929 DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. Administration maintains that any DDT in milk in interstate commerce is illegal.* The effect of DDT on birds and on their reproductive powers and on other wildlife," the effect of DDT as a factor in certain types of disease in man such as poliomyelitis, hepatitis, leukemia and other blood disorders, the mounting sterility among our bald eagles' have led to increasing concern in many quarters about the wisdom 8 There has been no formal regulation governing DDT in milk. By informal rulings however there can be no DDT in milk. For proposed regulations on other pesticide chemicals see 23 Fed. Reg. 324 (Jan. 1958); 23 Fed. Reg. 976 (Feb. 1958). 5 DeWitt, H-Bomb in the Garden Patch, No. Car. Wildlife, Sept. 1957, p. 4; Springer, Insecticides, Boon or Bane? 58 Audubon Mag. 128, 176; Strother, Backfire in the War Against Insects, Reader's Digest, June 1959, p. 64. 6 Biskind, Public Health Aspects of the New Insecticides, 20 Am. J. Digestive Diseases (1953), p. 331; Longgood, Pesticides Poison Us, American Mercury, July 1958, p. 33. 7N. Y. Times, Sept. 13, 1958, p. 21. * See the comments by Congressman Lee Metcalf, Cong. Rec. App., March 18, 1959, A2375, Sept. 2, 1959, pp. 16300-16301. Congressman Metcalf said: "We all know of plant or wildlife loss from chemical controlssuch as the death of fish in Montana trout streams in areas sprayed by DDT; the virtual wiping out of quail and rabbit populations in two areas treated with heptachlor in the South. Considerable damage to valuable fish and wildlife resources has occurred unnecessarily because chemicals were applied without sufficient knowledge of accepted procedures or without full regard to the consequences." Rachel Carson wrote in The Washington Post, April 10, 1959, p. A12: "During the past 15 years, the use of highly poisonous hydrocarbons and of organic phosphates allied to the nerve gases of chemical warfare has built up from small beginnings to what a noted British ecologist recently called 'an amazing rain of death upon the surface of the earth.' Most of these chemicals leave long-persisting residues on vegetation, in soils, and even in the bodies of earthworms and other organisms on which birds depend for food. "The key to the decimation of the robins, which in some parts of of the use of this and other insecticides. The alarms that many experts and responsible officials have raised about the perils of DDT underline the public importance of this case. the country already amounts to virtual extinction, is their reliance on earthworms as food. The sprayed leaves with their load of poison eventually fall to become part of the leaf litter of the soil; earthworms acquire and store the poisons through feeding on the leaves; the following spring the returning robins feed on the worms. As few as 11 such earthworms are a lethal dose, a fact confirmed by careful research in Illinois. "The death of the robins is not mere speculation. The leading authority on this problem, Professor George Wallace of Michigan State University, has recently reported that 'Dead and dying robins, the latter most often found in a state of violent convulsions, are most common in the spring, when warm rains bring up the earthworms, but birds that survive are apparently sterile or at least experience nearly complete reproductive failure.' "The fact that doses that are sub-lethal may yet induce sterility is one of the most alarming aspects of the problem of insecticides. The evidence on this point, from many highly competent scientists, is too strong to question. It should be weighed by all who use the modern insecticides, or condone their use. "I do not wish to leave the impression that only birds that feed on earthworms are endangered. To quote Professor Wallace briefly: 'Tree-top feeders are affected in an entirely different way, by insect shortages, or actual consumption of poisoned insects. . . . Birds that forage on trunks and branches are also affected, perhaps mostly by the dormant sprays.' About two-thirds of the bird species that were formerly summer residents in the area under Professor Wallace's observation have disappeared entirely or are sharply reduced. "To many of us, this sudden silencing of the song of birds, this obliteration of the color and beauty and interest of bird life, is sufficient cause for sharp regret. To those who have never known such rewarding enjoyment of nature, there should yet remain a nagging and insistent question: If this 'rain of death' has produced so disastrous an effect on birds, what of other lives, including our own?" The article by Dr. George J. Wallace referred to is Insecticides and Birds, Audubon Mag. Jan.-Feb. 1959, p. 10. See also The Halogenated Hydrocarbons Toxicity and Potential Dangers (U. S. Dept. Health, Education and Welfare 1955) pp. 335 et seq. I express no views on the merits of this particular controversy. Nor do I now take a position on the issue of mootness. But I do believe that the questions tendered are extremely significant and justify review by this Court. No. 713. VASSOS v. SOCIETA TRANS-OCEANICA CANOPUS, S. A., ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Jacob Rassner for petitioner. Victor S. Cichanowicz for respondents. Reported below: 272 F. 2d 182. No. 716. MACRIS v. SOCIEDAD MARITIMA SAN NICOLAS, S. A., ET AL. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Jacob Rassner for petitioner. John H. Dougherty for respondents. Reported below: 271 F.2d 956. No. 696. FEDERAL BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL. The motion for leave to use prior record is granted. The motion to perfect the record and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied. Charles F. O'Neall for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bicks, Richard A. Solomon, John L. FitzGerald, Max D. Paglin and Ruth V. Reel for the Federal Communications Commission, Thomas H. Wall for WHEC, Inc., and Frank U. Fletcher for Veterans Broadcasting Co., Inc., respondents. Reported below: 106 U. S. App. D. C. 162, 270 F. 2d 914. No. 370, Misc. YORK v. FLORIDA. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First Appellate District. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Richard W. Ervin, Attorney General of Florida, George R. Georgieff and Joseph Nesbitt, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent. Reported below: 114 So. 2d 448. No. 732. LOCAL UNIONS Nos. 189, 262, 320, 546, 547, 571 AND 638, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL-CIO, ET AL. V. JEWEL TEA CO., INC. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Lester Asher, Bernard Dunau and Robert C. Eardley for petitioners. George B. Christensen for respondent. Reported below: 274 F. 2d 217. No. 704. CAUDLE v. UNITED STATES; and No. 705. CONNELLY v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS is of the opinion certiorari should be granted. MR. JUSTICE CLARK and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER took no part in the consideration or decision of these applications. John J. Hooker, Eugene Gressman and C. Arthur Anderson for petitioner in No. 704. Jacob M. Lashly, John H. Lashly, Paul B. Rava and Alan Y. Cole for petitioner in No. 705. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States. Reported below: 271 F. 2d 333. No. 502, Misc. SHAPIRO v. JOSEPHSON ET AL. Supreme Court of New York, New York County. Certiorari denied. No. 574, Misc. JAKALSKI v. UNITED STATES. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Petitioner pro se. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States. Reported below: 267 F. 2d 609. No. 671, Misc. TENTIARY, ET AL. tiorari denied. NANCE v. WARDEN, MARYLAND PENI- 362 U.S. No. 513, Misc. March 28, 1960. JOHNSON ET AL. v. UNITED STATES. Certiorari denied. Morris Lavine for C. A. 9th Cir. petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Robert G. Maysack for the United States. Reported below: 270 F. 2d 721. United No. 584, Misc. MCGLOIN v. UNITED STATES. States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Certiorari denied. Lawrence Speiser for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wilkey, Beatrice Rosenberg and Kirby W. Patterson for the United States. No. 422, Misc. LONGSTRETH v. MCGEE, DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL. Supreme Court of California. Certiorari denied. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this application. Arthur L. Johnson for petitioner. Rehearing Denied. No. 40. PHILLIPS CHEMICAL Co. v. DUMAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 361 U. S. 376; No. 43. FORMAN v. UNITED STATES, 361 U. S. 416; No. 648. CHAN WING CHEUNG, ALIAS BILL Woo, v. HAGERTY, OFFICER IN CHARGE, U. S. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ante, p. 911; No. 490, Misc. RYAN v. TINSLEY, WARDEN, 361 U. S. 538; No. 538, Misc. FLORES v. ELLIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., 361 U. S. 972; and No. 649, Misc. COLLINS v. DICKSON, WARDEN, 361 U. S. 957. Petitions for rehearing denied. |