94 Reporter's Statement of the Case 54. As set forth in finding 38, the production figures for the years 1928 through 1932 contained in the four 1934-5 Victoria area contracts (as to three of which supplementary documents containing the same figures or figures derived therefrom by computation were executed by plaintiffs) were not the true production history figures for those years for the lands legally described in each contract. Since, as set forth in finding 51, the production figures in contract No. 9001 were taken from the corresponding figures in the 1934 contract which contract No. 9001 replaced, the production figures contained in contract No. 9001 were not the true figures for the lands which it covered. The production figures contained in contract No. 9003 did not include the production figures for the acreage operated in 1935 by plaintiffs' tenants W. H. Amos and A. J. Young. No further authorization from the AAA was given in 1935 with respect to these contracts than had been given under the 1934 program. Payments on contract 9003 were made to plaintiffs as follows: Date September 11, 1935. Amount The last two of these payments were made from funds appropriated by the Supplemental Appropriation Act of February 11, 1936. Consistent with its recommendation under the 1934 program, the investigating committee recommended that the four Victoria area contracts for 1935 should be treated as if they were one contract which would then state the production history of the land in the Victoria area on a five-year basis. A recomputation of the payments due under the four Victoria area contracts in accordance with this recommendation resulted in a reduction of $12,508.17 in the amount payable under these four contracts. With respect to contract 9003 in the Wilson area, the investigating committee recommended that the cotton planted by the two clearinglease tenants Amos and Young, referred to in the preceding finding, be considered as covered by that contract and that since such inclusion resulted in an excess planting of 18.97 Reporter's Statement of the Case 114 C. Cls. acres the rental payable under the contract be reduced by the amount of rental applicable to such excess planting, namely, $207.15. As shown by finding 43, wherein its recommendation for 1935 is shown together with its recommendation for 1934, the joint committee did not concur in the recommendation of the investigating committee with respect to the four 1935 Victoria contracts. The decision of the Acting Secretary of Agriculture on April 9, 1941, approving the memorandum and recommendations submitted by the Director of the Southern Division of the AAA, heretofore referred to, with respect to the 1935 cotton contracts read as follows: Essentially the same situation prevails in connection with the contracts for 1935 covering the lands of the Company as that summarized above for 1934, except that the lands in the Wilson area with two-year or threeyear history, referred to above, are not involved, since they were taken over for 1935 under two contracts between the Secretary and the Arkansas Rural Rehabilitation Corporation. Therefore, we recommend that the Company be permitted to retain so much of the payments as they would have been entitled to receive for 1935 if the entire farm in the Victoria area had been covered by one contract. This payment would be computed in the manner outlined above for 1934. It is noted that the Investigating Committee recommended on page 28 of its report that W. H. Amos and A. J. Young not receive any rental or parity payment because they did not divert any of the cotton acreage assigned to them as shown on their Bankhead applications. That recommendation was concurred in by the State Committee and County Committee. The history for the farm was determined on the basis of the production on the whole farm. Where there are two or more cotton producers on a farm it has been found impracticable in all the farm programs to establish cotton production histories for the individual producers or to determine performance for the individual producer unit on the farm. We therefore recommend that rental and parity payments be made to W. H. Amos and A. J. Young on the basis of their shares in the planted acreage of cotton on the farm, the same treatment as is recommended by the Investigating Committee for the other producers on the farm. 94 Reporter's Statement of the Case 55. A recomputation of the amount payable to plaintiffs in accordance with the memorandum approved by the Acting Secretary of Agriculture, set out above, shows an overpayment to plaintiffs of $12,508.17 under the four Victoria contracts and an overpayment to plaintiffs of $207.15 under contract 9003 for the Wilson area, that is, a total overpayment of $12,715.32. 1935 COTTON ACREAGE REDUCTION PLAN ($5,932.93 WITHHELD FROM TENANTS) 56. In addition to the contracts referred to under the preceding heading for 1935, plaintiffs also executed pursuant to the same statutory authority under date of March 15, 1935, another similar 1935 contract No. 9029 covering certain lands owned by plaintiffs located in the Armorel area. That contract replaced a part of a 1934 contract (No. 1196) and was similar in nature to contract No. 9001 referred to in finding 51. It was likewise similarly accepted by the Secretary of Agriculture. On various dates between September 1935 and August 1936, defendant paid plaintiffs the total amount of $33,766.16 under contract No. 9003 (referred to in finding 53) and a total amount of $14,411.12 under contract No. 9029. 57. The qualifications for signing a contract under the 1934 and 1935 cotton acreage reduction plan are set out in finding 34. Administrative rulings applicable for 1935 to the 1934 and 1935 cotton acreage adjustment plan issued by the Secretary of Agriculture on February 20, 1935, provided in part: 1. Eligibility for Signing Contracts for 1935 Only.— Any producer who is an owner, cash tenant, standing or fixed-rent tenant, or a managing-share tenant (jointly with the landlord), and who operates or controls a farm on which cotton was planted in 1933 and/or 1934 and on which cotton will be planted in 1935 (subject to Administrative Ruling No. 10 herein) and which was not covered by a 1934 and 1935 Cotton Acreage Reduction Contract in 1934, may be a party to such a contract covering such farm for the year 1935, subject to these Administrative Rulings and such as may hereafter be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture; * Reporter's Statement of the Case 114 C. Cls. 58. Instructions pertaining to 1935 cotton price adjustment payments issued by the AAA in December 1935 provided: The following instructions are issued with the force and effect of regulations and unless and until amended by the Secretary of Agriculture shall apply to the operation and administration of the 1935 Cotton Price Adjustment Payment Plan so far as concerns the requirements and functions of the Department of Agriculture. * 7. Q. How will cotton price adjustment payments be divided among individual producers on a farm who are entitled to share therein? A. One check covering each application (Form No. C. A. P. 2) will be made to the person making the application for the farm and this person as trustee will pay to those entitled to share in this payment their proper share thereof as fixed under the Rule for Distribution. RULE FOR DISTRIBUTION OF COTTON PRICE ADJUSTMENT The following rules for making and distributing the 1935 cotton price adjustment payment shall apply: * 2. The rate at which such persons shall share shall be determined as follows: In accordance with the following rules set forth in this part "A," the amount of cotton price adjustment payment which may be made respecting the farm shall be determined, then divided among the several producer units in the farm if it was operated in 1935 as two or more producer units, and ultimately divided among the persons by or for whom cotton was produced in 1935 on the farm. If the cotton produced in 1935 on the farm belongs to one person only, he shall be the sole person entitled to share in the cotton price adjustment payment payable in respect of such cotton. Likewise, if the cotton produced in 1935 on any producer unit belongs to one person only, he shall receive the entire amount of the cotton price adjustment payment attributable to such cotton. If two or more persons under their lease or rental or cropping agreement (whether written or oral) share in the cotton crop (or its proceeds) produced on the farm or any producer unit thereof and 94 Reporter's Statement of the Case cotton so produced is sold jointly before dividing it into such shares, the cotton price adjustment payment attributable to such cotton so sold shall be divided among them in the proportion in which they share such cotton crop or its proceeds; but if cotton so produced is divided into such shares and is then sold, each such person shall receive the entire amount of the share of the cotton price adjustment payment attributable to his cotton so sold. 4. Wherever it is shown that the payee of a cotton price adjustment payment check has refused or failed to distribute such payment in accordance with the rules set forth in this Rule for Distribution, (1) no further application for payment on Form No. C. A. P. 2 executed by such person shall be approved or received, no check shall be issued or delivered to such person after the date such showing is made, and no share of the cotton price adjustment payment payable under any application made respecting the farm subsequent to the application as to which he so refused or failed to distribute the payment shall be paid to such person, (2) he shall be required to refund to the United States forthwith the amount which he so refused or failed to distribute, which when received shall be paid over to the person(s) to whom he so refused or failed to distribute it, (3) any amount which he fails so to refund to the United States shall be deducted from any share(s) of any cotton price adjustment payment (s) which otherwise would come to him and/or from any payment (s) which may be or become due to him under a 1934 and 1935 Cotton Acreage Reduction Contract (Form No. Cotton 1 or 101) and/or a contract under the Cotton Adjustment Program for 1936-39. ** * 59. The investigating committee, heretofore referred to, determined from an examination of plaintiffs' books and records and from interviews with plaintiffs' tenants and share croppers, at which a representative of plaintiffs was present, that plaintiffs had failed to distribute to certain of their cash tenants, who operated on lands covered by plaintiff's contracts, parts of the rental payments made by defendant to plaintiffs which were applicable to the land operated by such tenants; that plaintiffs had also failed to divide the parity payments between themselves and their tenants and share croppers in proportion to their respective |