v2504-1176

20

CONCLUSION.

Appellants desire to make it clear that their posi-

tion in this case is not to be understood as being op-

posed in principle to the extension of social security

benefits to whatever extent may be deemed advisable.

However, they are strongly opposed to any extension

except by orderly and well considered legislative ac-

tion embodying adequate provision for administrative

procedure if the self-employed are to be included. In

no other way can the confusion which would otherwise

result be avoided, and in no other way can the checks

and balances, fundamental to the American form of

government, be preserved.

Dated, San Francisco, California,

April 28, 1948.

Reginald H. Linforth,

James I. Johnson,

Attorneys for Appellants.

Calkins, Hall, Linforth & Conard,

Of Counsel.

(Appendices I and II Follow.)

---

archive.org Volume Name: govuscourtsca9briefs2504

Volume: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2504

Document Link: http://archive.org/stream/govuscourtsca9briefs2504#page/n1175/mode/1up

Top Keywords (auto-generated):

newspapers, social, security, performed, vendors, magazines, services, code, bill, delivery, news, distribution, age, section, revenue

Top Key Phrases (auto-generated):

social security, internal revenue, revenue code, services performed, maga zines, shopping news, section 1607, fixed price, employer employee, december 31, coverage provisions, veto overridden, tax solely, taxing provisions, subsequent delivery

Document Status: UGLY