825
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable 0. S. hap8 ,~
State fJhbmlB4
CIbiOi,widOII Oi Cb8I!htrY
Texas A@loultural Sxperlmmt Station
College Station, Terar
Dear sirr
tOROr tY8 DepWt-
8 in psrt as folk+vm
me up ln another form.
of Dallas, Texem has
upply the mpsrt-
0 hM with I gucmtit~
e Toxar irrtllimr lrw
to prinwd on tho bag 'QOC
the name Of the fettillrer, the
Ion of nitrogen, available phor-
and the mm and address
potash,
or tb6 msnuraotumr. Tbo Agloultural ltl ustasn4
Ad~nlrtration her w?,ge+rteQ to Cl10 Untk d ahemiaal -
aonptmythe4 the bae bs'printrd a6 follows
Ronorable 0, 3. ?repo, Fag0 t
‘Superphoaphato f urnlrhod by Agrt
oultur%l Adj~%41%%%4
A4miai%4r%tlon ror
uao only in oarrling out roll bulldiag
praotioea, aanufaoturwl br United Oh%mI-
061 *W&any, DLllea, Teraa. )
2’.
MThr guaranteed analyaia %ad 4hr net weight
arc both otalttyd. Sam of the offioiala of the
Agrioulturel Adjoat’~mnt Acl!miniatration hare pro-
poaed to various ateta offioiala that in ~1800 of
psying tba tonnago tax, tha AM pay for amly8ea
of oaoh aamplo oOlleOt~6 for inspeOtlOn. Fith
the payment 80 mado it would ba oonaidarably lese
thut the amount Of the lnapeotion tax.
,FZp ,your .Opinlon O-4619 you atata % prlva4a
praoni rim, or eorporablon railing oommeroi%l
iortlllter in a ateto 40 the Agrioultural Adjaat-
meat A&dnlstratlon 1% aubdoat 40 it8 l%ba. Tho
raar, that tha sale la mad0 to tho tsdaral lnatrn-
‘m%ntality doea no4 alotho the vendor rith the imn~un-
lty poaaeaaad by the vendee. The am0 opinion we5
axproa%ed,by the aolioitor of the U. S. Department
or kgrioulturo in the opinion Of .*hioh I furnished
a ooppto you.
*Fl%aae advise me if lt 1% my duty 8% Stat0
Chemist 40 ooll~ot the tax an the f%rtiliner aold
to tho AM by tha Vni4o+i UDotisal Oompany for dia-
tribution in Touri and rrqulro them to sttsoh tax
ta(l5.
*P~SI sad50 ii it 1% nj du4y 40 nqulre tho
United Cheniosl Company to reglrter tbia frrtlllzer,
attsoh the inrowatlon roculred by the iOrtllbmr
law, report the %a10 of thi% f%rt~ll%er and other-
wiar ,to oomply with the requiror8entr or the rertili-
zor law.
vie080 5driu ii I havo authority under the
law 40 orrang%-with th! Agrl%ultural AdJuatmefit
Agrnoy 00 pay ror ramplee %naly%od or otherwler
wiirr the Tex%r rertilizer 1%~ with rerpeot to the
Honorablo a. S.
rertil laor sold 40 them by the Wftrd Chmiiosl
c0t8wnys0r Dallea rar use within the ateto of
Texas, In plaoe of tha tonnage tax.*
Tha Texas Revieod Qrimiaal Gtotutea, 1936, Artiolag
1709 tbrou@ 1920, and oivll rtatutea, Artiolea 94 through 106,
reeulats the sale or oommeroial fertilizer witbin the etate or
Texas.
Our Opinion No. O-4619 whioh ia referred to in pour
letter aa quoted above, azaangsother thingrr, hold% in erfcot
tbot the Agrioultuial Adjustment Administration la a federel
aigenoy or instrumentality, and that the inapeotlon tax or ree
cannot ba oolleotrbd from tba Federal Agenoy; Hcwever, tbba
opinion further holaa thet *II pfivate @eP%Oa, firm, or oor-
poration aolllng oo.xmsroial fertilizar to the Agricultural
Adjustment Admrinfrtratlon ia Texas la eubjoot to Its lawa~
the faot that the salo is made to the faders1 instrumentality
dose not olotba the vendor with the lmunlty pOSSe8aOa by
the randoe~.
It is further stated in the above mentioned opinlon
that:
*It is a fenilisr prinoiple, established
sin00 AfaCplloob v. Maryland, 4 Xhost. 316 (U.S.
18191, t&a4 the S4eka oannot interfere with
burdae$,or lapude tba faderrl govermaent or its
sutbo: ized inatrumaqntslitie~ in tbo e reroise of
any of tb% powers vestod by the Constitution of
the mitea Stetea la the Con@-%%% of the Uaited
States. The prineipla ha6 been ennounosd most
rrepuently In those oases lnvolrinp aa etteapt
to oolleot a 3tatr tax iron a Federal inatru-
mentality. It has, bowever, 4qusl applioetion
to the bnfmoeaent or State regulatory laws
against lederal ina4reateatalltlea. JoMean
v. Earyland, tU4 0. 8. 811 Hunt v. 0. 5. E78
U. 8. 96; Ariaona v. C%liforni%, et al, 683
U. 5. 4238 Obio v. Thorns, 178 U. .3~./,$?6~ B%%ton
v. Xowe, 188 U.5. tea; &x perte Will14an, et7
Eonorabla 0. 6. Frap8, Paga 4
Fed. 819; Posey v. T. V. A., OS 1. (I) ledi
United 5tatea v. Query, 81 Ted. Supp. 7S4.
“The lxsotion presently involved is an
inspsotion fee, rethk+r than s tax. But rhethar
it be a tnx or an inspotion fee, en exertion
of the taxinp power or OS the pollee power
of t3e Stete, It o;Jeretee direotly end lmediato-
ly upon tlzo Federal instrumentality in the exer-
oiae of tte power conferred upon it by tbs Con-
greas, end diraotly burdens the instruroentallty
in the exeroiae of thet power. The a~enoy of
the United %tates is immune from snd oannot ba
m&red to pay the fee or tax involved.
In viev or thr r0mg0tng, we reepeotrullp answer
your rirst qu0sti0n PII quoted above, in the arrhatire. ~8
abova stated, a private person, rLtlll, or oorporation selllny
oontmeroiel rertilizer to the Agricultural Adjustmeat Adz&is-
tretlon ln Test18 1s subjeotto its laks$ the feat sale is made
to the Federal Xnstrumantallty does not clothe the vendor
with the lamunity possessed by the vendee.
k’o answer your 8eoond question as stated above in
the firfir~tir0. Ye think that the oa6e at Alabama va. Kin6
and Boozer, 314 0. 6. 1, speolrioally supports our oonoluaion
with referenoa to your flrat and seoond quertiona. Al80 sea
the ease 0r Jams us. Dravo Contraoting a0i2peOy,3002U. S.
114.
Ce reeprotrully anauer your third question aa
stated above in the ne$atlrar The te&lature alone is
authorlxad by the aonatltution ~(fitiol* 1, Seotfon 28) to
suspend any law or the State, It is stated in Texas Jurie-
prudenoa, Volume 39, paga lS6r
-* + * ~TiWjin exerolsing power of suepend1n.g
ths operotlon & tbo general law, It 10 the general
rule that thb Lagisletum lpurt suspsnd tha law
@merally and as a whole, and aannot suspend it for
829
lionorebla 0. 8. Frape, Fs&o 8
lndlvldual eese8 or partloular loea)itler.* l l .
Trustin(: that t&a rorogohg ruiiy answer8 your
Inquiry, we are
.
APPROVEI>%F 10, 1942
ATTORXZY GEKER.:LOF TZXAS
COHMIITLS