 41
13 U. C. Tit. S. § 26, 1543. 14 U.S. C. Tit. § season opened, maintenance of actual ac penalties collection of the upon based would have tions We are impossibility. been a there practical opinion, a case is stated for fore, that of a court interposition equity. . upon The appellants plant proposi- themselves three that is plan tions: the Act control (1) statutory to agricultural production and, therefore, beyond the powers for delegated Congress; (2) the standard calculat- farm ing uncertain, is vague, indefinite, result- delegation ing an unconstitutional of legislative power Secretary; (3) that, applied appellants’ takes their crop,- property without process due Act. of law. control,
First. The statute not purport does produc- limit upon It sets no acreage tion. may planted produced imposes or no penalty plant- for the ing producing tobacco excess the marketing, It quota. purports to solely regulation of inter- commerce, state which it reaches and affects at the throat where tobacco enters the stream of commerce, mar- —the keting warehouse.15 The record discloses that at least all two-thirds of flue-cured tobacco sold at auction ware- shipment houses sold immediate an interstate ,In foreign or Georgia destination. nearly one hundred .cent, of per purchased sold so by extra- purchasers. In state markets where tobacco is sold to both interstate and purchasers intrastate it is known, not grower when the places his tobacco on the warehouse flpor whether sale, it is destined for interstate intra- Regulation commerce. state effective, must, ]oe therefore constitutionally, apply to all sales.16 This compare v. 306 U. Wallace, Currin S. Townsend Yeomans, 1; 352; Cases, 230 U. S. The Minnesota Rate Shreveport Case, 342; Wallace, Currin Supra. *9 48 recently grow- that sales tobacco by
court has declared of purchasers through warehousemen removal ers Any the state interstate commerce.17 outside constitute in intended Act, as embodied which is rule, such that that or to foster, protect commerce, and conserve working flow commerce from harm to the of prevent people nation, competence of the within the of Con- is- limits of the gress. power, Within these the exercise being terms, may lawfully in its extend grant unlimited a commerce,18 of such prohibition to the absolute commodity of given limitation of the a amount fortiori The mo- in commerce. transported such power exerting is irrelevant Congress tive legislation.19 of the validity under constitute provisions review commerce within
regulation foreign interstate to it delegated power under the competency Congress the Constitution. for al- standard urge that appellants Second. indefinite uncertain, vague, farm lotting so power delegation legislative that it amounts to the Constitutional violates an officer and thus executive Congress. by the that laws be enacted requirement shall summarizing provisions been said What has are definite standards sufficiently the Act discloses first, Secretary, government down laid amongst in its allotment fixing and, the.quota second, allot- adjust He is directed to states and farms. v. see Dahnke-Walker Co. Bon supra; Wallace, Currin v. Co., 268 U. S. 282, 290; v. 257 U. S. Farmers Grain durant, Shafer 50. Co., 258 U. S. 189, 198. Compare Lemke v. Farmers Grain 321; Hipolite Egg Co. v. United Champion Ames, 308; Brooks 227 U. 45; States, S. Hoke States, United 124. S. 432; v. States, 267 S. U. Gooch v. U. 965, (4th Ed.), Constitution 19 Story, oh the §§ Commentaries so to allow for specified ments factors which have abnormally affected the production of the state or the -question farm the test years. Certainly fairness *10 requires adjustment some such shall be made. The Congress has indicated in detail the considerations which be held in are to view making these adjustments, and, against order to protect arbitrary action, has afforded n judicial both administrative and review to correct errors. This not to confer unrestrained arbitrary power on an executive officer. In aspect this the Act is valid within the decisions of this respecting court delegation to administrative officers.20 In support
Third. of their contention that Act, crop year applied 1938, deprives them of their property process without due of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, appellants rely on the following undisputed facts. growers
Tobacco "southern Georgia and northern Florida, began arrange planting of their 1938 crop December, 1937, when it was necessary for them n prepare beds planting the seeds. There- was-necéssary after it to cultivate the seed beds, sow and seed,, water the cover the beds with cloth, and otherwise plants for the until they large care were enough to be At transplanted: the date of of the Act approval each his, had plaintiffs planted seed beds and, about middle of March, began transplanting into the fields, prepared which were and fertilized at large expense. thereafter plants The were cultivated and sprayed, and began during harvesting June and continued during July, curing grading followed tobacco. 506; 220 U. S. Grimaud, States United Avent v. United 127; Hampton S. U. Co. v. States, States, & 394; Corp. Central v. York Securities New supra. Wallace, 12; Currin expense. labor and activities involved of these
.All at requires, prevail- tobacco production of flue-cured thirty between ing outlay a cash price levels, plant covering, bed forty per fertilizer, dollars acre for and permanent etc. The use of animals twine, poison, average an ex- equipment demands semi-permanent ranging twenty from penditure, period years, over a expended per dollars an acre. The labor acre thirty and four hundred three hundred man-hours. between pound cost varies from ten cents to per twenty The total cents. for flue-cured Georgia season August year. about commences 1st each Florida quota was notified of the appellants
Each of the of his shortly opening farm before auction markets. of notice each .of receipt Prior them had largely, *11 wholly, if not completed planting, cultivating, harvesting, grading his tobacco. Until curing receipt of notice knew, known, none or could have the exact amount of his filing at the the quota, although, bill, time each had from available information that concluded he would any in probably quota market for excess his farm. approved February
The Act was 1938. The Secre- for quota flue-cured tobacco on Febru- tary proclaimed date, on issued and, 18th the same instructions for ary March a referendum on 12th. March 25th the holding the result of the which Secretary proclaimed referendum imposition marketing of a national was favorable to regulations fix- governing In June issued quota. he July he within states. 22nd deter- ing of farm between states the-apportionment mined issued ware- kept relative records regulations Shortly before opened and others. the markets housemen his notice of the allotment appellant each received farm. argued it
On the basis of these facts that the statute retroactively and therefore operated amounted tak- to a due ing appellants’ property without ar- process. The overlooks circumstance that the gument oper- statute on farm, production, appellants ates as the but insist, not upon of their tobacco in interstate com-. (cid:127) ip merce. The law, enacted affected mar- February, place August keting was take about 1st follow- ing, and operation was its prospective upon so ac- regulated. tivity any it The Act not prevent did pro- ducer from holding over excess tobacco produced, processing storing it for year; sale a later and the circumstance that in Georgia the producers Florida provided had not facilities purposes these not of legal significance.
The decree is
Affirmed. Butler, Justice dissenting. Mr.
Plaintiffs in Georgia are on farmers and' their farms raise it in They tobacco. year sell the market pro- when duced because, they their circumstances, are unable to process and it fit held sale year. make a later markets, sales are at auction through defendants who Georgia are warehousemen, purchasers intending to outside, take the tobacco the State. Secretary Ag- assuming to be riculture, empowered by Agricultural Adjustment of 1938, undertook prescribe the to. of flue-cured amount tobacco to be in . raised *12 States, each State, and on each farm. He failed to let plaintiffs know the respectively as- signed until to them after their crops had matured and ready were for marketing. Each raised more than the as- signed quota. if that,
The Act declares more the than amount- fixed for a marketed, farm is the warehouseman shall pay to equal the to Secretary penalty one-half the price the him excess, but it authorizes to retain that amount from it raising the farmer bringing If, to market for and sale. warehouseman, without to a the farmer resort di- sells purchaser the rectly country, to this is to required one but the authorized to take pay penalty is the amount If from the the sells purchase price; directly farmer required he to pay one outside the States the in any event, Secretary. Thus, the penalty penalty to the upon of the effectively laid farmer. Enforcement the plaintiffs from an will amount compulsorily take the market value to- to one-half of of all money equal of the by prescribed them excess sold bacco raised and quotas. Butler,
In United States 297 U. S. we held power pro- control farm without government federal sought statutory plan there We condemned duction. Tenth Amendment. repugnant enforced to be put effect under the was devised That scheme held it power to tax. We guise of exertion ¿he govern- the federal delegated to powers excess appropriation money tax, ment; found disbursement, for its to be but the directions raised, end; showed that an unconstitutional means to regulate production power no confers Constitution purpose that is forbid- legislation therefore established de- principle den; emphasized earlier prohibited end not be cisions that attained under powers which are pretext granted; of exertion if that, Congress may use power we declared finally its spend compulsorily regulate subjects and to to tax reserved power within the that power become “would instrument total subversion of powers governmental reserved to the individual States.”
53
assuming
measure, Congress,
failure
that
After
provisions
clause, enacted
the commerce
power under
which
validity of
penalties the
authorizing
that
Plaintiffs contend
case.
questioned
is
this
production and there
agricultural
plan
Act
to control
is
Congress.
The
delegated
beyond
powers
fore
be be
plan
would
concedes that such
impliedly
Court
provisions
that
says
yond congressional power, but
limit upon
set no
production,
control
purport
do
not
produced
or
im
planted
be
acreage
may
which
in ex
production
pose
upon planting
penalty
no
the stat
inspection of
marketing quota.
cess
Mere
unmistakably discloses
Secretary’s regulations
ute and
What
price by lessening production.
purpose to raise
appearance,
the en-
policy
ever
be
may
its declared
by each
raised
operates
quantity
to control
áctment
is
wholly
say
penalty
fallacious to
It
that
farmer.
is
production.
raises to
imposed upon
not
The farmer
selling
for sale. Punishment
is
exact
only
bacco
tobacco.
equivalent
punishment
for raising the
Butler,
invalid. United States v.
therefore
251.
Dagenhart, Hammer
U. S.
See
U.
S.
432, 438; Kentucky
Brooks v. United
Co., 299
Collar
Illinois
&
Co. v.
Central R.
Whip
Co.,
v. Alton R.
Cf. Retirement Board
334, 350.
seq
U.
et
S.
.
Wallace,
Assuming that, under Currin v.
That contrary precedent. alike reason and it, support merely To the Court cites the following cases: Ames) (Champion Lottery Case, U. S. 321, *14 Act of Congress prohibiting transportation that an
held tickets interstate lottery commerce is not inconsist any with limitation or restriction imposed upon ent ex powers granted to Congress. ercise of the After demon illicit strating lottery tickets, character the Court (p. 357): said “We should hesitate long before adjudging of such that ah evil appalling character, on carried through commerce, interstate cannot be met crushed by only power competent to that [p. end. . . . 358] It is a kind traffic which no one can entitled to pursue right.” as of States,
Hipolite Egg Co. v. United 45, held power the provisions within federal of the Food and Drug forbidding transportation commerce interstate by food adulteration” and authorizing “debased articles to be seized transported so as contraband-.
Hoke v. United 308, U. S. sustained con gressional interstate prohibition of transportation immoral purposes. women States,
Brooks v. U. S. a upheld stat- making ute of it States a to transport crime a stolen interstate automobile commerce. States, 297 U.
Gooch United S. 124, construed an Congress making transport Act of it crime kid- to napped person in interstate commerce.
Plainly these cases no give support to the view that Congress power generally prohibit has to limit, or it choose, may transportation in interstate commerce of corn, cotton, rice, or tobacco, wheat. decisions Our establish the contrary: New,
Wilson 332, upheld regulat- an Act ing hours of of employees service of interstate earners teaching of earlier following de- Court, by rail. depends regulation 346): extent of “The (p. cisions, said subject and what and character nature on the powers possessed by regulation. its appropriate to subject are inordi- with a neither deal government power because dwarfed greatly nately enlarged applies. commerce This illus- interstate regulate power greater between the much difference by trated liquor and be exerted as to may which regulation flour, drygoods as to exercised other by the settled doctrine It is shown sus- commodities. absolutely prohibit regulation lot- taining right by consideration that the obvious such tery tickets and applied pig iron, not be steel prohibit could right body of commodities.” most of the vast rails, or Dagenhart, 247 U. S. held repugnant Hammer v. clause and to the Tenth commerce Amendment an *15 in transportation interstate prohibiting commerce factories which child of made at labor was articles em- (p. 269): The Court said “In ployed. other the words, the commerce power [granted by is one to con- clause] by which trol means commerce is carried the which on, directly the of contrary right is the assumed to forbid moving commerce from and thus destroy to par- it as But ticular commodities. it is insisted that adjudged the in this court cases establish the doctrine power the regulate given Congress to to incidentally includes the prohibit authority to the movement ordinary of com- and therefore that subject the modities is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They upon rest the character particular subjects of the dealt with and the fact scope that the governmental of author- ity, or national, possessed state over them is such that the authority to prohibit as them to but the exertion of power the regulate. to [p. . .. In our view the 276] necessary effect of this act is, by prohibition means of a ordinary commerce in interstate movement against the hours labor regulate commodities, to commercial States, a within and mines factories of children in in a twofold sense Thus act authority. the. purely state only transcends It not Constitution. repugnant but Congress over commerce authority delegated local matter purely to a power exerts also reaching far does not extend. The authority federal indi- plainly the act cannot be more upholding result of reg- if thus Congress out that can pointing than cated prohibition authority by entrusted to local ulate matters commerce, in interstate of commodities movement of the power end, will be at an of commerce freedom all eliminated, local matters over the States destroyed.” government practically system our thus involving power Congress Heretofore, cases commerce, interstate transportation forbid or condition in view been careful determine whether, has Court this the measure subject, character nature and regulation as an of comm be sustained appropriate could at power had the absolute now Congress If erce.* just announced, opinions decision by it tributed to unnecessary utterly beside the were cases these mark. I am of suggested, opinion: above
For reasons prevent production the farmer to is laid on The penalty It is therefore invalid. quota. of his excess 321, 355 seq. Case, 188 U. v. Dela * Lottery S. et States Egg Hipolite Co., Co. United Hudson ware & States, 45, 57-58. Hoke S. 220 U. *16 510, States, v. United 239 U. S. 514. Caminetti 321-323. Cases Seven 470, States, 491-492. Hammer Dagenhart, U. S. v. v. United 432, 436-438. Brooks v. seq. 251, 270 et S.U. 332, 243 U. S. 346. Cf. Clark v. New, Distilling v. Co. See Wilson Hill, U. 325. Co., S. Ry. Md. States Western Kentucky Whip Co., & Collar 420. Co. v. Illinois R. S. 248 U. Central seq. 334, 346 et n marketing in interstate imposed If penalty by the com- not authorized regulation it is commerce, clause. merce excess penalties impose
To deprive and cultivation is to planting before disclosed not process without due property liberty their plaintiffs law. re- court district should judgment versed. in this opinion. concurs McReynolds
Mr. Justice EXECUTOR, CO., TRUST UNITED STATES INTERNAL OF HELVERING, COMMISSIONER REVENUE. April 17, 1939. Argued March 1939. Decided
No.