United States v. Morelock, Civ. A. No. 7692-7701.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
Citation124 F. Supp. 932
Decision Date11 October 1954
PartiesUNITED STATES of America v. H. Paul MORELOCK. UNITED STATES of America v. Ray HAINES. UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence H. HAINES. UNITED STATES of America v. Lawrence H. HAINES, Jr. UNITED STATES of America v. Rodney G. HAINES. UNITED STATES of America v. Herbert A. HULL. UNITED STATES of America v. Paul S. STERNER. UNITED STATES of America v. Lindsay B. SHAFER, Lewis Shafer, and Joseph Shafer, individually and as co-partners doing business as Shafer Brothers, and Shafer Brothers, a partnership. UNITED STATES of America v. Lewis SHAFER.
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 7692-7701.

124 F. Supp. 932

UNITED STATES of America
v.
H. Paul MORELOCK.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Ray HAINES.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence H. HAINES.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lawrence H. HAINES, Jr.
UNITED STATES of America
v.
Rodney G. HAINES.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Herbert A. HULL.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Paul S. STERNER.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lindsay B. SHAFER, Lewis Shafer, and Joseph Shafer, individually and as co-partners doing business as Shafer Brothers, and Shafer Brothers, a partnership.

UNITED STATES of America
v.
Lewis SHAFER.

Civ. A. Nos. 7692-7701.

United States District Court D. Maryland, Civil Division.

October 11, 1954.


124 F. Supp. 933
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
124 F. Supp. 934
George Cochran Doub, U. S. Atty., and James H. Langrall, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., Joseph B. Zimowski, Atty. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff

Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md. and Stanford Hoff, D. Eugene Walsh and John Wood, Jr., Westminster, Md., for defendant.

THOMSEN, District Judge.

Defendants, operators and in some cases owners or part owners of farms in Carroll County, Maryland, were producers of wheat for harvest in 1954 within the meaning of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281, et seq. The government has brought these nine suits (a) to restrain defendants from interfering with the entry on their respective farms by the Carroll County Committee or its representatives for the purpose of measuring the acreage planted to wheat for harvest in 1954, (b) to require defendants to identify to such Committee or representatives all the fields or acres on which wheat was planted on the respective farms for harvest in 1954, and (c) for other and further relief, alleging that defendants have refused such entry and such identification.

The principal questions in each case are: (1) Would the granting of the relief prayed violate rights protected by the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution? (2) Is it a suit "specifically to enforce the provisions" of the Act, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1376? (3) What is the effect of the failure of the agency to follow its own prescribed procedures? (4) Under all the circumstances of the case, is the government entitled to equitable relief?

The Act
"The general scheme of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as related to wheat is to control the volume moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and shortages and the consequent abnormally low or high
124 F. Supp. 935
wheat prices and obstructions to commerce. Within prescribed limits and by prescribed standards the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to ascertain and proclaim each year a national acreage allotment for the next crop of wheat, which is then apportioned to the states and their counties, and is eventually broken up into allotments for individual farms. Loans and payments to wheat farmers are authorized in stated circumstances." Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, at page 115, 63 S.Ct. 82, at page 84, 87 L.Ed. 122.

7 U.S.C.A. § 1340 defines the terms "farm marketing quota" and "farm marketing excess" for any crop of wheat, provides for penalties on the farm marketing excess and for the storage of the farm marketing excess with the Secretary to avoid penalties. It further provides: "(7) A farm marketing quota on corn or wheat shall not be applicable to any farm on which the acreage planted to the commodity is not in excess of fifteen acres"; and "(8) Until the farm marketing excess * * * is stored or delivered to the Secretary or the penalty thereon is paid, each bushel of the commodity produced on the farm which is sold by the producer to any person within the United States shall be subject to the penalty * * *", which shall be paid by the buyer. The important portions of this section are set out in Note 1 below.

124 F. Supp. 936

The Act also provides for the publication, adjustment and review of quotas, including a court review if desired. 7 U.S.C.A. § 1374 directs that the Secretary provide, through county and local committees, for measuring farms on which wheat is produced, for ascertaining whether the acreage planted for any year to such commodity is in excess of the farm acreage allotment, and for a report to the State Committee in the event of such excess. Sec. 1375 directs the Secretary to prescribe such regulations to aid in discovering and identifying such amounts of wheat as are or are not subject to marketing restrictions, and such regulations as are necessary for enforcement. Sec. 1376 vests the several district courts of the United States with jurisdiction "specifically to enforce the provisions of this chapter" and provides for proceedings to collect the penalties provided in the chapter. It states: "The remedies and penalties provided for herein shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any of the remedies or penalties under existing law." Secs. 1374(a), 1375 and 1376 are set out in Note 1.

Proclamation of Quota and Referendum

Pursuant to the provisions of 7 U.S. C.A. §§ 1335 and 1336, the Secretary proclaimed a national marketing quota for wheat for the 1954 crop, and conducted a referendum. In the referendum 447,757 farmers voted, and of those 87.2% favored the quota for the marketing year beginning July 1, 1954. The Secretary published in the Federal Register, 18 F.R. 5707, a proclamation of the results of the referendum, stating that wheat marketing quotas would be in effect for the 1954-55 marketing year. Although it has no legal significance in this case, it is interesting to note that of the 1,734 Maryland farmers who voted, 86.7% voted "Yes". More than half, but less than two-thirds, of those who voted in Carroll County voted "Yes".

The Regulations

Pursuant to 7 U.S.C.A. § 1375, the Secretary issued and published in the Federal Register, 19 F.R. 202, regulations entitled "Wheat Marketing Quota for 1954 Crop", sec. 728.450, et seq., whose purpose was to "govern the identification and measurements of farms; the amount, adjustment, and review of the farm marketing quota and farm marketing excess; the issuance of marketing cards and certificates; the identification of marketings of wheat as subject to or not subject to the penalty and lien for the penalty; the rate of the penalty and the manner in which penalties shall be paid by producers and buyers; * * *."

Sec. 728.452 of the Regulations provided for the preparation and issuance of forms and instructions. Sec. 728.455 directed the county committees to provide for measuring each wheat farm in accordance with the procedure approved

124 F. Supp. 937
by the Deputy Administrator. Sec. 728.458 defined the term "farm marketing quota" as applied to individual farms, and Sec. 728.459 provided for the determination of the farm marketing excess (a) where measurements are made, and (b) where measurements cannot be made. These sections of the Regulations are set out in Note 2

There are numerous sections dealing with marketing cards and marketing certificates, penalties and exemptions. The sections dealing with records and reports include sec. 728.490 "Records to be Kept

124 F. Supp. 938
and Reports to be Made by Producers" and sec. 728.492 "Enforcement". The latter section directs proceedings to enforce the provisions of the Act in each case of failure or refusal to make reports or keep records and each case of making any false report or record. Secs. 728.490 and 728.492 are set out in Note 2

The Instructions

Pursuant to Sec. 728.455 of the Regulations, the Deputy Administrator or his authorized assistant issued Instruction No. 1006 (Wheat '54)-1 headed "Procedure for Determination of 1954 Wheat Acreage" and five orders auxiliary thereto, and Instruction No. 1020 (Wheat '54) -2 "Pertaining to Wheat Marketing Quotas for the 1954 Crop of Wheat" and five orders auxiliary thereto, all stated to be for "Action by: All ASC State and County Committees."

These instructions were not published in the Federal Register or otherwise brought to the attention of defendants before suit.

The purpose of Instruction No. 1006 was to "outline the methods and procedure to be used in determining wheat acreage performance in connection with the 1954 wheat acreage allotment, marketing quota and price support program * * *". Sec. II deals with "Responsibilities of Committees and Farmers", including (A) State Committee, (B) County Office Manager, (C) Reporters, and (D) Farm Operators. Paragraphs C and D are set out in Note 3.

124 F. Supp. 939

Section IV deals with "Farm Inspection and Measurements". Paragraph A directs what farms shall be visited; C deals with "Extent of Measurements", D

124 F. Supp. 940
with "Equipment" and E with "Methods of Measurement." The important parts of these paragraphs are set out in Note 3. The reporter is instructed to make estimates in certain cases, to use maps and aerial photographs, and to determine the acreage "by ground measurement only when the use of photographs is not feasible." Identification of fields and measurement on maps is contemplated as the normal procedure

Sec. VII deals with "Finality in Measurements", and provides that "the acreages determined in the county office from measurements made in the field by the reporter will be considered final unless" the State or county committee or the farm operator wishes a redetermination. The word "measurement" is used in two senses, sometimes meaning ground measurement by the use of equipment supplied to the reporters, and sometimes in the more general sense, meaning measurement by any of the methods provided for in the instructions.

Auxiliary 3 to No. 1006, set out in full in Note 3, deals with what shall be done where a producer refuses to permit the reporter to measure or estimate his wheat acreage or refuses to give the reporter information necessary to complete his report. It refers to procedures set out in Instruction No. 1020.

The purpose of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...entering on their farms to measure the acreage of wheat. Their previous effort was successful, United States v. Morelock, D.C.D.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, because the regulations then in force did not specifically provide for such entry, the representatives of the department had failed to follow......
  • Shafer v. United States, No. 7091.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 4, 1956
    ...experience in Carroll County, Maryland, which is described in the opinion of the District Court in United States v. Morelock, D.C.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, that specific authority for entry upon the farm was needed, the regulations of 1955 were promulgated. We have no doubt that they were withi......
  • Pitner v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., No. 10832
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 27, 1971
    ...(S.D.Texas 1971); Graham v. Lawrimore, 185 F.Supp. 761 (E.D.S.C.1960), aff'd 287 F.2d 207 (4th Cir. 1961); United States v. Morelock, 124 F.Supp. 932 (D.Md.1954). To the extent that the Merrill majority relied upon publication of the limitation in the Federal Register, therefore, that case ......
  • United States v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 638.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • October 23, 1957
    ...U.S. 380, 68 S. Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10. 3 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122; United States v. Morelock, D.C.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, 943; United States v. Shafer, D.C.Md., 132 F. Supp. 659, affirmed, 4 Cir., 229 F.2d 124, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 931, 76 S.Ct. 788, 100......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • United States v. Shafer, Civ. No. 8218.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • June 17, 1955
    ...entering on their farms to measure the acreage of wheat. Their previous effort was successful, United States v. Morelock, D.C.D.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, because the regulations then in force did not specifically provide for such entry, the representatives of the department had failed to follow......
  • Shafer v. United States, No. 7091.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • January 4, 1956
    ...experience in Carroll County, Maryland, which is described in the opinion of the District Court in United States v. Morelock, D.C.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, that specific authority for entry upon the farm was needed, the regulations of 1955 were promulgated. We have no doubt that they were withi......
  • Pitner v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., No. 10832
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 27, 1971
    ...(S.D.Texas 1971); Graham v. Lawrimore, 185 F.Supp. 761 (E.D.S.C.1960), aff'd 287 F.2d 207 (4th Cir. 1961); United States v. Morelock, 124 F.Supp. 932 (D.Md.1954). To the extent that the Merrill majority relied upon publication of the limitation in the Federal Register, therefore, that case ......
  • United States v. Johnson, Civ. A. No. 638.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. Western District of Arkansas
    • October 23, 1957
    ...U.S. 380, 68 S. Ct. 1, 92 L.Ed. 10. 3 Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122; United States v. Morelock, D.C.Md., 124 F.Supp. 932, 943; United States v. Shafer, D.C.Md., 132 F. Supp. 659, affirmed, 4 Cir., 229 F.2d 124, certiorari denied 351 U.S. 931, 76 S.Ct. 788, 100......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT