Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

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