The Wikipedia article on Wickard v. Filburn claims that:
Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops...
Numerous other sources also claim this, including two that I would normally consider reliable.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered the unauthorized wheat destroyed and fined him 49 cents a bushel for his illegal production: $117.11.
That is why Roscoe Filburn, a small farmer in Ohio, had to destroy wheat that exceeded production quotas in a 1942 case, even though he was growing the wheat for his own use and had no intention to sell it.
However, I don't see anything in the record establishing that Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops, but rather, from my reading of the case, he was given the choice of paying a fine, delivery up to the Secretary, or storage.
The claim was added to the Wikipedia article on October 22, 2009, in this edit. I can't find any source that makes this same claim before October 22, 2009.
Where I've looked for evidence that he was ordered to destroy his crops and found none:
- Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
- Filburn v. Helke, 43 F. Supp. 1017 (S.D. Ohio 1942)
- 27 Minn. L. Rev. 575 (1942-1943)
- New York Times "The Power to Regulate" [New York, N.Y] 13 Nov 1942: 22.
The first volume of "Agriculture Decisions: Decisions of the Secretary of Agriculture Under the Regulatory Laws of the United States Department of Agriculture" was in 1942, so it doesn't reach far enough back.
Was Roscoe Filburn ordered to destroy his crops?
The evidence I have doesn't satisfy my needs because the New York Times and the Globe and Mail may have independently verified the claim or they may be repeating an unsourced wikipedia edit, and I haven't been able to examine the full record to confirm whether there was or was not an order to destroy the crops.