Page images
PDF
EPUB

"Naval stores," defined in the Naval Stores Act (42 Stat. 1435), are not agricultural commodities within the meaning of the Agricultural Marketing Act and hence the Federal Farm Board has no authority to deal with an organized group of producers of naval stores.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

August 11, 1930.

SIR: I have the honor to comply with your request for my opinion upon several questions stated in your letters of October 17, 1929, and July 11, 1930, arising in the administration by the Federal Farm Board of the Agricultural Marketing Act, approved June 15, 1929, c. 24, 46 Stat. 11.

I

The first question submitted is as follows:

"Mr. Felix Cordova Davila, Resident Commissioner of Porto Rico, presents to Federal Farm Board the question as to whether Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929 extends to and is operative within Porto Rico, and whether Porto Rican Producers of an agricultural product can obtain the benefits of the Act. The producers referred to are represented to be otherwise qualified, the sole question being as to whether or not the Act does in fact extend to and whether it is operative in Porto Rico.

"This raises a question of underlying importance, and if this request is in proper shape we will appreciate your opinion if we are entitled to the same upon the question as to whether or not Agricultural Marketing Act does extend to Porto Rico; and as the question is sure to arise shortly as to whether the Act extends to Alaska, Hawaii, and Philippines, the answer may properly include them also."

The policy of the Agricultural Marketing Act, declared in section 1 of the Act, is to promote the effective merchandizing of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce by minimizing speculation, by preventing wasteful methods of distribution, by encouraging the organization of producers for unity of effort in marketing their products, by promoting and financing a farm marketing system of producer-owned and producer-controlled cooperative associations and other agencies, and by aiding in the prevention

and control of surpluses in agricultural commodities, so as to maintain advantageous domestic markets and prevent such surpluses from causing undue and excessive fluctuations or depressions in prices for these commodities. The Federal Farm Board, constituted under the Act, is expressly charged with executing its powers only in such manner as will in its judgment aid to the fullest practicable extent in carrying out this policy.

The Board is expressly authorized to promote and encourage the organization, development and improvement of effective cooperative associations, and to make investigations and reports regarding various factors affecting the market. for agricultural products, including supply and demand, and the economic utilization of land for agricultural purposes. It is also charged with the administration of a revolving fund of $500,000,000, from which it is authorized to make loans to cooperative associations for stated purposes. It may enter into agreements for the insurance of such associations against loss through price declines and may make advances from the revolving fund to meet obligations under these agreements which are to be repaid from premiums paid for the insurance.

The term "cooperative association," as used in the Act, is defined as including any association qualified under the Act entitled "An Act to authorize association of producers of agricultural products," approved February 18, 1922.

The Organic Act of Porto Rico of April 12, 1900, section 14, 31 Stat. 77, 80, commonly known as the Foraker Act, and the Organic Act of March 2, 1917, section 9, 39 Stat. 954, commonly known as the Jones Act, provide in part as follows:

66* * * the statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United States, except the internalrevenue laws

[ocr errors]

Provisions precisely similar in legal effect are contained in the Organic Acts of Alaska and of Hawaii, 37 Stat. 512, 31 Stat. 141.

In contrast to these provisions, common to the Acts under which Porto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii were organized as Territories of the United States, the Organic Act of the Philippine Islands of August 29, 1916, section 5, 39 Stat. 545, 547, provides in part as follows:

66 * * * the statutory laws of the United States shall not apply to the Philippine Islands, except when they specifically so provide, or it is so provided in this Act."

The Agricultural Marketing Act is made applicable to the merchandising of agricultural commodities in interstate and foreign commerce, without territorial limitation. In express terms it neither includes nor excludes Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico or the Philippine Islands. It can have no application to the Philippine Islands because of the provision in the Organic Act of the Islands above quoted. On the other hand, in Porto Rico, Alaska and Hawaii it has application under the provisions of their Organic Acts, unless its provisions are locally inapplicable in these Territories or unless from its own terms a contrary intention is to be inferred. There are in this statute no provisions which cannot be carried into effect as well in Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico as in the States of the United States; nor is there anything in the history of these Territories to indicate that the extension of Governmental aid under the terms of this statute to agricultural industries would in any way be incompatible with their existing institutions, laws or customs. There is, indeed, no perceivable reason for holding this statute "locally inapplicable" in any of these Territories within the meaning of the Acts under which they were organized.

By virtue of the broad language in these Organic Acts, the laws relating to the organization and powers of National Banks have been held to have the same force and effect in Alaska, Porto Rico and Hawaii as they have in the States of the United States. 19 Op. 678; 23 Op. 169; 23 Op. 177. For the same reason our trademark laws are held to extend to Porto Rico, (23 Op. 634) and it may be said that all such laws of general character and universal

application are applicable in such Territories unless the legislative intent that they should have only specific application elsewhere is made to appear. Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall. 654. Thus, for example, the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act of November 23, 1921, 42 Stat. 224, approved the appropriations therein made specifically and exclusively to the States, and it was necessary by special Act (43 Stat. 17) to extend its benefits to Hawaii.

There are no provisions to be found in the Agricultural Marketing Act which impose specific limitations upon its application, nor is any such limitation to be implied from any of its terms or from its general purpose. On the contrary, there are references in the Act to the Territories which clearly import an intention that the Act should have application in the Territories of the United States. Thus, in section 9 (a) with respect to stabilization corporations, it is provided that the Board may upon application of an advisory committee for any commodity recognize as a stabilization corporation for the commodity any corporation if, among other things, "the Board finds that the corporation is duly organized under the laws of a State or Territory." And in section 13 (c) it is provided that "the Board may cooperate with any State or Territory, or department, agency, or political subdivision thereof, or with any person."

Alaska and Hawaii are fully organized Territories, duly incorporated into the United States. Section 1, Act of August 24, 1912; 37 Stat. 512; sections 1 and 2, Act of April 30, 1900, 31 Stat. 141. Rassmussen v. United States, 197 U. S. 516; Commission v. Humboldt, 224 U. S. 474; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 305. On the other hand, Porto Rico is territory which has not been incorporated into the Union as distinguished from merely belonging to it and therefore subject to its sovereignty. Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, It is, however, a completely organized Territory. Kopel v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468, 476; Gromer v. Standard Dredging Co., 224 U. S. 362, 370. Its government possesses "in all essential matters a strong likeness to the powers usually given to organized Territories, and moreover a striking similarity to the Organic Act of the Hawaiian Islands." Porto Rico v. Rosaly, 227 U. S. 270, 274. It is specifically de

305.

scribed as a "Territory" in the Act of September 21, 1922, 42 Stat. 993, which extended the National Prohibition Act to Porto Rico. The intention that the Act shall have effect in the Territories of Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico is clearly to be inferred from the language of the Act.

But it is suggested that a contrary intent is to be inferred, at least with reference to Porto Rico, from the phrase "in the United States," occurring in the definition of "surplus' contained in subdivision (b) of section 1, as follows:

[ocr errors]

"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." The same phrase occurs in section 2, providing that in making appointments to the Federal Farm Board the President should give due consideration to "having the major agricultural commodities produced in the United States" fairly represented upon the Board, and also in section 4, providing that the Board shall maintain its principal office in the District of Columbia and such other offices in the United States as are necessary.

Although not a part of the United States in a Constitutional sense, Porto Rico is an insular possession, subject to and governed by the sovereignty of the United States, and is a Territory of the United States. But even if the phrase "in the United States," where used in this statute, could be held to exclude Porto Rico, these phrases do not limit the general application of the statute but refer merely to the computation of "surplus," the personnel of the Board, and the location of its offices. Nor can the fact, disclosed in the legislative history, that Congress was primarily concerned with relieving economic conditions affecting the agricultural industry in the States defeat the provisions contained in the Organic Acts of these Territories under which this law, made applicable in general terms to the agricultural industry, without territorial limitation, must be effective in Alaska, Hawaii and Porto Rico. A contrary intent can not be inferred from phrases of doubtful implication having no intended application to the question.

« PreviousContinue »