Twin Falls County v. Hulbert
| Decision Date | 19 February 1945 |
| Docket Number | 7194 |
| Parties | TWIN FALLS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, Appellant, v. WILLIAM C. HULBERT, Respondent, CHESTER BOWLES, Administrator, Office of Price Administration, Intervenor-Respondent |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
An unexpressed purpose of Congress to set aside statutes of states regulating their internal affairs is not lightly to be inferred, and ought not to be implied where legislative command, read in light of its history, remains ambiguous.
Congress may choose such language as it desires, but when it departs from that which usually clearly and unequivocally designates the "states" it becomes a matter for judicial determination of what was intended by such different phraseology.
The classical designation to clearly indicate the states as individual governmental entities making up the United Nation, dating from the Constitution and coming down through various acts of Congress and pronouncements of the courts, is the word "states". (U.S.C.A. Const., art. 1, secs. 2-4, 10; art. 3, sec. 2; art. 4, sec. 4; amends. 10, 12, 14-19.)
Under Emergency Price Control Act defining the term "person" as including the United States "or any other government" the quoted phrase was not used to denote the constituent states of the Union but referred to other international governments on sovereign parity with the United States Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 302 (h), 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 942 (h).
The states, not governments, are in contradistinction to the United States.
The word "other" in a statute means of like kind and character.
In statutory construction, ejusdem generis is not to be disregarded, though specific words and phrases must be harmonized to develop a well-rounded and effective statutory structure.
Generally, the word "state" when used by court or Legislature denotes one of the members of the federal Union.
While the word "state" may by context be considered to include other governmental organizations than the states of the Union, the converse is not generally true.
The provision of Emergency Price Control Act that the Act should apply to territories, possessions and District of Columbia did not include the states since there are specific organizations to which, apart from District of Columbia, such mention attached. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 1 (c), 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 901 (c); 48 U.S. C.A. secs. 21 et seq., 500, 733, 1001-1006, 1391.
The intention of Emergency Price Control Act was to control prices in the broad flow of commercial transactions, not the comparatively limited and isolated sales by states or their political subdivisions. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 1, et seq., 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 901 et seq.
The word "government" within Emergency Price Control Act defining the term "person" as including the United States or any agency thereof or any other government means other national sovereignties comparable with the United States as a nation and not subdivisions or agencies thereof. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 302(h), 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 942(h).
Under Emergency Price Control Act, in view of congressional desire to completely and comprehensively control prices, the choice of words by Congress may not be disregarded nor can courts assume or presume that their change of phraseology is without significance. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 1 et seq., 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix sec. 901 et seq.
Sovereign states are never included in a statute unless such intention is clearly manifest.
Under section of Emergency Price Control Act providing that Act should apply to the United States or any "agency" thereof or any other government or any of its political subdivisions, or any "agency" of any of the foregoing, the term "agency" denotes a governmental not commercial relationship and connotes power or authority from a superior to an inferior, and controlled representation of one by another. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 302(h), 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 942(h).
The states are subordinate to the federal government but they do not derive their sovereignty from the federal government, and while states may be agents for the federal government the general, ordinary and juristic concept of the relationship is not that of governmental principal and agent.
The term "agency" in governmental parlance, referring to agencies of the United States, is not used as encompassing the states as such.
An administrative construction of statute which was no sooner made than challenged could not turn the scale in favor of an erroneous construction.
War
In passing the Emergency Price Control Act, Congress desired to depart from the traditional partitioning of functions between state and federal government only so far as required to erect emergency barriers against inflation, and where Congress has not clearly indicated a purpose to precipitate conflict, the court should be reluctant to do so by decision. Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, sec. 1 et seq., 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, sec. 901 et seq.
The existence and force and function of established institutions of local government are always in the consciousness of lawmakers, and while their weight may vary, they may never be completely overlooked in the task of interpretation.
The extension of federal control into traditional local domains is a delicate exercise of legislative policy in achieving a wise accommodation between the needs of central control and the lively maintenance of local institutions.
A county could sell at auction a used farm-type gasoline tractor discarded by noxious weed department for a price in excess of ceiling price fixed by Price Administrator, since the Emergency Price Control Act does not apply to the states or their political subdivisions. [I.C.A., secs. 22-1705, 30-708; Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, secs. 1 et seq., 1 (a,c), 4(a), 302(h), 50 U.S. C.A. Appendix, secs. 901 et seq., 901 (a,c), 904(a), 942(h)]
Appeal from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for Twin Falls County. Hon. James W. Porter, Judge.
Judgment for Intervenor Administrator under Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 enforcing his ceiling price, reversed.
Everett M. Sweeley for appellant.
One word and one word only defines an individual member of the United States of America. (Constitution of the U. S. the word "State" used at least 94 times; Ex Parte Morgan, 20 F. 298; Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 331, 25 L. ed. 667; Karen v. U.S., 121 F. 250, 57 C.C.A. 486, 61 L.R.A. 437; Downs v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 S.Ct. 770; Emp. L. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Comr. (Mich.), 31 N.W. 542; People v. Black (Calif.), 54 P. 385; Houston v. Inman, etc. (Tex.), 134 S.W. 275.)
From the Emergency Price Control Act (56 Stat. 23, 50 U.S.C.A. 901 et seq.) Congress carefully and consistently excluded the word "State."
The term "Person" does not in its ordinary or legal meaning include a State. (U. S. v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. ed. 192; U. S. v. B. & O. R., 84 U.S. 322, 21 L. ed. 597.)
The right to order its own internal governmental affairs is reserved to the State.
A. J. Myers for respondent.
Lawrence Quinn for intervenor-respondent.
The term "Person" as defined by the Act and the Regulation includes States, Counties, or other political subdivisions. (Sec. 302 (h) of the Emergency Price Control Act; sec. 1361.9 (a) (1) of Maximum Price Regulation No. 133; 2 Webster's Universal Abridged Dictionary 736.)
The Office of Price Administration has construed the term "person" as defined by the Act and the Regulation as including States and Counties, and this contemporaneous construction by the agency charged with administering the Act, is entitled to great weight. (Adams v. United States, 319 U.S. 312; White v. Winchester Country Club, 315 U.S. 32; United States v. American Trucking Association, 310 U.S. 534; State v. Hubbard, 63 Ida. 791.)
The term "person" has been construed to include State or local governments. (California v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 352; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437.)
The courts which have considered this question have held states and their political subdivisions to be subject to the Emergency Price Control Act. (Coos Bay Pulp Corp. v. Taylor (Sup. Ct., Washington, 1944), OPA Service 620: 360; Rosenblatt v. City of Toledo (Ct. Com. Pl., Ohio, 1943), OPA Service 620:288.)
In case of conflict between a Federal Law and an otherwise applicable State Law, the latter must yield.
The Act is a constitutional exercise of the "War Power" of Congress. (Yakus v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 660; Bowles v. Willingham, 64 S.Ct. 641; Scripps-Howard Radio v. Federal Communications Commission, 316 U.S. 4, sec. 1 (a) of the Act.)
The Act, as a valid exercise of the "War Power" of Congress supersedes sec. 30-708 of the Idaho Code. (Art. 6, cl. 2 of the United States Const.; sec. 3 of the Ida. Const.; Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U.S. 433; Ex Parte Bransford, 310 U.S. 354; Ritchie v. Johnson, 158 Kan. 103, 144 P.2d 925 (1944).
Ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case v. Bowles
...9 Cir., 149 F.2d 777. Because the Circuit Court's decision conflicted with that of the Supreme Court of Idaho in Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, Idaho, 156 P.2d 319, we granted certiorari in both Before considering the principal questions raised by the State we shall at the outset briefly dis......
-
Ure v. United States
...483, 275 P. 45, 114 A.L.R. 587. 27 Hulbert v. Twin Falls County, 327 U. S. 103, 66 S.Ct. 96, 90 L.Ed. 417, reversing Twin Falls County v. Hulbert, 66 Idaho 128, 156 P.2d 319, which held that a sovereign state was not bound by indefinite language in a federal controlled statute. 28 Hon. Arth......
-
Porter v. RUSHLIGHT & CO.
...only construing the Act, as was done in Bowles v. Case, 9 Cir., 149 F.2d 777, affirmed 327 U.S. 92, 66 S.Ct. 438; and Hulbert v. Twin Falls County, Idaho, 156 P.2d 319, reversed 327 U.S. 103, 66 S.Ct. 444. See also the subpoena cases: Porter v. Murray, 1 Cir., 156 F.2d 781, certiorari appli......
-
Pfleuger v. Hopple, 7181
... ... from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, ... for Twin Falls County. Hon. James W. Porter, Judge ... Affirmed ... ...