United States v. FW Darby Lumber Co.
Decision Date | 29 April 1940 |
Citation | 32 F. Supp. 734 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. F. W. DARBY LUMBER CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Robert L. Stern, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and J. Saxton Daniel, U. S. Dist. Atty., of Savannah, Ga., for the United States.
Hitch, Denmark & Lovett, of Savannah, Ga. (Archibald B. Lovett, Malberry Smith, Jr., and Robt. M. Hitch, Jr., all of Savannah, Ga., and Fred T. Lanier, of Statesboro, Ga., for defendant.
Subsequent to the able oral arguments and the submission of thorough and exhaustive briefs in this case, the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit decided the case of Opp Cotton Mills, Inc., v. Administrator Wage and Hour Division Etc., 111 F.2d 23, April 2, 1940.
In the opinion in the Opp case is found this language: "We are of opinion and so hold that the enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act was a valid exercise of the power given to Congress by the commerce clause of the federal constitution".
If such language is all inclusive under all conditions this court is bound by such decision and will cheerfully follow the same. Apparently the Circuit Court of Appeals felt compelled to its conclusion by certain decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. An accurate ascertainment of the scope of such language can be best revealed by a study of the cases which required it. The essential question here is: Does such decision control intrastate activities of the kind involved in the case at bar? I think not.
The cases relied upon by the Circuit Court of Appeals to compel its conclusion are as follows:
Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092. In this case we find this statement in headnote 2(1): "The statute does not purport to control production, but regulates commerce in tobacco through marketing".
Kentucky Whip & Collar Co. v. Illinois Etc. RR., 299 U.S. 334, 57 S.Ct. 277, 81 L. Ed. 270. This was an exercise of the power of Congress to aid states in the enforcement of state laws.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. In headnotes 7 and 8 of this case we find this statement of one of the principles controlling in such case:
Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 59 S.Ct. 379, 83 L.Ed. 441. After stating the regulation we find the following in headnote 2, subheads (1), (2), (3) and (4):
Santa Cruz Co. v. Labor Board, 303 U.S. 453, on page 454, headnotes 6 and 7, 58 S. Ct. 656, 82 L.Ed. 954, the following principle is stated:
Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699, 37 A.L.R. 1407. The extent of this decision is thus stated in headnote 1: "The Act punishing the transportation of stolen motor vehicles in interstate or foreign commerce is within the power of Congress".
Lottery case (Champion v. Ames, No. 2), 188 U.S. 321, 23 S.Ct. 321, 47 L.Ed. 492. The decision arose on a habeas corpus proceeding and the extent of the decision is stated in headnote 3, as follows: "Legislation prohibiting the carriage of such tickets is not inconsistent with any limitation or restriction imposed upon the exercise of the powers granted to Congress".
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 38 S.Ct. 529, 62 L.Ed. 1101, 3 A.L.R. 649, Ann. Cas.1918E, 724. The import of this decision may be well understood from the following headnotes:
All except the two cases of Brooks v. United States and Champion v. Ames, above referred to, were civil cases and opportunity was afforded and used to investigate the facts connected with the alleged violations of law involved. In each case it was held that the particular facts therein authorized the law.
On June 5, 1939, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Rock Royal Co-operative, 307 U.S. 533, 59 S.Ct. 993, 1010, 83 L.Ed. 1446, which also was a civil case. The particular challenge involved in such case is the regulation of "the price to be paid upon the sale by a dairy farmer who delivers his milk to some country plant". It was held that such...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arkansas-Missouri Power Corp. v. City of Kennett
... ... Corp. (5 Ed.), p ... 1215, sec. 808. (4) The offer of United States under date of ... October 2, 1936, and under which the plans and ... A., Sections 201 to 219; Jacobs v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber ... Co., 33 F.Supp. 206; Morgan v. Atlantic Coast Line ... R. Co., 32 F.Supp. 617; United States v. Darby ... Lumber Co., 32 F.Supp. 734; Andrews v. Montgomery ... Ward & Co., ... ...
-
Jacobs v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co.
...v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., D.C.S.D.Ga., April 29, 1940, 32 F. Supp. 617; but see United States of America v. F. W. Darby Lumber Co. and Fred W. Darby, D.C.S.D.Ga., April 29, 1940, 32 F.Supp. 734. Quite recently, the minimum wage and maximum hour features of this law were upheld by th......
-
United States v. Morrison, the Commerce Clause and the Substantial Effects Test: No Substantial Limit on Federal Power
...407. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 108, 122 (1941). 408. Darby, 312 U.S. at 109. 409. United States v. F.W. Darby Lumber Co., 32 F. Supp. 734, 734, 737 (S.D. Ga. 1940), rev'd, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). 410. Darby Lumber, 32 F. Supp. at 737. 411. Id. at 737-38. 412......
-
United States v. Morrison, the Commerce Clause and the Substantial Effects Test: No Substantial Limit on Federal Power
...407. United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 108, 122 (1941). 408. Darby, 312 U.S. at 109. 409. United States v. F.W. Darby Lumber Co., 32 F. Supp. 734, 734, 737 (S.D. Ga. 1940), rev'd, United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941). 410. Darby Lumber, 32 F. Supp. at 737. 411. Id. at 737-38. 412......