Summary

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black,  Zuber v. Allen — Dissent

“ In my opinion Congress intended to permit the Secretary to regulate the milk industry in accordance with the practices that had developed in that industry prior to the first federal regulation in 1933 and did not intend to eliminate the economic advantages that specific groups had enjoyed in the past. Since it is clear beyond a doubt that farmers near Boston received more for their milk than did other farmers prior to federal regulation, I would reverse the judgment below and hold this provision of the Boston milk order valid. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black,  Zuber v. Allen — Dissent

“ History and the legislative record make it quite clear that Congress in 1935 was concerned, not about limiting an excessively aggressive Secretary, but about overcoming the limitations imposed by a Court that was frustrating the congressional purpose by holding laws unconstitutional. Pursuant to the 1935 Act, the Secretary issued a new order in 1936 for the Boston market which, like the 1933 order, contained provisions for additional payments to nearby farmers. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Hugo Black Hugo Black,  Zuber v. Allen — Dissent

“ This higher price resulted from many factors, including the greater proportion of milk from nearby farms that was used for fluid purposes, the possibility that those farmers would compete with handlers by selling directly to customers, smaller seasonal variation in the volume of milk produced, and higher costs-such as taxes and land values-incurred in farming close to the cities. [1] As long as economic conditions remained generally stable, the cooperatives succeeded in protecting all farmers from the dangers of overproduction and excessive competition. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature