to put buying power in the hands of the farmer and the working classes of this country there will be no general recovery from our present situation and it is probable that before mid year, 1933, a fresh crop of bankruptcies will start through our business world, which can do no one any good.

We doubt if the farmers of this country are interested in any radical or unsound legislation for any purpose. There is no radicalism in this country worth the name. There is no general desire to change our form of government or the capitalistic form of our society. The farmers and the working men of this country are not radicals but discontented and protesting citizens who may feel that a few greedy or over ambitious men plus incompetent public officials have deprived them of home or land, savings or livelihood. They have a right to protection and to security, and it is the duty of honest business men to try and solve this problem from the wealth of our experience and knowledge.

The successful operation of the Clair plan is assured by the fact that we consume the vast majority of our basic agricultural production and can, therefore, absolutely control the minimum price for domestic consumption on the stabilized (gold) basis.

The principle of national domestic proration and minimum price determination on basic agricultural products will be found a fundamental principle that will have a constant application to our industrial-agricultural economic equation in the future. The execution of this principle or control will level considerably what we have previously termed economic cycles and mitigate directly against extreme effects of either price inflation or price deflation in the future.

There is no question that we should establish this fundamentally sound and basic agricultural stabilization plan. It is the first logical step toward the economic rehabilitation of our Nation. We content that the United States, as the richest and most self-contained Nation in the world, has no justification for the tremendous fluctuations which occur in our economic cycles and has no excuse for the deplorable economic situation we are in today; or for continuing in this condition; unless we are bankrupt both in intelligence and in leadership.—C. B. R.

LEGAL BRIEF AND ARGUMENT ON THE CLAIR PLAN FOR FEDERAL MARKET CONTROL THROUGH ANNUAL NATIONAL DOMESTIC PRORATE AND MINIMUM PRICE STABILIZATION OF THE BASIC, INDISPENSABLE, NONPERISHABLE FOOD AND CLOTHING CROPS OF THE UNITED STATES

(By the Federal Farm Board)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

There is a perfect analogy in principle between what the Clair Plan provides for and what has been done repeatedly in the country heretofore, under conditions in nowise different than those existing with our agricultural problem. The Plan is basically constitutional, however, on five broad grounds cited below:

1. Impairment of obligation of contract is not involved, on account of the right of the Federal Government to regulate commerce and establish tariffs, rates (prices) for the_common_good. Annual minimum price on basic agricultural commodities is in principle an inverted tariff.

2. No discrimination is involved as all indispensable, nonperishable, basic agricultural commodities are included, and inasmuch as all producers are treated in exactly the same manner.

3. No deprivation of property without due process of law. It protects the property and income of farmers in forbidding the sale of their products for less than the average cost of production, in a market in which they have no voice.

4. "The police power is not subject to any definite limitations, but is coextensive with the necessities of the case and the safeguard of the public interests" (Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518).

5. Because the right of the Government to establish the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Farm Board and very specific commerce and trade regulations, tariffs, rates (prices) under the doctrine of sovereign and implied powers and for the public interest has been repeatedly upheld by Supreme Court decisions.

6. Because of their scope and importance, lands devoted to the production of basic, indispensable, agricultural products are a public utility that should be subject to control, and the marketing of these products should be subject to regulation.

166630-33--16

By a statute of Oklahoma, cotton gins are declared to be public utilities and their operation for ginning seed cotton to be a public business. Grain elevators were held to be clothed with a public interest and an Illinois law fixing maximum charges was upheld. There is legislative power to fix the prices of provisions or clothing when an emergency exists. (Tyson & Bro. v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418.)

A consideration of the exact bill drawn by Francis J. Clair to amend the Agricultural Marketing Act, of June 15, 1929, to the end that the declared purpose of Congress in enacting that measure may be carried out, and for other purposes. A BILL To amend the Agricultural Marketing Act of June 15, 1929, to the end that the declared purpose of Congress in enacting that measure may be carried out, and for other purposes

Be it enacted, etc., That it is now solemnly reaffirmed and declared to be the continuing policy of Congress to more definitely place the industry of agriculture on an economic plane with other industry: To minimize speculation and to stabilize prices in order that the farmers and producers be assured a fair minimum price on such an amount of nonperishable food products as are in the opinion of the Farm Board needful to domestic consumption without regard to surplus crops.

SEC. 2. Surplus to be defined as prescribed in paragraph (b) of section 1 of Agricultural Marketing Act of June 15, 1929.

SEC. 3. Section 6 of the Agricultural Marketing Act is hereby repealed and the Federal Farm Board is hereby forbidden to further engage in the purchase of any agricultural product under its present powers, nor is it to make further new purchases or loans from its present funds, to make purchase of, or leases for, any new facilities for, or in continuance of, its present system of stabilization.

SEC. 4. Nothing herein, however, is to be construed as in anywise to limit its powers to continue to protect its present properties or commodities acquired under this Act. To make good its commitments or to efficiently and orderly liquidate and market its present holdings of agricultural products, except that it shall not engage to sell in domestic markets, for consumption within the United States, more than 3 percent of the same for delivery within any one calendar month.

SEC. 5. The Farm Board is hereby authorized to establish a fair minimum price based upon production costs on the nonperishable crops of cotton, wool, flax, wheat, corn, rice, oats, barley, buckwheat, hay, and hogs on such amounts as is deemed necessary in the opinion of the Board of domestic consumption. No price, however, is to be established on what is with true purpose of this Act defined as surplus.

SEC. 6. * * *

SEC. 7. The Farm Board is hereby authorized to allocate to each individual producer of these products and proclaim by bulletin that he may sell and/or otherwise ship, within the 12 months succeeding its actual harvest over the railroads and waterways of the United States only such proportionate part of his total yield of the products mentioned as that percentage which the total domestic crop production (forecast by the Department of Agriculture) bears to the total domestic consumption. To that end it must be evidenced on the shipping papers in statement either under oath or affirmation that the lading being carried was the producer's allotment under the revision of this Act and that he received at least the minimum price provided by law.

SEC. 8. But nothing shall be construed as limiting any producer, agent, or dealer in any of the above-named products either in the raw or manufactured shape free, untrammelled, unhindered transportation to and from both domestic and foreign shipping points: Provided, however, That it be evidenced upon the shipping papers that the same is eventually destined for export and not for consumption within the United States.

SEC. 9. To the end that the solemn and declared purposes of Congress may be carried out, the Farm Board is empowered to license at a fee not in excess of $1 any purveyor of the above products (excepting the actual producer thereof) and it shall be unlawful for any licensee to purchase, transport, or otherwise traffic in any of the articles specified in section 5 unless the same be domestically produced, and at a price no less than that proclaimed by the Farm Board. It shall be unlawful for any producer or his agents to dispose of any of the products for domestic consumption within the United States in excess of his legal portion and allotment so proclaimed by the Farm Board.

SEC. 10. Any person, individual, partnership, association, or corporation that with or without license intentionally carries on a business for which this license is required or makes purchase, trade, or barter therein in violation thereof shall

be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction fined not in excess of $1,000 or 1 year imprisonment, or both. The Farm Board is empowered to formulate regulations for carrying out the provisions of this Act but must make no regulations respecting enforced acreage reduction or restrictive rights of property. To the end that all our peoples be assured an abundant supply of foodstuffs and fiber at reasonable price based upon cost of production to the United States producers thereof and for such amounts as are necessary to our national life.

2. A consideration of the Agricultural Marketing Act itself with more particular attention to the declared purpose of the act, the duties of the Federal Farm Board and its expressed, implied, and special powers which will be discussed in section 2 hereof which will quote the exact language of the Agricultural Marketing Act. This is most material and relevant in clarifying the Clair plan.

EXCERPTS FROM THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SECTION 1. (a) That it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to promote the effective merchandising of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, so that the industry of agriculture will be placed on a basis of economic equality with other industries, and to that end to protect, control and stabilize the currents of interstate and foreign commerce in the marketing of agricultural commodities and their food products

(1) By minimizing speculation.

(2) By preventing inefficient and wasteful methods of distribution.

(4) By aiding in preventing and controlling surpluses in any agricultural commodity, through orderly production and distribution, so as to maintain advantageous domestic markets and prevent such surpluses from causing undue and excessive fluctuations or depressions in prices for the commodity.

(b) There shall be considered as a surplus for the purposes of this act any seasonal or year's total surplus, produced in the United States and either local or national in extent, that is in excess of the requirements for the orderly distribution of the agricultural commodity or is in excess of the domestic requirements for such commodity.

(c) The Federal Farm Board shall execute the powers vested in it by this act only in such manner as will in the judgment of this board, aid to the fullest practicable extent in carrying out the policy above declared.

(3) Shall make an annual report to Congress upon the administration of this act and any other matter relating to the better effectuation of the policy declared in section 1, including recommendation for legislation.

(4) May make such regulations as are necessary to execute the function vested in it by this act.

SPECIAL POWERS OF BOARD

SEC. 5. The Board is authorized and directed

(1) To promote education in the principles and practices of cooperative marketing of agricultural commodities and food products thereof.

(3) To keep advised from any available sources and make reports as to crop prices, experiences, prospects, supply, and demand, at home and abroad.

(4) To investigate conditions of overproduction of agricultural commodities and advise as to the prevention of such overproduction.

(c) The President is authorized, by Executive order, to transfer to or retransfer from the jurisdiction and control of the board the whole or any part of (1) any office, bureau, service, division, commission, or board in the executive branch of the Government engaged in scientific or extension work, or the furnishing of

855. Testeet “o the marketing of azrielit mi emmodities 2 its fineThe remonty property, including voerbender balances of appropriation, pertaining

21 THE COMB PLAY Viocare. No PROVISION IN THE CONSTITUTION PROHIRITING IMPAIRMENT OF THE ÚELLATIONS OF CONTRACT-IT IS NOT ILLEGALLY IS RESTRAINT OF TRADE

See aux, section 19 of this brief and argument

It is a meapprehension that the Clair plan is in restraint of trade. Rather it is in furtherance thereof Yorough the awurance it gives of an American market for the products of industry, the mines and the factores, through a guaranty of fair unrestricted trade at a price predicated in productio

Is the Clair plan an agreement to restrict free competition in the production or sale of any commodity produced by agriculture? No. If it were it is within the prohibition evetained in Bingram v. Brands (119 Mich. 255; 77 N.W. 940. In norise does it affect free competition in domestle prod retion. How then does it affect free competition in the sale of produets produced by agriculture?

The esence of the law is injury to the pib.6. It is not every restraint of competition and not every restraint of trade that works an injury to the public; it is only an und we and unreasonable restraint of trade that has such an effect and is deemed to be unlawful. L.S. v. Trenton Potteries, 273 U.S. 392.)

REGULATION OF CHARGES, RATES, AND PRICES

(8 Cre. 1117-1118

When a business is of such a nature as to be affected with a public interest, the State may require that the charges be reasonable and may adopt measures Lecessary to secure that result. Dillon v. Errie, 19 Mie. N.Y. 116, 43 N.Y. Suppl 320; Munn v. Ill. 94 U.S. 113, 24 L.Ed. 77; Frost v. Corp. Comm. 27% C.S. 515.,

The railroads (those whose rates are fixed have a right to require they be just and reasonable and an arbitrary provision is a deprivation of property without due process of law. And while the determination of rates is primarily for the legislature, such determination cannot be made so conclusive as to prevent the matter from becoming subject to judicial inquiry.

See definition "Reasonable." As to tests to be applied to determine reasonableness of rate regulations see Smyth v. Ames (169 U.S. 466, 18 S.Ct. 418, 42 L.Ed. 819,; Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards (82 Fed. 850).

It specifies a minimum price. Does this permit competition?

See 8 Cyc. 406, Competition.

See Competition Distinguished from Abridgment under Abridgment (1 Cyc. 197, Note 25).

Due Process of Law (8 Cyc. 1080), is such an exertion of the powers of Government as the settled maximums of the law permit and sanction and under such safeguards for the protection of individual rights as those maximums prescribed for the class of cases to which the one in question belongs. It has also been defined as a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.

There is legislative power to fix the prices of provisions or clothing when an emergency exists (Tyson v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418).

3-B. THE CLAIR PLAN VIOLATES NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT CALLS FOR NO DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW

Deprivation of property is used in a broad sense in the constitutional guaranty forbidding the deprivation of property without due process of law and has received a liberal construction analogous in spirit to that applied to "life and liberty." All rights to the use, title and possession of private property are held subject to the right of the legislature to control them, according to the established principles of our jurisprudence, so far as may be necessary for the public welfare, the only limitation upon the legislative power being found on specific and applicable constitutional restrictions. (See Boston Beer Co. v. Mass., 97 U.S. 25, 24 L.Ed. 989; Boyd v. Ala., 94 U.S. 645, 24 L.Ed. 302; Bartemayer v. Iowa, 18 all (U.S.) 129 L.Ed. 929; Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (Ú.S.) 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (Missouri Compromise).)

Congress may pass laws directly or indirectly impairing the obligation of contracts. (Evans Snyder Buel v. McFadden, 105 Fed. 293, 44 C.C.A. 494; 58 L.R.A. 900.) Likewise cases cited under section 7 of this brief and in note 12, 8 Cyc. 930.

The provision in the Constitution which forbids a State to pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts does not protect contracts made after the hostile law. (2C, etc., R. v. Augusta Cotton, 105 Ga. 486, 30 S.E. 891; August National Bank v. August Cotton, etc. 104 Ga. 403, 30 S.R. 888; Denny v. Bennett, 128 U.S. 489, 9 S.Ct. 134, 32 L.Ed. 491; Edwards v. Kearsey, 96 U.S. 595, 24 L.Ed. 793.

Individuals must necessarily contract with full knowledge that the legislature may draw at any time from the vast reservoir of power, defined and undefined intrusted to it.

3-C. THERE IS NO UNREASONABLE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ANY KIND OF PROPERTY UNDER THE CLAIR PLAN

(See sec. 10 of this brief)

Has the Nation It is not necessary

Can the sovereignty act with reference to the sale of goods? a power to restrain sales which the individual does not have? that a statute regulating the sale of goods shall embrace all kinds of property either personal or real but is sufficient if the selection of the articles and the property is based on reasonable and just grounds of difference, and the prohibition comprehends all kinds of property within the relations and circumstances which constitute the distinction, extends equally to every citizen and all classes of citizens and denies to no one a privilege which another is permitted under like circumstances to exercise or employ. (Booth v. People, 186 Ill. 43, 50 L.R.A. 762.) 4-A, 4-B. THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION-DEFECTS OF THE CONFEDERATION-THE VIRGINIA RESOLUTION

Any review of the development of our Constitution involves contemplation of the fundamental defects of the Articles of Confederation as submitted by Benjamin Franklin, August 21, 1775, and subsequently from time to time amended. Whether in ancient Greece or modern Europe all former confederacies of independent states had the same defects as our own, which overthrew the confederation of 1781. Disobedience of the laws of the union must either be submitted to by the union to its own disgrace or enforced. Our confederation gave to Congress only the exclusive cognizance of our foreign relations, the rights of war and of peace and to make unlimited requisition of men and money. The Federal Governments of Greece, Switzerland, Germany, and Holland afford melancholy examples of destructive civil wars arising from disobedience of the separate members, says volume 1 Kent's Commentaries on page 213. The weakness of our own confederation was pointed out by Hamilton in a letter to James Dunne, September 3, 1780 (sec. 1, Hamilton Works (Lodge edition) 203). In May, 1785, Congress failed to act on the report of a committee recommending an alteration of the first paragraph of the ninth of articles of confederation so as to enlarge the powers of Congress, especially as to trade, and the Legislature of Virginia, on January 21, 1786, appointed commissioners to meet such commissioners as might be appointed by our States to do what we are concerned with in behalf of the Clair plan.

Quote the call of the Virginia Legislature of January 21, 1786:

To examine the relative situation and trade of said States; to consider how far a uniform system in their commercial regulations may be necessary to their common interest and their permanent harmony, and to report to the several States such an act relative to this great object as when unanimously ratified by them will enable the United States in Congress effectually to provide for the same." (Virginia Code 1787.)

4-C. THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION

The Virgiria resolution is vital because the intent of the framers of a constitution when ascertained will prevail over any part of the law. The intent is to be ascertained not alone by considering the words of any part of the instrument. The Virginia Summons for a constitution, aids historically, in ascertaining the reason for the constitution, the general purpose of the whole, in view of the evil which existed, calling forth the framing and adopting of the instrument and the