proceedings in the District Court, since the protest proceeding did not precede the suit in the District Court; and under the same provisions of the Act determination of the protest proceeding under § 203 (a) can have no retroactive effect once the District Court has entered its judgment. But the opportunity for securing a decision from the Emergency Court through the protest proceeding before a judgment in the District Court is entered, has practical significance and makes this a living and not a hypothetical controversy. On the merits the case is governed by our decision in Utah Junk Co. v. Porter. The petitioners in this case had a right to have their protests considered by the Administrator and, in case of denial, to resort to the Emergency Court of Appeals. The fact that Congress in 1944 gave a limited opportunity to go to the Emergency Court by leave of the District Court before which an enforcement proceeding is pending, § 204 (e), neither repealed nor qualified the protest proceeding originally designed by § 203 (a). The two modes of securing a hearing on the validity and applicability of the price regulation are cumulative and not alternative. The Administrator advances no argument to distinguish the case from that of Utah Junk Co. v. Porter. His contention that the petitioners are not persons "subject to . . . [the] regulation," § 203 (a), is amply refuted by the continuing liability of the petitioners, United States v. Hark, 320 U. S. 531, for some $6,800,000, should their arguments as to the invalidity and inapplicability of the regulation be rejected when the case is considered on the merits. It is superfluous to discuss other issues raised in this case. Judgment reversed. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Statement of the Case. 328 U.S. THOMAS PAPER STOCK CO. ET AL. v. PORTER, PRICE ADMINISTRATOR. CERTIORARI TO THE EMERGENCY COURT OF APPEALS. Nos. 67 and 578. Argued February 25, 26, 1946.-Decided April 22, 1946. 1. The Taft Amendment to the Emergency Price Control Act nullified price schedules based on standards, and no such schedules could be valid after that Amendment unless and until the Price Administrator "determined" that no other method of price control was practicable. P. 53. 2. Sales of wastepaper between July 16, 1943, the effective date of the Taft Amendment, and September 11, 1943, the date when the Price Administrator determined that other than by standardization no method of effective price control of such commodity was practicable, did not subject the sellers to the penalties of the Emergency Price Control Act, even though such sales were at prices in excess of a pre-Taft Amendment maximum price based on a standard. Pp. 51-52, 56. 3. The accommodation of the various interests involved in a system of price control is for Congress, not the courts; and the legislation is to be so construed as to give effect to the will of Congress. P. 55. 151 F.2d 345, reversed. No. 578. By leave of the District Court in which a prosecution of the petitioners for violation of a regulation under the Emergency Price Control Act was pending, petitioners sought in the Emergency Court of Appeals a declaration of the invalidity of the regulation. The Emergency Court of Appeals sustained the validity of the regulation. 151 F. 2d 345. This Court granted certiorari. 326 U.S. 715. Reversed, p. 56. No. 67. Petitioners filed a protest with the Price Administrator under the Emergency Price Control Act. The Price Administrator denied the protest. The Emergency Court of Appeals sustained the Price Administrator. 148 F.2d 831. This Court granted certiorari. 325 U. S. 847. Writ of certiorari dismissed, 56. Jack H. Oppenheim argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Claude A. Roth. Jacob D. Hyman argued the cause in No. 578, and Richard H. Field argued the cause in No. 67, for respondent. With them on the briefs were Solicitor General McGrath, Ralph F. Fuchs and Josephine H. Klein. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. Having been charged with violations of a price regulation, petitioners challenged its validity before the Emergency Court of Appeals by two different modes in two separate actions. The claim of invalidity in both proceedings was based on the Taft Amendment to the Price Control Act. Adjudication of this claim will dispose of both cases without consideration of procedural issues raised before the Emergency Court. Thomas Paper Stock Company, a dealer in paper scrap, and its president were indicted under § 205 (b) of the Emergency Price Control Act, 56 Stat. 23, 33; 50 U. S. C. App. § 925 (b), for the sale of wastepaper in violation of Maximum Price Regulation No. 30, 7 Fed. Reg. 9732 (Nov. 24, 1942). Section 1347.14 (d) of that regulation fixed the maximum price for unsorted wastepaper in terms of a specification or standard. Id. at 9735. On similar allegations, the Administrator later began an action against petitioners for treble damages. § 205 (e), 56 Stat. 23, 34; 50 U. S. C. App. § 925 (e). Both proceedings involved sales of wastepaper between July 16, 1943 and September 11, 1943. The dates are crucial. July 16, 1943 is the effective date of the Taft Amendment, the proper construction of which is the controlling issue. On September 11, 1943, the Administrator, by an amendment to the Maximum Price Regulation No. 30, "determined" that "no practicable alternative exists for securing effective price control" with respect to such wastepaper except through the standardization defined in the pre-Taft Amendment Maximum Price Regulation No. 30. 8 Fed. Reg. 12554 (Sept. 14, 1943). The problem before us is whether, after the Taft Amendment, sales of wastepaper were governed by a maximum price based on a standard, prior to the determination by the Administrator on September 11, 1943 that there was no practicable alternative to such standardization. And so we turn to the Taft Amendment. It added subsection (j) to § 2 of the Emergency Price Control Act. The relevant provisions of the Taft Amendment are these: "(j) Nothing in this Act shall be construed . . We agree with the Emergency Court that Congress thus provided "three alternative situations in any one of which [the Administrator] is authorized to employ specifications or standards in connection with price control." Thomas Paper Stock Co. v. Bowles, 148 F. 2d 831, 835. Thus, in the case of wastepaper, standardization is permitted under Clause (3) of the Amendment although the Administrator may define a standard which "had not previously been used by the wastepaper industry or required by another Government agency." Id. at 837. But we are also of opinion that beginning with July 16, 1943, the day the Taft Amendment came into force, it precluded standardized commodity prices unless and until the Administrator "determined" that no other method of price control was practicable. The terms of the Amendment, in the circumstances of its setting, see, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 697, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (1943), bring us to this conclusion, but we need add little to the full discussion the Taft Amendment received in the opinion of the court and that of the dissent below. Thomas Paper Stock Co. v. Bowles, 151 F.2d 345. For us the decisive consideration is that the Amendment was a rigorous limitation upon the powers of the Administrator based upon the Congressional view that standardizations outstanding at the time the Taft Amendment was passed had not been authorized by the more general language of the original Act. § 2 (h), 56 Stat. 23, 27; 50 U. S. C. App. § 902 (h). Accordingly, Congress laid down a specific requirement for the validity of prices based on standards, and a fair reading of the Amendment in the light of its history requires that the Administrator must indicate that he has fulfilled this requirement. See United States v. B. & O. R. Co., 293 U. S. 454. It would hardly satisfy the restriction which the Taft Amendment 1 "The powers granted in this section shall not be used or made to operate to compel changes in the business practices, cost practices or methods, or means or aids to distribution, established in any industry, except to prevent circumvention or evasion of any regulation, order, price schedule, or requirement under this Act." |