August 27, 1936 July 2lst, 1956, while in New York, I duscussed the Reciprocal Tariff sees Act with Mr. Rafter with a view of getting his opinion as to possible changes that might be made in the Act, as well as his opinion concerning the future of the Act if the coming November election should change the Administratlone [ter stated that he felt the subject secondly from a political stated that titutional, it is his definite since in it Congress to guide or limit the President case which is analogous to this in Lt ft wrote the opinion for the in making situation Supreme should be discussec standpoint. opinion has that provided tariff changes. and on which the Court, the no Reciprocal definite plan He mentioned one late Chief Justice whichclearly stated that Congress d no owers right to delegate .such authority to the President without limiting his or definitely outlining tl = course he should follow in making any changes sl in ha eee since tariff legislation, under the consti arvenes is wholly the responsibility of Congress and cannot be delegated to the President by Congress. Na The Reciprocal Tariff Act as passed by the last Congress has been carefully drawn with a view of making it impossible for domestic manufacturers to contest the provisions of the Act or through the courts to attack the provisions of reaties that are negotiated under the Act, thus disarming and removing the egal status of those who would sotiated under the Act of these treaties with attack a view of the provisions raising duties of any of the treaties that had lowered been by Mr. Rafter stat: a case ms now eS in she New York Customs Court for the purpose Ge mats the constitutionality of the Reciprocal Treaty Act. In this test ca 2 Mr. Fletcher of Piesaas. an sipectue of pineapples, is asking for higher rat f duty than those prescribed in the Cuban treaty. Mr. Rafter is of the opinion ee: this case is being sponsored by American manuracturers whose only resort in attacking the Act is to do so through an importer. In this case, however, the Government aruges that the importer cannot be injured by lower duties and, therefore, there is no point in Fletcher asking for an increase in the duty, Since obviously, as an importer, he would be injured by increases in duties and the Government thus takes the position that Fletcher has no case against the Act. Fletcher contends that under the Act he is permitted, asan importer, to ask for either higher or lower rates of duty than those provided in the Cuban treaty. The question is whether Fletcher can maintain his legally teehnical position and Mre Rafter is of the opinion that this case will finally reach the United States Supreme Court and ee apath soe the case does reach that Court the legal issue will be avoided by taking the position that Fletcher is not acting in good faith, but rather that his case represents the interest of American manu facturers wnich are not permitted to take such ion under 1 ReDae ate Treaty Acte matter, duty on thus be since Fletcher, as an importer, could song have been injured by the lower pineapples and, therefore, that he has "no case” and that the case will dismissed without the Supreme Court ruling on the consti tutionality of Mr. Rafter thinks ~/ the Court will take this posit: practical