Business Library 

CLASS·------

BOOK------------

DOC. ftOOM 


\ . 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION 

--DIVISION OF REVIEW 

.. 0 .,. 

0 ., . c u ,._\. .:> 

1' • .... ·' Tj 

9 _., ,., T ("' ~ ... rj. ' I .. . .. 

c ~) 

4 ./ 

... 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE UNDER THE NIRA 

By 

Paul C. Aiken 

WORK MATERIALS NO. 81 

·1 ~. R. A. r. u v c 

I Dl E p iLK 'Jl M K ll r.l 

NRA ORGANIZATION STUDlES SECTION 

MARCH, 1936 

9838 

Peu.l C. Ai 1-c:m 

YPJ\. GRGAl~IZA~ICE STTTI?S S~CT!:G! 

: :_il__i.C?, 1'"'~6 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

University of Florida, George A. Smathers Libraries with support from LYRASIS and the Sloan Foundation 

http://archive.org/details/admvela36unit 
0 R :: CJ R D 

T 1i s s tudv C'f ) .. d"l in1. st 0 t ivo LC',..,. pnrl Pr0 ,... · u r e> unc1. 0 :i. h~ '' I RI\. 

"'<" S u rA-onr "d h;v lr . Pa11 l C. Ai1r"' n 0f tl o :-::lA 0r ~n tio n ~s SP. ction, Hr. Willil" '1 W. :B~ rd P. r i n r.hP. r . P. . 

As tho titlo i nc icp t P.s t ho t:P, t } or hpc; t'tt orrro t od c::m <dminist r c=t tivP. 

1 , stu c'lv 0f tho - ntionnl I no.u str i Pl ""cOvP. r~r Act r nd i t s administr At i on y lU{A . HP. c1 -:>oTI'l oc1 it c1oc:: irE'b lP t o uo~ a n. intr 0ductor;r 

discu sion of ad :in i strf'1tiv"' t hoorv . This is tho uru ~ of ? a r t I , 

in,-.} ir.h t} 0 trr:HlitionnJ thoori S DT 0 0 X8 Tl1 i '1o(l A.nd [\ survoy i s thP.n 

ma d "' of ·hat t ho r ourt s oay t)1"" ' ' do Pnd of ,...,ha.t t hP. ourt s actu a lly 

do in thP. CA S"'S son d to thorn . 

Tho r P.ason f 0 r tho otud.v lios i n · ·hFtt 4.RA d i d o r f a.i J "ld to do as 

A mattP. r of 11 duo u r 0r.P.ss 11 0f l Ft'..,. • ThC! snb stPnC"'! of t hR stu.d;r, mith 

r osu oc t t o 1TRA u r o r.Qciur"l i t0 Je fo· --l ·.J- ·in,·Pn rt rr· i n t he con _, idsl' on 

of p roc odu r Al enc'l sub st C' nti v "' ·orobl 0 'TIS i n r.or 0 - "'1P 1-ing Ancl codo 

administrat ion, ,..,hir.h rni p!h t h r'! V0 bo on jo~t d t0 a.dv or s P. judi c i Ftl 

trea t mo nt ha d not tho cN1 os :;oon t:> ~T"J t,.., d. by t he s,1D r "':rl"' Court 1 s 

do cis io n of Uay ~7 , 1935. 

ThR ropdo r o is n r imPr i lv nt aros o~ in t h o D0r tions of thR 

s t udy [lof i nit o] >r ro Pt oc'l. t0 -~ ._A 'JA;'r t J:o. or qf oro n i sh t o turn A.t OnCP. 

to Pa rt II, b og i nn i n;£: • ith C:1f-J ot a r V, r'! l t hou gh it is to bR obsorv"ld 

tha t this chap t P.r ,,..,RS rrr i tt"ln 'TIP. r ol y PS 8 . 'DA rt of th"l R:Uthor 1 S 

concou t of tho stuCl.'r as A ,...,holo. I t "T<:'. S not t h ou ,g;h t of m~=>rol ;v a s a n 

introduc tor:r r.hPDt or t o Pr rt II. 

A third nP r t of t ho studv troats '~"' it h t ho constituti0na l u owP.rs 

a nd t h o ir (l_ol og8 t i on invC'lvoc1 i n t ho RA and 1-,P..A. Th P. J.inos of cas <=J s 

a.nd t ho thoorios n~=> r. sA v to tho D 0 '"1o r s p u rpo rtod. to ha.vo bRon g r a nt<=Jd 

b'! t h o 1i IRA f\ r o lin c1 . Thon , t ho "1F'117l"'r of tho ~=>ga tion of 

tho so onro l~ S i s consi d"3ro .\ ~i h UC" rtic '. .C~ r 0 !'1Uhasi s g ivAn to thA 

r "3mOt o and nume rou s rP.d0 l oea t i ons, a.s mo l l CI S to t h o qu Astion Of wha.t 

uorso n s could u r0p o r 1y ~<=J ci o t ho u omn r s of t h P Act. 

La tl r, in .g sir"l to offor y:~ ro t ha n a critica l a na l ysis, thA 

studJr :o oints o 1t DOss i b l o q opns of f o r o nt aJ l i ng too closP. judicia.l 

control. 

It c a n ha.:tdl' bo doniod the1t unc3.Ar t ho u rov i sions of thA 

Rocovqr r Ac t t h o 1:BA procos s os o f "' rne. ':i f: pnc1 cod."'l a .. 1P.ndm~=>nt 

vrR r "l l ogi sla t i vo i n na tur <=J . :ao c auso of t h i s it cp.n bo arguo d. 

r oasonably that 11 d.u9 Drocoss 11 , in t h "'! u r o c od_ura l sRn s P. of notico and 

thP. d<=Jv P.lopmP.nt of f A.c t s t h rough hAE'.::' i -'1g s sufficiRnt t o j ustify tho 

aop roval of cof'cs And P"l 0 ndrnonts, mps o t n~=>coss ft r in 1TRA c od omal·:ing to a ny g r oa t or Cl. c;g ~o t o s f.'T oP.t "'r o.R?T RP. t h;:, .. n it is 

nocRss.ery i n t ho lPg i sl a tiv o pCil'ns of t ho Cong r oss. In r Acogn ition 

of t h is :9oin t of vi o..-r t h"'l :-~ h0 r has ncl r'~=>d a d i scussion of it in 

Chapter V. I t i s h i s inton t t he t tho st udy sh ou ld v~=>v t h9 

iJ!l!:lr"'l s sion t ha t ~=> obs<=Jrva nc "' of p r o c odura.l 11 Cl u o pro c "lss"' on t hR 

u art of NRA. in COO. P.-Tl'la 1: i ng "F.l.S o_osirAbl R, bo caUS"3 of thA uossibility 

9838 -i-

t tho ou r . in ~sos a r i i in on ,or io mith thn on nrnon~ nt 

of cod o s woul d g i, o r. sid" <'ti '~ t n t lv:. ft' t- f i nCl i n. mo t " o s of I • 

It i not hi i nt n t th."' t th<=~ t 1dy . hnul-1 onv'";'r ho i mr ossi on t hl't 

tho obsorv,q r. o of ro co urnl 11 nuo ro cF>ss 1 ns a .r.2.fl.ltiromont of r.odomn in i n n Rb. <=~ son ° . 

It i fully r . co n i zo(l hnt stud s 

uar ti u l fl r l . as it on t or i n t o < "'"O ('~ts of 

f th~ ubjF>ct of this s t ud,r, 

d"linis t rc, t i 0 1 ."'7 i n mhi ch 

th"' cou ts hnv 0. h<' dP d c1 o1"1!! f "'T>'T r:.oci. s inl' s , Mt. y hFI V"' u oints of vit:1"1 incon istont wi th t h iC> Ut hC' 1 s. }l}lp Stnd;v , Of r.Ou rcq , 0 SO.nt s thP. 

autho r' s u oint o vi oT>'T a r. d tho r.on onts ~n~ r.o nr.Jus ion s r<=~ h i s own 

nd no t off icial nttAr :J nc<=~s . I n t h o end'..l~ mill b<=~ found a comfTlAnt 

on8 rovi 8 r of tho nanuscriu t . 

At thA ba C' 1 of t h is ~1J or t ·ri 11 bo. found 

studies und8r t akon bv tho :Jivision of RPvi o.m • 

:~ ::1 ch 23 , 1936 

. L. C. ilc;rshC111 

DirP. c t or, Divis i on of Rovio.m 

- i i-
---

:r ... --.:. 
TABJ.J:: Gl CuETEFTS 

Pae;e 

1 tte :..· of Trr:m.smi t t£ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 

A Gc: e:::nl Re ie t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 

CEAPr'fK1 I 

Int:i:ocl:nc ti on 

P 2xt l. An ACI.rJi ni c: t n-t. t i ~ Lm! T nc 1cgr ouncL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 4 

CHAP'IER II 

The T'1err ·" · f Adr:inistrn.t i on 

I . Se:9ar n.ti on of Gove .1.nnent a l Po 1ers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 7 

I I. Gr o\?th 0f Aclhli n i '"'tr8ti on antl. 

Ad·1inistra tive L::nv ....... . .. . . . .. .... ...... ..... . ... . . 8 

III . Delegation rf Powe· ~1d Fin~ li ty in 

its Exercise . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

;~ AP TE~~ I I I 

Revie·; ' -.r e Cour t !'.: c • ..r1CI. S.""fpgu a r ds Agai n st Abus e 

of Ac~ 1i:1 stra tive c~ te r 

11 l.T.._ heal 11 anc. 11 hi -=> i. .. er 11 l EW ....... ... .................... . ... 1 3 

11Dl.le PI'O c ess o:f Lc:tw 11• , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 14 

Ul trc .. c·.i'lC. I n t ra Vires....... . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. .S 

Juriso.ictionnl r>nd Constitutional Fact...................... 1 5 

~ue st 1scof ·L aw ......... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 

Di sc r eti 0na r y and i,inist e ri a l Action .................... .. .• 1 6 

Requi:..·ements of Evidence ........... . ........................ 17 

Self-Li;ni t at i on by t he CouTts - 11P oli tica l 

Questions " - Exhaust ing .Ava i lable Adminis trative 

Rer1ed es .... .. ..................................... ... .... 18 

CHAPTEl1 IV 

Administrative Fin lit r ancL t'r..e C,:1,se s. 

I. NarroVJ Re view .. ...• .• •. .... .. . ... .. .•.. . .............. . 20 

Th e Govermllent an(; its Inte r jJ.El,l Affr:.irs ...... .... ..•...• 21 

The Gcvernrnent e .-t el1C:.s a Pri vilege .... .. ................ 22 

The Governr.1ent supplies 2 Service .... . .................. 24 

II. B:.."oaC_ Revi ew ............................................ 25 

Th e I n t e rstC1.t t-> Co:·arGG:r ce Co, 1mi ssi on ................. ... .. 25 

Th e Fede r a l Trade Cou!'li ssi c·n. .............. . . • . . . . • • . • • 28 

Sub s tan t i ve Due Pr0 c e ss anc". Pri :~ t e Prope r t ;;r 

1113usiness Affe cted '.7i t h e. u~J. c In ~ere::: t 11 ••••••••••• •• • 29 

III. JuT'i sd_ict i r' rlal Fact..................................... 32 

Us e to Circumvent Nar nwr Revio.vr . .....••...•........ . .•.• 32 

Rece11t mpor a~n ............ ........... ............... 33 

Avci C: ing t he The ory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 

9833 - iii-

TABLE GF CONTENTS - 2 

Page 

IV. Generul Pro ed.ural Requir m"' ts. 

I 11-Defined ............... . . .. .. ...... . 34 

Requir ment Vary- 7it· in Field- With Fields .. . ... . . 34 

Usuall~r Acceptecl ~ auirer.1r 1t - .r otice - Hearing.. . . . . 35 

Part I I. rroble:.1s of Achiinistration etncl Administrative 

Lnv1 in liRA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 37 

CHAPTER V 

Tn . s :1<: . 1 . . 

Let:i ~letion by ScheJ11e .... .... . ... . ... .. .. .. .... . . . ......... 38 

Lec islation o r Ad judicati on - T e 'I'ariff Cor.missi on .. . . .. ... 41 

ThE' Inte r stat e CCYrnme rce Co 11.i ssi on - Hearing RequireLJen t of the Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 

Forcing Issuance or Hestra.int rf Codes .. . . .. .. .. .. ..•.. . . .• 49 

ConC::.i tional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • 50 

CHAPI'ER VI 

The Acirini s tra ti ve Approa ch m, P , 1 - t . T · · 1 ... 1e r o er:1 ai.1C!. ae e CLlnl qu.e . .. . . ....•. . ... .. .. . .. .. ..... • 

Position of I11 ustr~r - J3ar gc:d.ni!lg vri th lJRA - •..... •....• • .• 

Rt..lle by 1." ajor i ty Vo te .. ... ....... . . .. . .. ... ...... .... . . . .. . 

Position of NR.A - Haste anC!. Confusi on •..•.. .•.... .••••••••• 

Proceci11re - Personnel .. . ............. .. . . ... ... . .. ... .. ... . 

Inct.us tr~,r Se l f-Governrnent ........... . ........... ...... . _. . ..• 

CHAPTER VI I 

Juri sci.iction anc1 Jurisd icti ona l Fa ct 

52 

52 

53 

54 

54 

56 

iJi t hin Pur:po se s of t he .Act . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . . • • . . • . . . . . . . . • . • 59 

Relati c1·1 r;i tl~ o t he r Governmenta l Agenci e s . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . • • • 59 

Proyonents 1 e~)I·ese nt ti ve Ch.'lrc-,cter................... . ... 60 

C.F...APT.SR VI I I 

The Procedur a l ScheTile and t l1..o tiearings .. 

The Act C'-nd. Procedure .... •...... .. •. . .• .. . . .. ... ... ... ... .. 61 

Co11trovers r an d. Fa cts .. . . .. . .. .... .. .......... . .. . . ... .. .. . 62 

S:1o rt anc I nadeoua.te Heari~ -.s . . . . . . . • . . • . . • . . • . . . . . . • • • • • • • 63 ... .._ .. 

A.l""' C:,1.lr1ent a:,.Y).d. Opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 

C:."'o s s Exarnin8 t i C'l1 . . • . . . • . • • • • • • • • • . • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 64 

Rebuttal Testir.1cny anc~ Confid.e::1ti::..l ::::.e-ports. .... . .......... 65 

Rel a tion to witnesses - Sub}Joena . . . . ......... . . .. .......... 66 

Oath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 

Orc:tl ~Iearin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 

9838 - Lv-
••

• • ' 1 
~'in( inl;<' nne h~ 0::c 

Adnis• ibilit:· n.nd r:-el ,"ht (I! .£vide:: e ................. . ... . . . • ss 

Co:nte:nts of t:1e. Tiecorc.l. . .. .......... . . . ......... . .. . ... . . . .. . • 68 . ' 1 t~g :F·inci.ing_, anc. t '1e F, t ua 1. :S"'~.'' lS - cllCJ.. Exar ~~') cs..... . .......... u. 

T it Ap 11·ovo.l T .o0 ~·· . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

:SU~"c., e:: C'f l"Cl"J.: . . . . • . • • • . . • • • • . . . . . . • • • • • . • . . . • . . . • • . • • • . • • . • 74 

· J. ice ti 0n of Fin0 i nc;s . . ... .. ................... ... ......... ?'I 

CHAPTER X 

Pro~le : s i !l Publicn.ti "~ , 1iotice , .::::nd 0t'1er Ad :1 ini st r :.:tt i ve 

Acti on by lillA. 

I. Pu"licC'Itl0n f _.,.dJ·::. in ~~tl·.:-tive. r..egul ations. . ........... . ... 79 

II . Hotice anc" c-. rtici})ati "~n in the I 1 duotrie.s '. . . .. .......... 81 

.Acti vi tiec: . .. ........ . ... .. ... . ............. . ........... . 

III. Oth er Fo~·r:1aJ. A ti0ns ·o:7 lJRA............................... 83 

I nt er.!.) I .. e t ct t i c n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 

.A.ule lldiJen t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 

E:\:e~pt on a11d. Excep t i l'l1S ................................. 84 

Strj'S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 

I V. Jeed_~r De t el.,minat ion s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 8 5 

V. Vi ol at i ons by lffiA '?f Its 0'.m P rocecl.ure ••.•....•..........• 85 

CHAPTER XI 

Probleus i n Sub s t an ti ve Du e Process 0f Law -- and 

AdJ 1ini stl·[l.ti nn. 

I. ReD.sonablen ess.......................... . ................. 8? 

II. A Pro1 l eu in dr tr ti on ............................... 89 

I I I • f.ial f easance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 

CE.AP'rER XI I 

C0 :? lic.:1 e 2:11d Enfo r ce ent Activi ties. 

The rob e~ of Enfor c euent • . ...•..•.....••••.••.... . .•..•...• 97 

T:!.e Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 

Interpret at i ons as a Pr obl em.. . . . • . . . . • . • . • • • . • . • • . . . • • • . • . . • 97 

Lethoc, s 0f Enf orcement - Limita ti on of Ac t - Boycott -

o>:1~Jl ~?.l:. ce 11 - Sui t s by Inc\.ivi C.uals - Enfo rce;'!ent ....•...• 97 

P1., o cet:...ure . .. "' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • 98 

Ac'.r.1L1istra tive 11:9ue Pro c ess 11 ••• • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 102 

Po.rt I II. P o;.,re r s cf t 11P -T . I.R.A. anci Thei r 

Delec;at i on .........••.•...............•.......• 1()3 

98::::>8 - v-

T L.C c:, CulTTKJTS - 4 

CH.APTEH XIII 

Po'.T:i..'S of t : I. '1 .A . . 

S.9ecific Pone r .... ............... . ......... .......... ... . 

n)liec~ r'llu. 

The Coi.JTTlerc 

The Concept 

~1e Gonce t 

Incid .ntC'l.l Po\!G rs ................... ..... ....• 

Cc,ncep t . . . .. . . . . ...... . .. .. . ..... .. . ... .... . 

r)f Unfnir Con1ne t i ti nn . . . .............•........ 

0f ":Business Aff .ctec: '"lith a Public Inte rest" . 

.l.Jc..'""" ":.~ ~t eu ..... .•........•......... .. ...................• 

~ o ll£m r gancy 11 :Doctrine . . ......•................ . ......• 

The Pr0blen 0f "A'"'sesSI'1ents 11 ••• ••• ••••••••• •• ••••••••••••• 

Ch::~.p r XIV 

Dele ~at ion by Congres . 

Hi st c,r y of t :1e ~ :a..\:im - "De l eP.:C'.t il. po t e skts n on ·oot e st 

.. , 

p p e 

104 

104 

106 

109 

109 

110 

111 

111 

clelegP..ri 11 • • •••• •••••••••••• • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 3 

Delet>ati011 of Le :>c\1 Theo r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

Delet;a.tion an0. Stnndards i n t he Case s . . . • . • • • . . • • . • • . . . . • • 114 

Delegation by the President end l.i .R.A. 

Dele(;ation - A ~, r·"1_ Cte ri st ic rf AdninistrC'.ti n!l........... 117 

Delegation by t he Pre si (ent a.n0 Reno te "E.edelegation •..••.. 117 

Coo.e Authorities as Priva te Pe rs0ns. . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • 119 

Private Agencies i n Adninisterin ; Lfl.w,.............. ...... 120 

Public Cha racter of Code Au t hority Activiti es ..•....•....• 1 22 

Coc1e Autho riti es as Interested Persons.... . . . • • . . . . . . . . . • • 122 

Conclusion on Legal Sta tus of C0d.e A.ut:no ri ti es.......... .. 1 24 

StandarG..s fo r t he E:xerci se of Po·,:er .....•. . ••.•.... , . . . • . • 126 

Pm.ers Exercised by Code Aut ~10 ri ti e s.. .. ...... . ........... 1 27 

Part IV. Conclu sions a~C Sugsestions ....................• 1 31 

CE.APTER XV I 

Fore stalling H3road. Revie, 11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 132 

AdmiEistrati ve SeJ'egu.:1.rG..s aDc·. t he Chn.llenE;A of 

G.. :- ~in tr at on ............................................ 134 

Table c-f Cases.................... ........ ........... . ......... 345 

Table C'f Treatises , B:tief s , ;_elJ0 rts, e t cetera......... . ....... 355 

Table "£' La 1.7 Review Articles, lTotes a.:..1d. C' ~a .. rnent................ 359 

Ad.d_e l1dUJTI . . . . • . • • • . • . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 364 

9838 -vi-

- 1-

GEPERAL RE rn~: 

Th~ rit .r 1/h~s lone h0d ,n int~rost in urob ~ms of PdMinis r -

tivo larr and ~C!Tllinistrntion . So0n eft~ r )lo bACf'Tl1° rt -cArt of thP TRA 

staff bP. r~E!li z~d thrtt ho hEld ::on onnortuni.tv t o obs~rvo <1t -first h<1nd 

thP. oporaticn s of OnP of tho l~rgPst El~minis tr Ati vn offort 0 Vo r 

undortal':An bY our Gov~rnrrl'=~nt . As ~·• .A 1 s edMini strl'lti vo history u nfo d~d, 

hP boca!11A r ClltP.lV Cl'"ar P. thFlt it u r osontP.d n1Any uroblP.lTJS "rhi~h ~OUld. bo 

valu['lbl r a nr0echod f r om tho viovrooint of RdTTi i!listrPtivP. lA.m. At thP. 

timP. of tho Schocht r dF> ~ision (JTf.l.y ~7 , 19~5) hP. had ~oJ.loct ~d a 

considorablP amount of P'lf.ltorie l t o b~ usP.C. in a st udy rrhi~h h~ intAndod 

to ma:k-o i '11.Cl.opondon t of FRA. 

Tho intont of this stu~r h~s n0t E!l 'I'l~ boon to st~t P. mP.r~ly thP. 0 St b iShAd aclmi istratiVA l ctM fC'und. in thP ~8.S eS 0r lo i~~lly dAducibl"l from th<>Jn. In tho P.npirical sta to of acl.rninistrc<tivA 1 ('1'1'7 

thPre "1ight bo littlP of va lu.o in foll0wi ng such a na rron aup roach. 

RelthP-r, it has bP.on int~!lO P.d to sugf!P.St ,-rha t lc:tm might ~as on ly 

bo assunod fro!11 tho suggostions mr'IC~ by thP. ~ou rts in thPir ou iniO:tfS, 

or tho futurP. of tho lC''!'!T indicat~d by juflicial tr~nd s. This stud.y 

is n0t alonP. limitod to 11 duP. roC' ~ss of l anr 11 in th~ limitPd s~nso that 

.tlj.ArA !"lust bo a. nP.ll o s tabl i shoe\. ru,lo bFI s~d u~yon t h is cone opt boforo. 

a prob1o.m can bo ~onsido.rP.d. It i~ fP.lt thAt tho. courts havo. indica to.d 

that, in tho. main, good acl.mini strF~ t i VP. a~ t ic P. wil.l urovidA good lanr. 

The ad.mini st r!=lt i 'r"l ra~tic~ rrrust b o su~h th~t it o~ s. not sacrific8 by 

P.fforts towt=lrc:l. P.fficiRncy tho affording of full j'11st ico. to o.vo.ry 

indi viCl.ual. This doq s not !TJ'"Bn t ho t y ing d.orrn of administration by po.t ty 

procod 1ral qqui row~nts, but it CloP.s Jil"lAn the.t tho. old. nrocqdural rP.-

quir"lm"lnts and 8.ny no. n on "ls nP.r.ossary to Pssuro. o.qual justicP. to thos"l 

affo.ct"lcl. by a d.min istr?..t iC'!''. nrust b~ maint('lin"lo .• 

Tho first dutv of this study, si ~"l probably tho. majority of its 

r~a.d"lrs '!"Jill not bo trc=l.inoc. in, adTT~ istrp, tivo. l aw, is to o.stablish a 

bacl{grouncl in "the.t fi~ld. ThP. lP.gP 1 t h"lo ry of th ~ separa tion of 

gOVP.rnBP.ntal DO'vo rs, tho dolog~tion Of DOmA rs, is a nACASSary part Of 

such background. To u ndP. rstAnCl_ our 1"-'p;?.l systam, jucUcial rP.vio.mr with 

all its many nP~ ts must bo. considor d. Th"l P.dm inistra.tivA laV! 

cr~ a,tod bv our ~ourts sots forth t vro thoori~s of judicia} roviP.w, onP. 

broPd , tho other n0.rrom. ThP. ~lP.mP.nts, historical, nsyr-holo g ical, and 

analytical o.ntP.ring into thoso. th::.oriP.s of judi~ial rAvio.,., f! r~ ASS~ntial 

to an undP.rstanding of hom tho jucH~i~ l mind mi e ht au~roe~h thP. 

a.d.ministrativP. -oroblo.m urqs~:r1to.r by NRA. 

l} Tho. author's intP.rAst "7as first 0. ir~~t"ld to tho. auo.stion of tho. 

finality of ac'Lminist:rFtt ivo dqtorT'rlinR.t i on s r-rho.n a s a. grnduc>to. 

student e t PrincP.ton, Profossor E~qa d S. Cor~in nointo.d out tho. 

-oroblRm t0 him as a ubjo~t f or ro.s AB.rch. Otho.r quP.stions of 

a dmini strati VP. lar. h<_vo. b~on sug . P. sto.d bv anC'th"lr forfler tP.a chP.r, 

Prof"lssor J. Forro. st "lr Dav ison of t hP GP.org:P. '::78.shington Uni vorsi. ty 

Lp. 'tlf School, to mhom tho author i s osDo ~ialJ.y ind"lbtP.d, as also hP. 

is to Prof ssor ChBrJ.os S. Collier, 0f Gqorg o ~ashin ton University 

Lr.w School, Dr. Honnr iloining of Princoton Univorsi ty, JudgA 

P. W. So.wa.rd of thA FP.do.ral Coml"1unicPtions Commission ann ~1 r. 

Edmund H. Worthy, an attorn.o.y for th8 SRcuritio.s and Exchange 

Commission for thoir "lncouragPJ11°nt and HssistancA. 

98 38 
- 2-

The subject matter of the NIRA involved matter s of disputed economic 

and social character. Such. pr'oblems when treat ed administratively have 

been subject to the most careful scrutiny by the co~ts. Therefor~, it 

would seem that NRA should. h$-ve foresee·n the p o ssi b ili ty of llbroad reviewll 

and a t tempted to have met it. The scheme underlying the Act, both administr atively anci procedurally, had. little p recedent, and none for the 

extended use to which it wa.s put. NP..A should have rea sonably expected 

procedural requirements of .the na ture found in the llbroad reviewlt field 

to be im,posed upon it. In f a ct, little thought s e ems to have :teen given 

to the entire ~uestion of procedure until over a r.alf year after the 

passage of the Act. 

_As an illustrative agency, NRA was in a p osition considerably more 

difficu:l;t to define than that of most administrative boards. As the 

agent of the President' it ffi?JT have been endowed with certa in legal 

attributes. enjoyed b;y~ him. Obviously ·gre o.t O.ifficultJ lay in the f act 

that the l)osi tion of· final .admtn.ist'rat:ive authority was occupied by the 

Preside~t. · 

. . 

·A variety ·of ·technical problems in cocie mal<ing and code a.dministration provide the· major p_ortiqn of this study. There is little. need to 

ful!ly ~t te here a:t1 :of. thes-e problems. A brief su.rvey of the nature of 

these _problems, however, might, serve' to :point the direction taken by 

this stu~. · ~e admihist~ative approach .wa.s ' handicapped by hasty, inexperienced J!erso·nne:l, end a . !ai.lure to give early and thorough con- · 

sideration to _p:os-sibl'e. ·pr6bleu1s ·of administr 11t .ive law. Qp.estions of jur~ 

isd:Lctiona1 fact · aro·se·. _ SomE?, w~ re :uha.voidable, others might have been 

more carefully handled · if. a. · cons-iQ.er a tion o:f ~he p ossibility of judicial 

review had been had •. · .. . , · · · 

·NRA hearings ·were in the main· inad.equate. Tney often placed a 

premium upon short duration, ' rather than exh&ustive development of a 

factual basis. Rules against argument · and op inion were abused and no 

helpful .result is seen 'in prohipiting them. The powers of subpoena and 

punishment for perjury would have peen use:fui inst'ruments. 11Notice of 

opportunity. to be heard" was as full ·as ·de·sirable in the sense of hearing, 

notice, or an internal procedure within N.R.A. 

Li tt~e attention was paid to the ·problem of adm_issioili ty of evidence. The re quirement that all evidence relied upon must be in t h e 

record was not ac3.hered to. The factual ba.si s for findings was often 

inadequate, substantial evidence not having been t aken. The problem 

of b.urden of proof wa s frequently ill.-considered. The statement of 

the basis for action was not a l ways a s coople te a s desirable . . Publication of administr a.tive action ':Vas not compl e te or fully accessible. 

Better legal craftsmanship wo~ld have been of material assistance t_o 

N .R.A. Notice was usually given quite fully . The approach· to the 

problem f a iled to consider just what persons we re absolutely entitled to 

it, and to ~ow much time should have reasonably elap sed between notice 

and hearing • . Other formal actions by N .R.A. such a s int-erpretations. 

amendments, exemp tions and exceptions, and st ays were not given as full 

s a feguro:_ds procedurall;~r as would h ave been desirable. 

9838 
-.-

Compli.:->nce proced11re a s a nat rer of st atutor y nn. d con stitutional 

l aw did not seem to be in ru~mon y with t he courts r vier1s of tho pr oper 

charac ter of administrative enforcement . 

Examples of malfeasance y administrat ive officer s e not unknown in the ndministrntion of NRA . NRA wa s r osponsiole fo r the actions 

of i t s offi cel's nnd those of code nuthori ties, Ther e ar c a number of 

i nci dents r1her e NRA f a iled t o pr operly control a ct ion by the se persons. 

NRA di d no t always f ollow i ts own pr ocedur e . It s substantive a ction 

was not always buttressed by such an overwhel ming f act ual ba sis that 

i t would have be en i mpo ssi ble f or the cou r ts by use of the ll due pr oc ess 

of law11 concept to have contr olled the admi nistr at i ve ac t i on. 

A full con si der at i on of con sti tu t ional power s and the i ndications 

of the c ase s i s no t f ound e i ther in the dr afting of the lHRA or its 

admi nistr ation. The que stion of de ~ati n did not appecr to be i mportant aside from t he fact t hat extr eme r ede l ega tions wer e ]ndulged 

in. The redelegation of powe r to inter est ed per son s and to privat e 

persons not acting IJ.S public officers was open to seriou s qu e stion. 

A more careful con sider ation of t he se pr obl ems of administrative 

and constitution·tl law might have gone f ar to h<ive made lJ.R. A. a mode 

acceptable to t he courts. This would pr obably have ent .:U l ed serious 

procedural and subst ant i ve change s, although the same general obj ectives 

might have existed. 

9838 

P .. \ltT I 

A .r - D l.~ I N I S ': 1 T I V JJ 

1 ... ·r 1:1 _ (:I':Gll.G\J TD 

9838 

- EIJ:n:-'..OD CT IOIT 

'Ihc fi1·st o_,. 'ici<l t<1.t. e1.1ent. upon tht1 UIRA ( 1) mo.0.e by 

the Pr eside:1t ( 2 ) ··JointJd the Adrainistrt1.tivo "(\r ob lon : 

"It i s , fu-rt he r , n chn. ll on~c to adlainistr£1-

t ion . lle r.re re laxin0 sene of t he afeg "~. ro.s of 

the antit1·u st lt::.ws . Tle public must be 2 rotected 

against t he abuses th;-.t l ed t0 their enacthl.ent , a nd 

to this end we a r e ut tine i n ~o :tce of old p rinciples of unc:lec;;:ed COlirpetition SOi!le ner; Government 

controls. They must ab ove all be impf.'.r tial a nd 

just . Their purr os e i s to free busin0ss -not to 

sh.?.ckle it - a.nd no m2.n r;ho s k .nds on the cons t ruct i v e f ern r d-l ool:ing side of his indus tqr has anyt~ling to fe·nr fro:·1 them . To such o en the p~~ ortuni ties for ind.ivid:uc.l initia tive \7 ill l·e 09en more 

a.rnply tha n ever. Le t me make i t clear, ho\7eve r, 

tha t the a nti trust l ar:s s ti2.1 st '"'.:1d. fi ly against 

monop olies that restra.in c..o e c.nd p rice fi xing 

V•T:1ich a l l oYJs inord.in[1.te p rof its or 1.mf 9..irly high 

p rices ." 

Our econor.1ic :9hilosop hy , n ritten i n to our sta tutes (3) 

was one of free com~o eti tion, without co ope ~El tion which might le a d to 

restraints u-pon busi ness a nci. corn1e rce . Although the Anti-Trust Acts 

we re neve r com:9l etely and. energetica lly enfor ced , ( 4 ), consent-decrees 

a nd injunctions existed a t the time of thd pnss age of the lURA covering many inclu stries a nd tru.de s ( 5 ). These bear testimony to the f a ct 

that tertain industries end trades , c:.t leD.s t, f e lt the anti-trust laws 

inadequate. fo :..~e the depr ession the r e wel'G many suggestions tha t the 

anti- t rust laHs -;re e a Procrustean · bed 7lh ich ill afforded neede d individua l tre2.tment t o s pecitU. :9rob l ems ( 6) . During the ··mr these la':!s 

received sligl'.t attention. The dr i ve was t o .:_J rocLuce (7). Ho17 this was 

done, or hou the p roclucts \rere me.rke te cJ. mattere d litt l e , the demand 

beinf; so great. When our mar .. cets contra cted., it 1.-:as naturo.l to d.esire to 

continue or c ommenc e cooperati ve e.ction to che ck the f rantic efforts of 

individu.a.l plants to \le a ther the storm ( 8) ,• Ma ' of the ills of the depr ession CJ.nd its cont i nuc.nce ~·e re l a i d c-..t the door of the anti-trust larrs . 

Genere l Jo ~son, more ~o nsibl e for the NI3A than any other pe rson, 

has forcefully e x:_o re ssed h is vie\7S on this subj e ct (9 ). 

The t as:;: tha t N?..A. set fo r itself was to comp l e te a nd administer a body of de l ee;nted l eg isle.tion mo r e vo l uminous c:.nd more important in subject matte r and. effect ths.n e: ~ before unde rt.:llcen by e..n administrative body in this (or <W7 other Ei1£'lish speak ing) country. It 

involved the defini tion a ncl accept ance of maj or philos ophies of socia l 

and economi c i mp ort. To intellige ntly en d. rec,s onc.bl r sta te such imp ortant p olicie s a g i gai1tic p robl em of f a ct- finding 17?as created. It involve d 

more than the discovery crf pri mary facts . It involved 

983'8 
- 6-

the analysis Emcl eval~'"1 tion of such f:'"'.cts. The im~o ort;- ce of this 

function, 2.ncl t he crying ne ec~_ for Em r-;,dministrc.tive age"'lcy a nd experts to rerform it, r c.ther thr>n the court~ or the leg i sl a tive bodies, 

improperl r equi~'}:p ~cl. c.s they are to c: d_ ou tel~· ha nd.le such :probJ.eE'lS, 

was fully recor;nized. b~r those in hie:h p l c.ces in I-.?t..A ( 10). The c>.dequacy 

of the bo .~r create (:_ <:i.ncL · the st:::.tut e attem:9ting to c~ut~:..orize it, fror1 

the view·points of aCti.n inistro.tive [l.ncl. substanti8.1 lldue p rocess of l arr11 

conce -9 ts will be tl1.e sco )e of this :pop er • 

. . 

9838 
- '1-

CEAPTER II 

THE TriEORY OF A:DI'I!!I ST TIO T 

I. SEPARATION OF GOVERl- ;~~TAL POWE.L S ( l) 

.:my of the difficulti es whi 1 a drnini strat i on encounters 

arise from t h e " sepn ration of powcrs n doct r ine . Althou gh not as specifically r ecognized in t 11e Constitution a it is in the primary laws 

of orne of our St ates (2) , it finds suppo rt in the three fold division of the over1~en l structure set up by the Const itution (3) . 

Whether the framers were consciousl y fo llo· i ng; :ontesquieu, the 

British Constitution or t he Colonic:tl governmen t s , it is accepted 

t hat 'ontesquieu (4) t;< v e voice to the doctrine which became patriotic lmowl edge t o schoo l childr en , and r evered by our l awye r s (5). 

It was t his very reverenc e that has crea ted much of the difficulty,5:v). 

ot content it~ treating it as a fi ction our jurists have frequently employed the t h eo r y in way s that have caus ed great limi tations 

upon the natura l trend of g overnment, or strang e contortion to achieve 

t he needed or desired results (6 ). It seems well-established that in 

actual practice t here has alway s b een an adl:1ixture of g overnmental 

powers - that is, no one division o f r;overnr:1ent has eYerci sed all 

the powers anal~rti ca lly belonging to it un der ·the t heory (7). Legislatures have as a r.1atter of :1istorical practice don e ,judicia l acts 

such as g ranting divorces (8) , settinG a side a decree of p rob a te 

and orderin ~ R new· hearing wi t ll J.iberty o f ppeal (which had not 

before existed) b e g r anted (9) , declarirt6 a person . quilty of treason · 

and inflictinE; pena.l ties and confiscation of property of persons declared gllilty (10), nnd confirDinc a doubtful title to land (11). 

Although courts pretE:nd to apply the do ctrine to themselves (12), 

they make rules for their own Hocedure (13) a matter conferred 

upon Co ng r ess b;y the Co nstitution (14); the;>' gr an t certificates of 

naturalization (15) ,. · a function t hat seer.1 s ac1r.linistrative and one 

not involvi:ag a 11 case " of "con troversy " (16) a s those terms have 

been construed by t h e courts (17) . The examp les of executive exercise of both legislative and judici a l powers a re so numerous and will 

appear so often in t his pa:9er tha t t ... 1e y need no co ~ent here. The 

evidence indicates t hat the doctrine has never be en realized in practice (18) i n t~'le national and state governments (19) . Each department inherently demands enough p ower wha tever its nature ( 20 ) to 

carry out functions essenti a l to the preservation of its own integ rity. 

'1 ere has alway s been in our legal litera ture a ;recognition of this 

admixture of powers and the poli tic a l doctrine o·r lega l fiction nature 

of the t heory (21 ). flore recently there has been considerable criticism directed at the reveren ce given Mont esquieu 1 s fiction (22) as 

bei ng unscientific (23 ), inpractical (24) and a r.1 ere political doctrine ( 25). It can be seen by study t hat the development of the 

doctrine in t h is country has been strong l y flavored by judicial review; that it could have just as well developed along the lines of 

the "political question" noti ons ( 26) as it has in other governments 

(27). The burden of this theory in rela tion t o the growth of Administration and Ad.rninistrat'ive Law will be considered shortly. 

9838 
- 8-

II. GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW. 

The use of the administrative technique has had a phenomenal 

growth in the l a st half century (28) •. Up until then the 

growth hacl b een steady. Wi th the recognition of t he existence of 

administrative law ( 29) ·came increased demMds by the p roblem of 

modern society (30) for the u se of afuninistrative machinery (31) . Even when there has been frank hostility to t nis gr0wth it has gone 

on relentlessly (32). At present both in this country and England 

this situation presents a major battleground for opposing political 

forces (33). .. ~ 

The opponents of this phenomenon rally to their support 

both the doctrine.3 of judicial review (34) and "separation of powers. 11 

It is urged that ·each division of government r.ru st exercise the powers 

entrusted to it and that this exercise can not be delegated (delegata 

· potestas non pot est deles.:ari) (35). Necessity has r ebutted these 

arguments by pointing to the practical · advantages of administrative 

action (36). The saving of the legislature's time is p robably the 

chief value (37). But there are other pressing reasons for resort 

to. the admi:rii strati ve device, such as t he con tri but ions which can be 

made ·by the expert (38), the fact that the legi.slature is not in continuqus session ru1d its slow procedure, when in existence, which will 

not meet many of the demands for sum ary or prompt action (39), and 

the peculiar adaptability of administrative action to promote and protect individual and public interests (40). The result of these advantages is a g reat mass of delegated legi·slation (41) having the full 

force and effect of law ( 42). · 

Administration has grown up without benefit of Constitutional 

recognition. It has, therefore, been forced to. follow a 

. pattern which made no place for it. Certain formulae and fictions 

are employed to circumvent the doctrinaire difficulties. Administrative offices and many students feel it would be highly desirable 

that administrative .action in its proper spheres be free from judicial interference. More respect and greater prominence would inure 

to administration, and there would be a greater fruition of admini strati on as a useful public agency. Administrative finality .mu.st rest 

upon one of· two views, either that judicial review should not be had 

of a fo~rth and equal division of government (43), or t hat government 

is co1.npris ed of two functions: l. representing the public wi ll and 

2. giying effect to the expressed will. Upon such theories it may 

be reasoned that the judiciary should be no more powerful than the 

executive ·or administrative. 

III. DELEGATION OF POWER ~~D FINALITY IN ITS EXERCISE. 

Despite the hampering effect of governmental form and theories already discuss ed, administrative legislation and adjudication 

continue to g row paying lip service to constitutional doctrine. 

The legislature can not delegate its legisla tive power but it can 

empl oy ag ents to find facts. It is in this function of f act-finder, 

t hat courts first consciously recognized administration (44). The 

,legislature declares t he policy and the administrat ion f inds the 

9838 

f 
- ,. , .{' .. lQf cts U"9on w. ich t he olicy 6 0 8 8 into ff to to wllicl1 t! -oolicy 

hall be f.l.pplied , o run tho trnlitional t r t e·. nt (11 .J ). If the 

"de t ails " to be fill ed in or t.1 0 o. si ford t rtninin t..~ wi!Ot.de r the 

statute s.wll a _: l.f ar e impor·t· nt L"l1101 ::,n t.l'.re i :~.lly o. el egation 

of legi l n.t ivo pcwt:r t housh it :11ay be so trivial :ts to no t exci t e t '.le 

court. In fa t, t1e cour t _·ecognl7e t .l8 delebFJtion. T11eJ furt her 

r ecognized that le_; i lative or ju icial ;')o•r.rers softenf'd by 8. "Cluasi 11 

may b e invol v d ( 46) . T}10 d.el 3ga ti on may be annl obouz t o t he power 

the court exe rc i es in case b81ore it, of st a tutory inte ~re ti on 

whicL frequently may decide that th e 1_1. t e ra1. a:)}Jlica ti on of a st a tut e 

was no t intended in cert a in instances o r W11ere t 11e st atut e does no t 

cov e r certain p r oble.11s s·r>e cif l cull; t ..:. 1e.t i t does so oy Lplication. 

Either t~1e arlvantages of t ne a·1Liinistrat ive t ecnnioue or dissatisfaction wi t h judicial .1. ch ( Ll?) !'Tllst hav e l ed t o t he at t em)t to 

use afuniniqtrative a g enc ies. 

The n ext ste_) aft e r e1e f rank r ecogn ition of delegated :9ower to 

administrative a sencie s i s t o see vinat mea.sur e of t he final ity desired 

by the<>e P..genci es is ext end ea. t o t :ue i.r act~ on s by the our . Tne 

traditional s t a t ement i s t hat the ad.m ini s~r-a ti ve bodies beir.g l)r ope r 

fact- find er s , their findings of fact nill o t b e r ev i m-ved. by t i.1e c ourts, 

o r t Le c ourts will not ~bsti tute i t s juC.~.:1en t ~:x:m 11 oues io~1s of 

facts 11 for t hat of t :1e en trusted fact-fi nder (48 ) wi .~.1 certain excep tions later t o be noted (49 ) . "Questions of l aw 11 ~: ave l ong b een 

the peculiar p r ovin ce of t:ne court (50 ), but as t ime want on admini strative bodi e s decided questions of law b efo r e 1e pr oblen1s r sa.ched 

the courts . Oft en t h e se que s tions we r e dec i d ed i n a waJ t hat pl eased 

the courts. Tl1er e d ev eloped t he no tion tl1a t admini s tra tiv3 de termination of "que stion s of l aw 1 would be 11 persw1sive 11 u·,;Jo n t he courts 

(51) - that is, t he c ourt would no t dist u r b 1e f:'.umi nist rat i v e decision a s long as it a ccor ded ,v it l t:1e court' s o·:m f e el ings . A 

furthe r compl ication a1Y9ears. Thare i s no cl ear cut dl ~:; ti cti n bet ween " questions of law11 and 11 questi on s of fact 11 (52 ). Often a :::_Jroblem, which at one time is a 11 1u estion of law" t o the c ourt , will become a " que stion of fact 11 t o t!Le same court at anot-'ler time (53 ). 

In que ctionable prcblems of t ni s ~1aracter ~::.e ccurt mi (~};.t treat 1em 

as II q_ue stions of law , It a t h i ns (!Ui t e easy t o do; if it rl_i d no t desire 

t o review or to change tl1e de t e rmination of ti1e ad.mini stra ti ve body 

these pr "Jblems mi J;ht be termed 11 mi xed que st ion s of l aw and f a ct'' ~, ) 

and exte::1ded 1e finality of "que stion s of law. 11 This latter p racti ce 

i s fr equently r eso rted t o if an allegat ion of f r aud or mistake i s not 

s o clea r t hat the ~ourt f eels i t slould i n terf e r8 (35 ). 

The sta tement just made i s c ouc:1ed in the court ' s ter ms and 

ap ro hed wlth a view t o what ~le Court says. Administra tive l aw 

is so nm1 t :1at we can no t e xpect t o f i nd it an orcle rly sy st em pe rfectly describ ed by t l1e courts (56) . ·ve mu st look at wha t t he c ourts do 

in each field. Th is will be done l a t er. First we must s e e u·oo n wha t 

t heori es the c ourts r evi ew . 

98~~ 8 

11-

C:::AP7.ER I II 

VIE f :JY 1'1ill COW.TS ~ 1C !~..l! GUA~S GAil ST 

.AJ3U~ OJ!' ' Di :I1H SThA'l'I VE ? 0\v'ER 

. One or t :1e doctrine <> of :L;nglisl 1;-,w , 1.10st distinguishing it from 

other systems , wns lonu t hou.:;ht to n f :.t. ord t'dequnte p rotection to individual richts . This nas 11 t ' 1e rule of la -_, rr (1). Its protection has been 

found inedequnte . If nn ad1 inistr ~.., tive official by surmnary ac tion does 

$40, 000 (or even $4 ,000) of d~mace e j1ldbffient may be fort hcoming readi l y 

enoue;h , but its collection wil l p r o re far more t roublesOI1e . It i s urged 

that Congress or t he l et.;islature s shoul d review administra tive action , 

since it ht'.s g i ven the n anda te it should. judge the desirability of its 

administration . The practice , lonever, hflc been o the r n ise (2). Sometime r. the legisl a ture del egates this check specifically to the courts 

( 3) , more f r equentl y , t h is is no t done (4 ). There ar e even st a tutory 

indications t hat it i s no t desired (5). In tingl and , Hhere such statutory 

r, t ate en ts are .1o r e common ( 6) , this has be~n a s tl~on~ly con t ested f ield • 

.. t~.lt~ou~!1 ... checks a r e desirable this does no t p osit t hat admi n istrative 

ov1e! i; g reatly abused (7) . 

It woul d be well to o ri efl y survey t he existing check s oth er thm1 

t hose exercis ed by the Court s . 

Aside· from co;.1trol by the courts , there should be checks up on administration from other directions. In as f a r as t he ch aef executive 

must accep t r esponsibili ~- for t he ac tio·a9 of administra tiire bodies h e 

should have a seneral con trol over t he i Y olicy . Until the Humnhrev ' s 

decision (?a) it was thol.lL;ht t ha t t he r emova l p owe r might afford such 

control (?b) . It .1ay be t hnt t'1e President does no t have to ac cep t 

resp onsibility f or t he act i on s of e ll adr!1L1istrat ive ·bo c- rr' · The Congress 

must, ho·wever, be re spor1sibl e for t he oli~y of all admi n istrative agencies uhich it ut~1o rizes, if not t he ir aclmin istra tion. Therefore , it 

would seem that t i1e l egisl ature must deal vri t h t he p roblem of a . .fegt. :i. ·~ 

assisted by the executive wl10 , i t is h op ed, will be in h a rmony wi t :1 it 

( ?c). 

In 3ng lana P a rli amentQry con trol over &elegnted leg i sl ation has one 

somev-1hat f m·the r than t~1e cont:co l exerciseC.. b y l egi slature s i n this 

country (7d) . There is t he procec'.urc k:L .. ~vm as l ayi n[; nn admin istl~at i ve 

rule D:POn the t able . Such rul e s an d r e 5ul 8tions lnid upon the tc.bl e before P a rliame:nt 1nay be dis a:ou roved by ei t he r h0use -vv i thin a c e rt a in •J eriod 

(usually not over f orty days of nny sessi n:1). I f 11o t disapproved t hey 

have the full f orce of l aTI . Other t yoes of rule s ~~d regulations require 

a defi n ite Parli amen tary a~prova l, by e ithe r or both h ous e s, within a 

certa in nUinbe _ of l egislati ve days . A p rovi sian that either h "'use can 

mc>,ke susgestions to the body cre r.. tint~; t l:1e rules is often attached to both 

methods of control. Furthe r t han t h i s , l)rovisinn are fre quently inserted 

in s tatutes allowing rules to have full forc e u;.1t il P a rli ament acts unon 

them. Even i f :P .:.~ i:· n ent a cts negative l y r ega r clins a rule , any enfor-cement of such a r 1J.le p r evinus to the P a:cli ament ary action is legal. Th is 

syst em has raisec1. as to rr:: of criticism by w~li s1"i l aYJye rs who urge tha t 

aJ:r,roval is .made a i1e r e formality while a llo'."ing t l1e stamp of P a rli ament ary authority to rest upon the regu.la tion and s o :)r eclude control by the 

courts. It is the contention of t hese men t ha t t here is no p ractica l 

9838 
- 12-

re sponsibility . T'ne merit of their ar:;;umen t s is no t a subject for consideration her e . It i s mere l y int ended t o "JO int out teat t nere snould 

be si~le, efficient safecuards to p reclude abuses of -., owe r. 

Other con trols li e i n t i.1e ;Jublica tion of r ules anci. the control over 

budgets and t1 1_. l' opr:e.t.ions . One of t he most eff ective me ans seems to be 

the system of 11int ei1_Jell at ion11 of wi n i ste:i.'S t o Hhich ~-::: reat resort is had . 

Pointed questions unon p ossible shady p r a ctices or q_uest i onab le adr:ri::listra tion, brincinb with them t he -uris pt ligh t of -;::.ublici t y! w·ill t;o far 

to r emedy abuses of p ow·er. 

In most English sneaking countri es t he :~is toric c ontrols of leg islative p ower over approp riati ons , legislat ive vre:i.~ over personi.1el exercisec_ through ir_n:oeachment process and the ri ght to confirm appointoents, 

and the -o ower. of investigation a re in most com..rnon use. The first two 

methods are unvvieldy and ineffective as agah1st hli:nor abuses of p ovver. 

The process of i nvestigation is analos ous to the Eng lish system of 

"inte~Jellationn, but is re s orted to only su c:;smoclically , · and t l1en usually 

only in the most odious cases. 

Aside from these controls, little has b eei.1 done in the United Sta tes 

to u rovide safecuards against a cJ.ministrative abu ses of power. Some five 

years a§;o Horth Carolina. established a Director of Local Governme_lt, 

11 whose dutie s vvill be to standardize and suryervise the business methods 

of counties, cities and towns. rr (7e) This is ·:1ot p recisely in poil1t as 

a matter of control of administrative action, but it is referred to since 

there is a great analo:;y betv..reen activities of rnunicinal co r-oorations 

ru1d those of administrative bodies. 

New York h as a great amo1mt of delegated legi slation, but no control 

over it (7f). The State Lesisla tive Reference Librari e41 states recarding 

this ~) roblem, 11A.s I unde.~stand it, the enforce;·.1en t of rules or o~d ers 

made in any state department i s left v;holly to the administra tive officer 

of such depa rtment, and the LeGisla ture and Executive app ear not to interfere in such enforcement, after the authority hns be en once g r anted to the 

'Stat e· Depr. rt r:i_e ~t. u Re cently , · in iJew York it h .?,s even been pro?Josed 

to clothe administrative bodies with greRter rule makin~ p o'lvers without 

any SlJecific leg isle.ti ve check over t l:e ex ercise of the se })OWors. 

In L1assacJ.1usetts all departments, boards, commissions or off icL:!ls 

making general rul e s or reg~..,lations must file COJ? ies Yli th t he Secreta ry 

of State, and must secure the apnroval of t he Gove rnor and h is counci l 

(7g). The Secreta ry of State iJ~st file and index such rules and rebUlations, and make them generally available. Ther e i s <:tn appeal open to 

citizens to the Governor a~1d his council on qu esti on s of authori t~r and 

jurisdiction which does not preclude other legal redress. Annual rep orts 

must b e 111ade to the Governor or to the Genera l CouTt (7h). In most cases 

such rep orts nrc rnc..de to the l a tter. Furthe r t han this, 'i.>assachusetts has 

not gone, a lthough the p roblem has been given serious consideration. 

_With t he exc ep tion of Wisconsin, other regulations of administra tive 

l avv making are unimp ortant. The n ost widesJiread agitation i n any stt-.te 

ifor safeguards Ep})ears to have existed in Wisconsin. Wis con sin has <:t 

system of 11 int erp ella tion11 mode l e d upon the forei gn systems (7i). This 

statute, however, has only been u sed t hr ee time s , once in 1935 when the 

9838 
Legislature , n e e tin::; i 1 ;joint _cs,· i on , c '1l l cd b f or e it the Jtcmb e r s of 

the Bo a rd of Control , ::hich ·Hl. .1 ~tL r- "~l l l nr.rs r cl a tin..; to t he st( tc 

charitabl e a nd uen a l i 11s ti tuti o1b . So 111Ur h tim ,., "'S :. n cnt in c on trovor .,y 

over rules t hat no :- m~ si ve ~ r. t i oni1 g ·. as h<'.ll. T c "' t a tut e was 1 t 

used before t i i 1 1925 , · o it c e 1 "u ~; con th t ~: e.~. ience under it c

1 oes 

not te tif ~r ~. to i ts "'OS sibl c va lue . A s t ,., tute "1<1.ss ecl ir. 1931 creat 0d 

an E:xecuti ve O'll.t"lcil of t l1e Gove rnor . This body wa s n.uthori z ed to investiga te tne a c t iviti ,s of qunsi le lr. ~iv e D. :.~e ncie , :::lilcl Lake r eports 

to tl1e Le:;i slc::.tw·e . T!1is se t:Jms to be , ho'.'evcr , onl;y one of the minor 

function ..; of this council . Th e ") i' c . ci t Governor 1d i1is predecessor :hnve 

not aunoi1ted all the 1:1embcrs p rovic ed b y the statute . The council itself has :1.ot yet be n c l:1.lled D:POll tu ·')erform the functions f or which it 

vas created . 

This review indico.tes t 12t little has ·o (: en done in this country 

a long the li:1e of develo·1in:; s· iegur rd s a:i.1d control s i n t he field of adninistration desp i te the fact t ha t there seems to be a vital need for 

action UDOn this ~rob em . ' 

Although t he legislature m2.y chao e between conf lictin~ theories 

( 8) , tl1e courts arc relucta:1t to ellovr s'lch -• owers to admi:.1i strati on 

apart from the supervisinE; checl: of judicial r eviev: (9 ) . In the Jast 

courts have usuall allo 7ed .AdiJiriistr,.t ive b odi es to exel~cise such JJ Ov;re r. 

Recently , t his hc:.s been obj e~ te cl tn , if the range of choice is too lars e 

or involves subject matter of too t n~or tance (10) . Judici a l r eview 

in this country extends to statutes ; i n England it extends only to aCL-ninistrative action or by-laws (11 ) . It i s no t clea r t ha t it a l ways extends 

that fnr (12) . From a lJOsitio:.1 of compar ative inferiority to the legislature (13) our courts have risen 1."-nti .l they novv exercise review of leg islative and administrative act i on under a nunber of theories. 

The 11 naturol 11 or 11 nigl.1er l av.r 11 br,ses of review a re of the brea te st 

antiquity (14:) of any of t he courts 1 apry ro oches . In e arly E11glish l aw 

Bract on decl.... r ed t hat t ho oRrons Hmst nut 11 the bridle of lav1 11 un on a ruler 

acting outsi de the l~ s ·nreceu ts (15); · ngain there is n r efe rence in 

· .. ·abJla ChA.rtn t0 hiGher l av.r ( l G) ; and there is the ~7 ell kno·.'m a t te~t of 

Lo~d Coke (17) to establish judici a l r evi ew . The doctrine finds its first 

utterance L ti1e Supreme Co'Lu~t i ll t :i1e opinion by . Cnief Justice Cha se 

in Calder v . lllil1. in 1798 (18) . The doctrine £;r ew and ripened into an 

acce-,Jted basis upon which to limit t he po "!C r of gove rnmen-t ( 19) . It has 

meant ti1nt commo;.1 l a ·r p r e ceden t's i.my b e e~ yed (20 ) , or that the court 

vrould rely U:DOn its own feeling of v-rhnt it felt v;as universally considered 

just or 11 honest 11 action (21) . It i s in t h is latter aspect t ha t the doc-

.trine has b.een most seve r e l y critici zed . ( 22) 

11 .r a tural l a v111 theory has .;;rom into , and has b een greatl y absorbed 

by , the rtdue proc e ss of. lan 11 concept (.~3) . For a conside r ab l e time after 

our constitution y·as 'Ir i ttcn 11 due uroc e s s 11 of l aw had little si gnificance 

save procedural (24) . This was true lL'ltil as· late c:s 1870 (25) . From 

humble oric;in (26) - admi:1is tra t ive roc edur e ( 27) - due p roce ss has become an instrument '.'!hereby statutes c:.ad a dmi n istrative a c ti on are overruled as havi (; i10 ? ['Oper constitutionRl basis or "Jllreasonableness (28) . 

The doctrine received a c asual r e ference in Dr~d S~ott v . ~~ndfor~ (29) ; 

it next was broadened i t he ,k~c; l ~nC:~r: ~~.§. (30 ) . Desp ite later use 

of the doctrine of rlnatural l aw11 (31) the due :Jroc ess concept is nnw 

9 __ 838 
- 14 -:-. 

regarded as firml y e stablished (3;2) even by those disa-•)T.I roving of its 

extent. 

That the relat ion~hip between t he t vro is close is au·,) arent from the 

reference by jud,ges to the doct.rines as being identical (33). Due process of law now gives t he courts power to introduce limiting p rinciples 

of taxation, formerly one of the chief problems of 11 natural l a 1

11 (34), 

to .condemn r ate schedule s as unreasonable (35), ;md to conderrm other 

soci al ru1d economic legi9latio~ up on the same b asis. This great gro 1th 

has been the cause of much he ated deb ate. The l a te Justice Holmes express ed his views ~pon this subject strongly and often. Dissenting in 

:Baldwin v. IHss ouri (36) he said: 

III have not yet ade quately eJq)ressed the more than anxiety t hat I 

feel at the ever increasing scope given to the Fourtee~th Amendment in 

cutting dovm what I believe to be the Consti tuional rights of the States. 

As the decisions now stand, I see hardly any limit but t he sky to the 

invalidating of those rights if they ha:-p:pen to .strike a majority of this 

Court as for any reason undesirable. I cannot believe that the Amendment was intenQed to give us carte blru1che to embody our economic or mor al 

beliefs in its prohibi tions. 11 

Many lJersons have felt that the concept is an agency to maintain 

property i~terests (37). 

That this tjpe of judicial control is the common tendency of courts 

can be seen from the f act, that, although England is said not to have 

judicial review, and certainly no ndue process of law11 concep t such as 

is b1om1 to us (38), still English courts have a strong dis~osition to 

review administrative action, even when clothed by sta tute rli th finality, 

upon any of several theories (39). Of course, the English courts do not 

go nearly so far as ours and at times exercise no checl: ( 40)) . The signific ant thing is that there is in existence as .a characteristic of courts 

a disposition to control administrative or legislative action. As we 

shall see due process of law has t-,vo problems: 1. Can p owe r be exercised? 

2. Has it been exercised properly? These t v-w questions to test administrative action have broad pow~rs to shape our course of government (41). 

Without either of the t wo theories discussed, the courts have a 

check in the interuretation of statutes and the doctrine of ultra and 

--intra vires. Courts in the exercise of their normal duties are called . upon to apply sta tutes or other law to the cases before them. Wherever 

there is anbiguity or conflict as to me.aning, .and this is the stuff of 

which lawsuits are made, the courts must interpret the law (42). Although , 

there is no express Constitutional prohibition to the giving of finality 

in the det ermination of certain disputes, to other agencies than to courts, 

this has not been done without t~e courts 1 approval. Questi ons of law 

and the i n terpretation of statut·es the courts have successfully maintai ned 

are their exclusive bailiwick. This ~; er of i nt erpretation has been 

often used to :achieve results, not desired b y the legislature (43) . It:· 

is obvious that the povver of interpretati on is tremendous . The likelihood that the exercise of such p ower v1 ill be collored by t he nersona l 

philosophies of those who have it, is even more appar ent . 

9838 
- l.JThis uoctrL1e of 11 intcr')I et .... ti.'"' n 11 is mothe:c· of t !le· Y_l tra ... j d .i_Jl~IJ! 

vires concel) ts . A ~ice1.l 'lhnse 01 s t;. tutor J in te .. :prc t c. ti oj is t h<'t of 

determi n ing tho l Lnits 0.1 < utl ority :1:u. ju isdiction con ·erred bJ particul ar statutes . T i s ;"'.Ction be omes rt li11i tat.ion u-r)on both l ebislv..tive 

and admi ni tr<.ti ve rction (L4 ) . As a n-LlP. tion of ··IOHor nnd of dcl eG 

tion of "or:ers ei thor undo:c· <. . Wl'i t ten or un 1:ci tten Constitution the 

nee .ssit of int "'r ')rct ption :u l r! es crcrt L1fluer ce ancl con t ro l in the 

hands of t ho court., . ':21 nt. t ho.L e s. ou..l tl b e such a re tra in t U1;on the 

partis;m desire of t he AdnLaistratio.1 to enlar ~:; e its ovrn p ovre rs is a dn1i t ted by stude.o.1ts r11d advoc r te 3 of r.dL1 i. istr~tive a ction (45) . ill ere 

the proper (under ou.r PCC01)t ed vie :s on 11 juclici a l rcvie'.v tt) limi ts of t he 

cou rts r estrainir b p owe r end , nnd t h e ··"Ositi ve inj e ction of t he courts' 

o''V11 views i 1 is n deb ted ,)roblem that lo oms l cnge i n the Rdministrativc fie ld (46) . 

I n t he Un ited States t he v.l t:r;:n Y.Lr.~ doc l~ine i s b ound U:L) with t he 

probl em of jurisdictiona l f nct (47); it is in 2n61Md t hat the phr ase 

ultra vi.1ee_ has b een nost consider ed (<18 ). A brief gl ance at the English 

p rob l em will 'p oint the consi c

1.erRtion of jurisdictional fact . The socalled 11 Henr y VIII clauses!! (named f rom a bro ad st a tute of simila r 

character in the reig11 of tha t lf!onarch ) p rovide in effect that rules 

putting t he stntute into effect 11 shall 10 t be que s tioned in any legal 

n roceeding. 11 Sta ted diff ereutly , the rule shall 11 h Flve effect as if 

enacted in t he Act" (49). Without t i1e <~ ss an ce of t he open doctrine 

of "judici a l reviev,,u, L1 vot,ue i n. t 11is co1.u try, the 2ns lish courts faced 

a ticklish i') roblem vvhen the first c ases unde r such a sta tute nro se. The 

first and a l eading case i s J_nst.i t_ut e 'l :(_j'_ t,eJ)_t._.}£.~n-t_~ _y_ .... bQQ.l~ (50). 

Lord Herschell, 1. C. i s nlai nly troubled. The mo st d.ifficul t situation 

he envis ages i s t :1at of ~1e a lJni n istra tive rule under the st a tute being 

contrrrr y in effect t o t :!.1e st c.tute. Vou..ld this mean tha t the administrative rule havi ng t he ef fec t of a latter sta tute would ove l~ ride the statute? As the case did n ot L1vol ve t he ·ooin t, wh a tever mi Ght b e said 

concerninb it was dictLL'TI. As such , it i s far from lucid. Lord Uorris 

(51) expressed t he o·')iniou t h .:t t t he com~t should t est f or ultra .Yi.~ 

This lat t er vi ew seems to '1ave :)r eva iled. Yfuen it b ec cme obvious· that 

a sta tute might be c rossly contorted t he courts have f elt a test of 

ultra .Yir.§.~ to be desirable (52). T~1. s te s t wa s used in 11Ex lli3-rte 11 Yaff....§. 

(53) wi th the indica tion that an English judicial review, more limited 

than our own, nov1 re st s est ab lish ed UPOi1 the theor;y i n terpretation and 

the right to te st for pl tr..G,- iP..tDi vil~ e~ (54). . 

The ;)roblem of jurisdiction is mere l y another form of :ultra - intra 

vires •. And a s the Constitution is mere l y a· ~'hi gher st ntute," it can be 

seen th<.t onc e judicia l r eviev·! an d t he p ovre r of intel!lrete.tion is est ablished the Courts feel they c 2.n r eview to se e i f either t he statute or 

the Constitution :p r'ovide a basi s for t he i)OYre rs tte~ted to be exercised 

(55). Sh ould t~ is te st of jurisdiction be limited to t J.1e Courts' decla:c~ed province 11 qu e stiOi.1s of l aw?" ':'he indicat ions 2.re t ha t the Courts 

will i.1 0t be thus r estricted. The f a cts UDOn v:r:1ich jurisdiction is assumed - the "jurisdictional f a cts " - will 'in p rope r instences be determined by the Courts . This may·be because jurisdictianal f a ct often is 

u sed 11 in the sense of the me aning of the vrord or terms into which those 

circumstances (;Jroved circi.llJlstances w·hich a re another sense of the term. 11 f a ct 11 ) are surrnned U1) for the •)urpose of at ta cl1 ing l egal conse qu ence to 

them" (56) . It is this dual -sense of t he word llfactll tha t provokes much 

9838 
- 16-

of the controversy. Probabl y , the most s?..tisfactory solution noulO.. be 

to allo\7 the -administrative agencies to determi ne the "p roved circumstances" 

and allo~ the legal consequence s to be dec ided by the Courts (in tho~ 

fi elds ~rhere the3r invoke the doctrine) either administrative or jucl.icial. 

This \7ould be only a compromi se and s·:tbject to much attac.·: as such . The 

problem looms so l arge as a device of judicial r ev iew of ad.mini str ative action 

that its u se will be furthe r e~ am ined ( 5?). 

A closel3r r el ated doctrine is t hat of 11 questions of la\? 11 Tihich , as .has 

alread,y be~n indicated, the Courts hav e st ekeo_ out e,s t heir peculiar ~)ro

vince (58) • The a.mbigui ty (59) of the t erms 11 la'l7 11 ancl_ 11 fact 11 are such t l1at 

g r eat confusion exists ( 60 ). It is evio.ent that there i s g~eat overlap~in.g 

that t:1e same question may variously present 11 l aw 11 or 11 fact 11 to different 

courts, or even to the same Court (61). The o.ifficulty is illustrat ed by 

t he Gratz case (6la). It has b e en variously urged that the question of 

whether a t y ing contra ct is an unfair method of comp etition is one of 

11 law11 and tha t it is one of 11 f a ct 11 • The courts, in ma~w fields, are reluctant to foreg o the fina.l word on. problems such a s interpretation ( 62) so 

they actually ~et rmine many questions of ultima te fact (63). It is doubtful if any workable distinction or separa tion ·could be found ( 64)., so n e . 

may expect the Court will have open this .ready avenue of e.pDroach. The 

ease with \7hich the Courts utilize this an-o roach is seen in fields of disputed so ciai p o·licy (65) or uhere the st at~te. u se s . such an ind~f ni te standard as "unfair compe ti tion 11 ( 66). Like use ·ha.s been made of the conce::_J-t, 

as a colleagu e to 11 jurisdictional f a ct," to check the harshness of alien 

det erminations (67). From this enumeration the usefulness of the conc~~t 

is _a,:pparen t. 

An early doctrine, in use before ·the phenomenon of great admini strati v:e action· nas observed, · is that of discr e tionary po~:ers and ministerial 

duti.es. It·· is· v1ell stated i!i the early "case of Dec a,tur v. Pc.ulding ( 68), 

deci0.ed in 1840. The Court he-ld tha t ~he refusal of a pension to the -r.rido'\7 

of St.ephen Decatur. involved . the exe rcise' of ·di scre'tion uy on t he part of the 

Secr ry of the Navy. The ba sis for the d.ecision seems to be t he feeling, 

that ~ choice in the judicial sense was involved, and that such a cho ice 

made in go od fnith, should not be disturbe d. It should be p ointed out that 

the Court expressed a wilJ.ingness to 9verrule the Secretary 's decision if a 

wrong _ decision of l aw had beem made. The exercise of discreti~n rrill not be 

di sturb ed by injunction or mandamus. A failur e to act may rep resent the 

conscious ch oice not to act (.69); while mandamus will lie to force the performanc e of ministerial duties (70). Need of choice a nd fre edom from judicial revi ew ~n t :P.e -fields of 11 narrow revieri 11 (71) still exists (7 2) although 

the doctrine is .little mentione d and has b ecome dwa rfed by other for~s of 

judicial control. 

A ne\7 and subtle. means of r eview li.es i n the Court Is treatment of . 

questions of evid:ence. It rriay be t hat the court is attempting to underst ano_ the admini strative :p roblems (73). The judicial techni que , in so 

try ing to ap-p r e ciat e t he administrati~n 1 s position, calls for a full .consider atio.n of the evidence. · The next step, and one of ten t alcen, is for the 

Court itself to evaluate · the evio.ence ('7 4) • . · In a large pe rc ent age of cases 

whe r e aCIJTii ni·strati ve · orders are upheld; the Court does so, only after full 

con sideration of the evidence (75). It is of course natural to the judicial 

t echnique - to so consider evidence , but sometimes t he pur p ose ma;y be defini tel; 

to limit admini stra tive · action bjr resort -to a sta t u tory implication (76) or b; 

9838 
..... 17-

some notion of tho Court'" sc) n.~ to '·.at evidence out.·ht to be control) in~ . 

AlthouGh in some of t .. e earlier cases , espe ially those involving 

the oiscr tionary oncept , there Has 0ften no evidentiary requirement, it 

might 1Je se.id. thet evi0ence is usue.ll~,. required to support any positive 

adrt.linistration action ( 7'1 ). T'1e e::pl.:'nnt.ion of t'1e 11 discretion 11 cases 

lies in the f act that son . e:\.trnorC:in. ry le·~c- 1 rewec.y ras sout;ht which 

the co1.u-ts nere r eluc t ant to g ive , COUJ?l d nith a fee ling that the act 

was juc'.icial. Vlhere u reasonable choice coulCl b e made the courts hesi tc..-

ted to use the injunctio1; ancl ·here nction mi cht result in leaving the 

applico.at i!l the same position , the c0urts saw no advantagr> and only a 

wnste C'f effort and p r esti 1s e in usinr; mandamus. \There t he statut e r equires a hear inc~ an order who ll : 1.msupporteo. by evidence is of no effect 

( 78 ). Certainly, vrhe re there . i "' n0 basis vin evi dence the action ni ll be 

clos ~- scrutinized, and upon a. p rope r shr,ring an attacking party may 

have it reversed (79) . In a recent case decided in 1933 (80) , where a 

Virginic. statute authorized an admini s.tra t i ve offi cia.l to order gracle crossings e liiJinated , '17hen in h is 01)ii1i n, ' it beca.11e necessary , but p roviding 

only i'C'r c-. heal~ing if ti:1e r ni l, ay 11as di ssati sf ied with the order, there 

\'7as held. t o be a deni a l of d.ue p r o cess of l c:.n . The court ap:parently relied 1.l2_)0n the necessity that ncJ.nini strati ve fino ing s be supported by evidence ( 81.). The requi rei-.1ent as to t hr> amount C"f evid entiary support varies. 

The stt1teE1ents of the court al~e dif fe rently phrased in terms of 11 some evidence 11 ( 82) "evidence 11 ( 83), and. 11 sub stantial evi0.ence" ( 84) as being ~1 ece ssary tC' s1.o;_opo rt an order. Usuc-.ll;y , nhere t l1ere is '"sub stc:m tial evi dence 11 

to SU}Jl)Ort the orde r , or it is not manifestl~· a gainst the vmight of t he 

evi<ie:1 ce , it Dill not be mole stec1 . . ( 85) . Sta tu tor:r requi reJ'llent s as to evidence varJ from w~1e e t he statu t es is silent to wher.e it may o.etail what 

evide:lCe should be 9 resent . Thi s seens t o he.ve little effec t upon the 

courts. I t is doubteC:. if a st0.tutory statement t hat there need be no evidenti a l':' basis r:-ould meet judi cial requirer-1ents of "due pro_cess of a~-7 . 11 

In cases nhe r e thA evidence. is abundant courts do not. care to revieu. 

In case s nhere t here is nC"::J.e or t ile .interferences are absur d t here is littl e 

proble:-.1 in the courts' revi en. I t is i n. those d.oubtful cases ~here the 

evic1ence is "meage r or 1.msatisfa ctory 11 tha.t t he difficulty arises (86) . 

Strictl:r spea;.::L1G; , what basis of jud icial revi ew of evidence e~i st s other 

thM the re si d.uary 11 due process 11 conce) t is hard. to determine . Why f i nality as tC' fac t , even as to the v:e i ght to be. given evidence, can and should. 

not be ( etermined by an administrative body is diffi cul t to see . It noul cJ. 

be un:Z0rtunate to redl.'.Ce our 11 clu-1i nistrative tribunal s to mere mag istracies 

for the c o:1o.uct of hear ings :p r e li!·!ina r y to juo.icial consideration" (87) . 

On t:1e ot:1e r hand , arbi trarJ &1c3. cap ricious fai lure to C1.ct upon evidence 

or uctint-; contrar_.r t o the obvious significance of t he evidence , should be 

as f1.lil · subject to check as is any acl..:~ ini strati ve p r ocedure . 

Jurists f eel h~. t <:'. gr a ve responsibili ty i s intrusted to admi nistrative ~.t;e ~1cies (88). By te m~~e r c1llC. t e chnique these age;.1cies m8Jr not be as 

consi o.erate of inch vidu a l rir;h t s as the courts. In the -reouiremen t that ~ . ~ 

there he a basis in evi dence :~ol~ t he E1,ction t al;::en in the courts merely hold 

· anot he~~ check: . The requirement uill var y clepenC:.i ng upon such infl uence as, 

whet ~1e r the subject me tter is consiC..ered. governmental or involves interre~lc e Hi t l.1 inc!.i vi dUfl.l rights, t he h istorical na ture of the fie l d , the 

care useCl. by adJJinistrativ8 at;enci es i n gatheri ng a11d. analyzi ng facts, as 

well as T1any other f p.ctors. 

9838 
~ 

In addition to the se the ories whe reby r eview is had by t he Courts, 

it should be considered that thete are ce'rtain restra ints im"l)osed uuon the 

courts either by themselves deliberat el y as a matter of lJOl icy or through 

the force of circumstances. There is the doctrine that an administr ative 

remedy must be exhausted before aDn lica tion is had to the courts for relief (89). This is said to JD y in some cases to a·o-.Jl.icB.tions for a 

rehea ring or a modifica tion (90) or an ori in l hearing (91). It is 

esuecially an'Jlicable to reque sts for the issuance of extraordina r.f 

legal remedies, ,ivhere any rea.sonable aillninistra tive rellledy r emains 

availc:.ble. 

The doctrine of 11 'Jol1tico,l questions" furnishes another selflimitation uuon the courts (92) which is of long stRnding (93). It 

has particular significance in internationa l relations (94). questions 

of grave executive 1JOlicy, arid the •1 roblem of vrhether a Sta.te is 

maintaining a. 11 reuublice.n form of gove:rnmentr. ( 95). Another limit a tion lies in the constitutional Si'J ecification that 11 the judicial 

uower shall extend to .? 11 cases - - - [and/- - - - controversies 11 ( 96). 

It is under this clause that the courts may decline administrative 

functions (97) and refuse to give declaratory judgments (98 ) • ."?b ile 

so limiting themselves the courts do not hesitate to review action 

taken under formulae already considered. 

What is the value of this urocess of judicial checks u oon a 

field otherv'i se gre8.tly inde-oendent? There are many advocates of the 

administrative technique, who see no dvant ~ge s, and feel that unsymua thetic courts are mer e ly sabotp ging a rival. 13ut, it is wise 

to remember the extreme youth of the ext er-sive use of administrative 

government. It is quite ·or·o"b e.ble that there are a s many inconsistencies and injustices in the administrative ·oroce ss as there are in 

the courts 1 review. True , ad.::ninistrative l aw is contradictory, UJl-

. systema tized and beTiild ri ~g ( 99 ). Administration is a lso new. It 

is ,,i thout the exoerience of t he courts in safegu.ard.ing individual 

rights. Policy often dominate s so that admin:.s:.cat i on may overlook 

individual injustices and its own acts of r~fa :r ess (100). And, although~ many of the courts' restraints are highly desirable, guiding 

and tempering administrative a ction into its highest u t ility, the 

courts' very technique often unfits them to exercise the great control 

they do. · The ansvve r to the inadequacies of a.dministrati on does not 

li'e alone in the courts (101). Yet in this country by subtle means 

and often means most obvious the courts do L· shion and guide administrative procedure and uolicy (102). New methods and devices are 

needed to meet new situations. The use of specie.liz ed courts is growing (103); there is too, a growing demand for decla ratory judgments 

( 104). Des·Ji te this need, we must not forget the velue of a rea sonable 

judicial check. Such a check brings the legislature and administration 

closer togeth er (105). An understanding of the ~eculiar uroblems of 

the other iG of extreme value to each . The JUdicial urocess has been 

a '9 0vrerful ae ency in giving sub stance to the administrative technique; 

it has made the develoument of t his new instrument of government a 

more orderly ro th, a more us eful and re snected form of government (106). 

This revi ew ha s not be en made for the uuruose of praising or denouncing judicial r eview of a.dministrative a ction. The r e has been, 

however, an attempt to carefully point out both the ad ntages and disadvantages. The ~rpose of this consideration has been to point the 

nroblem -- to show the gantlet of u ossible judicial r evi e·,vs (as stated 

9838 
.... 17-

some n oti on of t h ... Court• . SC' n ...; to ,.;lett evidence CYU.t )1t t o b con t r ol) in,e; • 

.Altllou t;h i n nome of t e a rlicr c sc:>s , "'pe iall y tho"'e invol ving 

the c'U s cre tion a ry oncept , t he r e \IF's oft en n o evident iar y r equir ement, it 

mi ht be se.i cl t he. t e viclen e i s su~ ll r r equi r ed t o suppo rt any p osi t ive 

adraini stra t ion act i on ( 7? ). T11e e.~ C'.Iln t.i on of 1e 11 d i scr e ti on 11 c ases 

lies i n t he f a ct t hat som e:-.. rC~. or C:. inn. y l e c c>l r emedy uas soucht which 

the cot.rrt s ,-,e r a r e l u ct et:Ll t t o g ive , c oup lee YT i t l1 a f ee ling t hat t he ac t 

was juti cia l . \"There a r easonable cho ice c ould be made t he courts he si t ated t o use t ile injunct ion ; and rhe re nction mi r.;ht re sult in· l eaving t he 

app licC';..l t i n t he same posi tion, t he courts s aw no a.dvant agP and. only a 

wa st e of eff ort and p restit<;e in usinr; mandamus . \There t h e statute require s a 11e a rin{; an order holl~ · unsupported by evidence is of no effect 

( 78). Certa inl r, ere there i s no basis vin evi dence the action rrill be 

closelJ- scrutinized. , and upon a p rop e r sho,ring an attacking party may 

have it reversed (79). In a recent ca.se decided in 1933 (80), where a 

Virg ini.:'. statute authorize d. a n administra tive off icial to order grade crossing s eli!Jinated, when in hi$ o,;L1ion , it beca.11e necessary, but providing 

only fo r c::. heal~ing if t11e r a il'.7ay rras dissatisfiecl with the order , there 

\7as h e l d to be a denial of G.ue p r ocess of l c:.n . . The . court apparently relied on the necessity that n0.nil~i strati ve fino ing s be supported by eviclence ( 81) . The requirement a s to thf' N:10U1'1t of evidentiary support varies. 

The stuter.1ents of the court al~ e cliff erentl ;>r phrased in ter ms of 11 some evidence 11 ( 32) "evidence 11 ( 8 3 ) , and.· n substantial .evi0.ence" ( 84) as being ilece ssar:y to s1:>;_oport an ord.er. UsuD.ll37 , YThere L1ere i s 11 sub stf.ln tial evidence 11 

to suo~)Ort the ord er , or it is no t manifest ~,r a gainst t he v.~eight of the 

evi(;_e:1 ce , it uill not be molest ed. (85). Statutor T requirements as to evidence vc._ry from w:1ere t l1e sta.t u t e s is silent t o where it may Cl.etail Hhat 

evid.e:1ce should be :9 re sent . Thi s sePn s to have little effect upon the 

courts. It is doubted_ if a stntut r stat eDen t t hat there neecl be no evidential7 basis ~:ould meet j ud i cial requirements of 11 due p rocess of l a\7. 11 

In cases 1.-rher e t he evidencA is abundant courts do not care to revieu. 

In cc.ses uhe r e t here is nC'ne or t h e interferences are absurd there is little 

pro bleD in the. courts 1 rP.vie1.7. It is- i:.-1 tho se d.oub tful cases ,-;rhere the 

evidence is 11meager or unsati sf 8.ctory11 that t he difficulty ari se·s ( 86). 

Strictl:r speal:L1::;; , v1hat basis of juclicial review of Aviclence AJ>.:ists other 

thnn the resid.uary 11 due p r ocess 11 conce} t · is hard t o determine. Why finality a s t C' fact, even as to the vreit:h t to be given evidence , can and shoul d. 

not be cetermined by an Rdministrative body is difficult t o see. It would. 

be ru1fort1.mate to redt.,_ce our 11 ac~. inistrative tribunals to mere magistracies 

for the co:1cJ.uct of he.:uings p r Pli:::ina r y' to jucii cial consideration 11 ( 87 ). 

Cm t~1 e ~1 er hand , arbi trar;y an.ci capriciou~ failure to 8.ct upon evide~1ce 

or actin,; contrar~. r t o the obvious significa11ce of t he evidence, should be 

as fullc• subject to check a s is any ad.:1ini stre.ti ve p rocedure. 

Jurists feel t l1.::.t c::. gravA responsibility is ~ntrusted to administrative aE;el1cies (88). :By tem~ er anc. t e chnique these agenc i es ma,y not be as 

consiC:.erate of incH vidual rir;hts as t he courts . In the -requirement that 

there he a basis in eviderice ~or t h e a c t ion t al;:en in the courts merely hold 

anothej_~ check. Tile requirement uill vary depenC:.i ng up on such influence as, 

whet-"1er t h e subject ma tter is consi C:.ered. governmental or involves interfere:l ce 1.;iti1 inc'..ivi c1ua.l ri ghts, t he istorical n a ture of the fie l d, the 

care use cl. by adr.1inistrativp a p,;encies i n gathering and analyzing facts, as 

well as n anv other f[>_ctors. ~ 

9838 
-l eIn addition to the se theories whe reby r eview is had by the Courts, 

it should be considered that there a.re certain restraints imDosed uuon the 

courts either by themselves deliberately as a ma tter of ·oolicy or through 

the force of circumstances. There is the doctrine that an administr ative 

remedy must be exhausted before aDn lica tion is had to the courts f or relief (89). This is said to a~Yo y in some cas es to a··J"·Jli c,g.tions for a 

rehea ring or a modific a tion (90) or an origi~l hearing (91). It is 

esuecially au,Jlicable to req"'.le sts for the issua.nce of extraordinar7 

legal remedies, where any rea.sonr1.bl e administrstive rel!ledy r emains 

availeble. 

The doctrine of "'Jolitical questions" furnishes another selflimitation u·oon the courts (92) which is of long stpnding (93). It 

has particular siE,nificance in internationa l relations (94). questions 

of grave executive iJOlicy, and the .,,roblem of vrhether a Sta.te is 

maintaining a. "reuublican form of governmentr. (95). · Another limit a tion lies in the con~titutional s-o ecification tha t "the judicial 

uower shall extend to all cases- ..... - [and/---- cont roversies 11 (96). 

It is under this clause that. the courts may decline administrative 

functions (97) and refuse to give declaratory judgments (98 ) • . :bile 

so limiting themselves the courts do not hesitate to review action 

taken under formulae already considered. 

What is the value of this urocess of juclicia.l checks u oon a 

field otherv•i se grea tly inde"Dendent? There are many aclvoca tes of the 

administrative technique, who see no advant ges, and feel that unsymua.thetic courts are merely sabot~ ing a rival. :Cut, it is wise 

to remember the extreme youth of the ext er.sive use of administrative 

government. It is quite ·o rob c_ble that there are a s many inconsistencies and injustices in the a dministrative ·orocess as there are in. 

the .courts' review. True , ad.:uinistrative l aw is contre.dictory, unsystema tized and bewildering ( 99 ). Administrat ion is a lso new. It 

. ~ s without the ex-oerience of the courts in sa·i'eguard.ing individual 

rights. Policy often dominate s so that admi n·:..s: .. cation may overlook 

individual injustices and its own acts of ur f3.i:cness (100 ). And, altho~gh 3 many of the courts' restraints are highly desirable, guiding 

and tempe ring administrative a ction into its highest u t ility, the 

c.ourts' v ery technique often unfits them to exercise the great control 

they do. -The a:r).5''i'rer to the inadequacies of administrati on does not 

lie alone tn the courts (101). Yet in this COLh~try by subtle means 

and often means most obvious the courts do shion and guide administrative procedure and u olicy (102). New methods and devices are 

needed to meet new situations. The use of specie.lized courts is growing (103); there is too, a growing demand for decla ratory judgments 

(104). De s•Jite this need, we must not forget the ve lue of a re a sonable 

judicial check. Such a check brings the legisla ture and administration 

closer togeth e r (105). An understanding of the ~eculiar n robl ems of 

the other is of extreme value to each . The judicial urocess ha s been 

a uovrerful s~ ncy in giving sub stance to the administrative technique; 

it ha s ma de the develo-oment of this new instrument of gov ernment a 

more orderly ro th, a more useful and re snected form of government (106). 

This r evi ew ha s not been made for the Duruos e of pra ising or denouncing judicia.l revie w of administra tive a ction. The re has been , 

however, an attempt to carefully -point out both the adv o::mta.ges and disadvantages. The pUrpose of this consideration has been to p oint the 

nroblem -- to show the gantlet of -o ossible judicial revi ews ( a s stated 

9838 
-1.-

by t he ourts) tLAt the ~ction of a ne• administr"tive arency mus run, 

A st~ ement of tl ese fo r m l"le of r ovie,., is not enoue-·h to t:"ive 

a ur·olJor e r snective . It is ne e:s~ ~r to soc ~ o,-, thv c0urts :HJul y 

the ir r evi e;v to t 11e v r> r ious fields of ~d.J:Jinistr tive [1Ction , to obs e rve l"hat c ircums ances ~eem to infl ence the <:~Ction of tne courts . 

That ill be the burden of he ne ·t cha)ter . 
- 20-

CHAPTER IV 

.AD ~DHSTRJ.\.TIVE FIHAL ITY _1\IJ) Tim CASES 

I. N.A.?2 0'iiJ =iEV IE':l ( 1) 

Administra tive activity in the business of government has 

been ve.riously classified.. One of the most useful cle.ssifia ctions 

for our pu.r:·;JOse s is tha t of Profess or Dic dnson (2) dividing it into 

three cla ss e s: 1. The individual seeks o. p rivileg e; 2. The g overnment performs a bus iness; 3. The g overnment perfor11s a necessa ry function. There a:ce other classes of adninistrative activity. A quite imp ortant one - the g overnment seeks to regulate p rivate business - r:rill be 

considered_ in a follou ing section. It is this class, p ossibly coupled 

with a new one - rrhere the g overnment coopera tes n ith industry in its 

self-regulat ion - which is most im~ort nt in this study. 

When the government is engaged in a function inl"lerently and 

historically nece':l'ssarJr, the courts are reluct8nt to di stu.rb administrative action (3). For efficiency, absolute control bzr the government 

of its officials a nd e~olo;}Te es .is necess D.l~y ( 4). Salaries may be reduced by Congress without question (5), excep t those of judges of 

11 Constitutional Courtstt (6). The removal and app ointive power, until 

recently (7), ha s be.en free of judicial restrictions, even TI'here an 

employee was ctismissed so that a poli tics.l debt could be p:aid (B), or 

where the st8.tute (9) only specifies remova l "for causes prescribed by 

law11 after notice ana_ he u.ring , and the Presi clent removes without hearing or sp ecification of g roLmds (10). The ~ reviery rLlie is closely followed in this field ~oon such questions a s inefficie ncy ,incompetency, and interdepartment a l disputes ( 11). The.t -tne courts are willing 

to give gre a t finality to the remova l poTier ·over a subordina te officer 

as necessary to the efficient adninistration of government was indicated 

by the Oreg on ~ostmaster Case (12) • .Arl even nore signific8.nt case is 

the recent -Hurii.phr eys decision (13), refusing to extend the cloctrine 

to approve the President's removal of a member of an independent boardthe Federa l Trade Commission. Wnether the Comnission i s a leg islative 

agency or, an e xecutive one because of its a fu1inistr a tive duties is not 

clea r. The co~~t in the Humphreys c a se probably opera ted upon the b a sis 

of the former concept. The suggestion is obvious tha t there is a limi t 

to e xe cutive necessity, desp ite its recognized suprema cy in interna l 

matters. 

In the Rd.ii1inistra tive affa irs and deternina tion of the War 

and Navy Dep a rtments grea.t finality is also extended, it being felt by 

the courts tha t Hony other view might tend s e riously to embarra ss the 

work of raising an a rmy.n (14) 

The same line of decisions found in the remova l por:rer cases 

is followed in regard to officers of the military or naval service (15), 

9838 
- . 1-

the courts ex:9l aining th.~t the :rc i s no vo ,t \.:l. interest in, or contract 

right to office ( 16) . Li~::eHin , r evic' r o n ili t!'l r~r 1 '1.\/ under the 11 clue 

process " concc1 t is si11ilarlJ· n:.lr - 011 .( 17) 

u.s. v. Grirnau~: (18) inc ic['..t en the cre,,.t ext ent of delegation 

of powe r o.ncl administrative finalit r Rllo ;ed the g overnment in making 

rules ancl regu.Jc: tions to p rotect its own prope rty . The making of rules 

and e~uations ~Ulde r n vngue sta t utory am~rd was not thoueht imprope r, nor did the f act thut a violation of such rules ;=~ d r egu.Jc:t tions 

was made a pe na l of1.' e nse by Congress chanr;e the situation. The l alilguage 

of the case is broa d . Limited to its peculiar facts, it i s mere l y a 

precedent for such action in the limi ted fie l d of the governme nt regulating its interna l aff a irs, or its oun pro1) erty . 

Another essentia l function is tru: .t of t axation. Here the 

g overnment come s more close l y in cont a ct t~ith its citizens than in any 

other field of administra tive a ction cons i dered in this se ction. The 

leading c e1se in this fiel cl , and p robab l y the leading case for the na rrow 

revie11 theory is h:uTr a.y ' s Lessee v. Hoboken JJa nd a nd Improvement Company 

(19) . Here it nas. held thr-.t the issuance of a cListress \7arrant involving a SumillE.ry proceeding , unccer St8.tutory authorit y , by the Tre asury 

against a delinque nt colle ctor, VT[',s not o. deni a l of due p rocess of l o.w . 

The court b a sed its decision u:_9on the historic a l fact th<.'.t such p roceclure \7as use(!_ in /Eng l and in t B.x n::.t ters O.l1.G_ had been us e d in the 

Colonies ( 20) . An acl.ctit i onal f ac t that must have ~7 ei hed heavily upon 

the court llas the then r ecent sca nd2.l of C'. la.rt e embezzlement b y a collector of the Port of Neu Yorl>: . In add.i tion, the ::,>ractical needs of 

g overnment for revenue are such tha t it woul c_ -be highly imp r a ctica l to 

stop this life-blood of g overnr.1ent , . mere l y to g ive the taxpaye r a right 

to prote st. A- hearin.g C ai1. be affor d_ed o. te ~. I nte re sts must be balanced. 

Here , the government's f a r out-neic hs the ividual's inte rest (20a). 

The c ase , also, is f amous for the classic statement of proc edural due p rocess Te quirenents i n the nc:rroB reviev-1 field: 

ttFor though , ' cl.ue p rocess of l a'.-r ' r,enerally imp lies act or, r eus, ju<lex, r egul<?..r a llegat ions, op~o ortunity to s~:e r, and a.trial ac cording to s ome settled 

cours e of judicial p roceeu1ngs, yet, this i s nat 

universally true . 11 ( 21) 

The doctrine of nD.rrow rev iew is app licable to -yrocedure and 

to the exercise of discretion in construing a statute . In the early 

deeisions a nd some of the p r esent ca ses (22) t pe d iscretion of a high 

official, such as the Secret r of t he Treasury, in tax ma tters was 

not questioned . r:ore recently nhere decisions by such an officia l involve subst antive p rincip le s of genera l m~ ortanc . the courts have 

exercise a considerable measure of control ( 23) • . This cont rol is exercised in te n:1s of interpreta tion, and_ not of · 11 due p rocess of law" 

\7hich i n this field is -~ stricted to p rocedure . It is not used to the 

same degree tha t reviell is in other fi e lds of social and economic p olicy, 

9838 
- 22-

nor is it found in cases \lhich ua~r a.dve;:-sely affect individual s but do 

not l ay cJ.O\'m statutor:/ interpretations of such great irr9ort.:mce in- - · · · 

volving debatabl e fiscal ~ooli y (24). Harron revie . in this field 

seems to uean t :1n.t onl 7 arb i trary, udule ~1t, or ca:pl~icious a ct ion 

ill be uest on~d , with the exc ept ion o: c ert a in im?ortant questio~s 

of gene r a l anG. subs tan.t i a l charc::.c ter ;.Thich nay be conside red as problems in s tc.tutory interpre t ati Oi:l . 

Custom.s deter!Jinations are a particul2.r cla ss of tax matte rs. 

They il1volve p rivate p roperty, often of substanti P.l v a lue. I n addition 

to·. the t ax ch2.r a cter, . the GOvernment's cont inuing p olicy of d iscourag ing i m}J Orting has p robably been of cOi1S i c_e r ::,b l e force in establishing nB.rrow revie1'! he re· (25) . Ex:_oert knm'7led.ge is a l so i nvoked in 

the evaluati011 of g oods. (26). The c011:cts have no clesire to i nvol ve 

officia ls in "inex tricable confusi on!! (27) by intrusi on int o this fie l d . 

Despite t he narrovv revieTJ generally accorded to the customs decisions, 

customs officers a re no~ a llowed to classify articles ~~der their 

statutory heads. This the court h a s c.l one itself in some cases, while 

in others the qu~stion ha s bee 1 given to 2 jury (28). Tl1e courts have 

kep t OlJen the door of p ossible revie17 b :,;- such qualifying statements as: 

111.TI.1.ile the ge ne ral rule is that the valuati on 

is conclusive upon a ll parties'· neve rtheless 

the appraisement is subject ·to be impeached rrhere 

the 3;p-p raiser has p roceecl ed on the n rong prin- - - . 

ciple, contrary to la~:J or h 2.s tr an~cen cted the 

p oue rs confen~ee.. by statute . 11 (29) 

. The courts are hesitant to use such base s unless the equity of the 

situation clearl~r cl_eoands it. 

Procedu:;:-al requirene 1ts e..:~e quite lax'. "CF,relessness or irregulari tyfl by officers n ill not open t he 'f.TP.,y for judicial ~~evie r:r (30) . 

T).:le procedure described in .A.uffmord t v ·. Hedd.in ( 31) illustrates the 

inf.ol~mali a~ cl_ l2.xity of proper procedure in t his :field. 1. The 

importer or his e,gent \rere exclud.ed f::com t !:e r eappraisement. 2 . There 

was .no opp ortunity for the importer to support his oath or entry, or 

to confront opposing witnesses by testimor.w i n h:is own: beha..lf. 3. No 

op:oortw1i ty n.e.s av o.ilable to sift t he evicl..ence openl y or secretly heard 

in op·positio:1 to the importer. 4. The il:1p o:tter was 1~ot permitted the 

aid of couns e l. IJ:•he court di 0. not condemn tp.ese · :practices. 11The proceeding s for a-ppraisal must ~1e cess rily be, to so:.1e extent, of a 

summary cha r a cter," it s_a icl (32 ) . 

Where the g overnment extends a, -privile g e ( 33) it do e s not mee t so 

many citizens. Usually, pl·o:perty i n terests 2~re maller~ "P:rivate 

rights" a::..·e little o.ffe.cted. The demand for rev ~'.l is, consequently , 

not g r eat. Harrm• review is the established d.octrine in t he fie l d of 

land offi ce de t e rr!linations ( 34). Ecmdamus and injunctive r euedies are 

g r e atly restricte d ( 35 ). Even an interpretation a s to nhat is "vacant 

land o:pe n to settlement" g iven r the <ie:par t uent v.Jhile it· had control 

over. the subj e ct matte r, rras made final, when b :·ought up in pr oc eeding .for 111Mdamus ( 36) • Here, too, procedural requirements are 

l ax . I n ]urk e v. Southe rn Pacific RR Co., (37) the court sai<i that a 

decision of the Lend Department made with out investigation or hearing 

9838 
a s to l ands knorrn publi c l y to be of r'. 1in ·~ c:.. l ch."' r acte r is ir 'e l n.r , 

11 but as 1t i t .1e I'Ct or. a le r~.11 .. - constit'lterl t ibunc l D.i1C:. is rlon'3 

r;ithin its jurisdi tion, it i s not void d l:. t:~e1'i"' fo' pt"'.sses title . 11 

Great f inn.l it r .:.s t; ivcn to j i rh in.·s of .:. ~c ; ~[') . It i .. interestine; 

t~1e t facts su,, ' OSPG.l ·r fin<".lly <.•.etGr'lL1eu. 'lXe opGn to G..lrect a t tack by 

J 

t he gov e r nm··n t , \7'.ic,l Cc •l ..,ue t o ccucel a :0• t ent iss •.ed b·r i t ( 39) , 

a lth ough an cttempt e<l c ance l l£,tion , b · :"1.ctio;l nitlli·1 t~1e ft.epnrt ment 

ni t hou t resort t o t he court s , is of :r1 o effe ct. ( 1'.:0 ). I n .'\ddi ti on to 

r evimr upo·tl t :1e cep· ri mentI s npplicat ion , a r cvic1·; is norne tine s f'ive n on 

g rOl.:L.'lcls of Sl.~vh mi s :"1l~e or frau d c.s to p r ev ent a f ull pre s en t e1.t ion of 

one Is c a s e - the J. te r lle ing r eD.lly e. pr oc edur C~ l s a.fegua r cl. ( L1.1). Such 

revier· c<m not be ha cl i!l collo.t e r Cl.l proceeding s such a s ej e ctme nt. 

De t erminations are a osolute ly finnl c9.gn.i n -=> t suc~1 a t tack (42).. .An 

improper C1.:9pl ica t i o:1 or a misconn truct ion of the l a11 c9.Y'e crounds for 

r evien (43) . Tle cou rts detexnine jvriodiction if o.n n tt emp t i s made 

to at nt l nnd , ha.ving ce rta i n d isabilities mukine; it not patentE'.ble , 

and ':ill break t he force of t he -pat e nt ( 44;. If t uo authorities conflict 

a s to jurisclictio:.l t he COU:C' t n ill det e rmine the r.1atter (45). The indica tions are that the c oul'ts ~'J ill a llo1-r i;mch le evray to officia ls up on 

such questions unless there i s subst['.nti a l d.m:bt. '!:e th v. TI'allace ( 46) 

illustrates ~1 is. ::te r e , altho1.,-_;~1 t he c ou:,:-ts upl1e ld. a n administ::-a tive 

finding c>.s to the jurisdictional f a c t of n:1e ~ ~ l a nc1s 11 subj e ct to 

~eriodic ov erflow" ne r e "snarnp r.nC. ove.,..flo,:;ec-1," it ui C. so be cause it 

felt the que stion re s olved "it s e lf i nto m1e of ~e finition of ,·orc·.s or 

ter-:1s, more ~12.n one of inte rJ.)TGt t'.ti 0!.l of a st <:1.tute , 11 a.nd for the more 

significant r e ason thpt it t :1o1.-;_..J;} t the i nte r p r e t ::.t i on issued. r~as a 

~o:co·oer one. - ... 

There is little need. f or ex t e ncl.ecL revie rr of c,.,s e s in enalog ous 

fields. It is eno·-1{:~:. to :p oint 01:Lt t :12.t .rro '": revie" e}'.:ists in f c..ct 

in suc:1 fields , lt ~.1o u.::;:1 t:1e vourts by tll.e ir languaee a l7ays reserve 

an. avenue by '.•llich :relief rue-.:• be e:xt e nd.e d to chosen cases. In the 

~oensions fi e lcl, ne :1;we c-, lr -:~ · c ousi ci.;; :·ee_ 1e eal~ly case of Decatur v. 

Paulding (47) . The field. of 'Y)a t ents is o.lso one of na:rro11 revien (48) . 

Tl1e sru:1e seems t n 1e of t he r eF r.tibn of radio broa dca sting, despite 

t-·l.e f a ct t l.1.::- t full st tuto:t~r revi e': i s :p:t·oviclecl, TI:1e1~ e a g rant is to be 

made (49). r h is clo es not seera the cr-tse n:1e r e e.J.l ex isting license is to 

·be Cc?.ncelle <i ( 50 ). Othe r ca ses involve such p robl ems E!.S g r anting liquor 

licenses (51) f!.ncl. a llo17in.:; 1e u se of n. tn -nnu e under the 1'/ieat Inspection Act. (52). 

The im: :i g:L·ation ca ses (53) a re an important fi e ld a nd the unusual 

treatment tl:..e-r hc-we been acco:,·de c. clemands some consideration. There is 

involved a delica te p roblen of int l'nati ·'~ n relations, a field which the 

courts have often been reluctant to touch (54). Fearing that they 

would be s uamped b:y a flooci. of alien c a.ses, the coul ts extended finality 

even to the administrative dete rmination of the jurisdictional fact of 

citizenship, in the uide l y discusse d. .. Ju Toy case (55). Finality as to 

decisions of othe r facts was unquestionecl in the early cases (56) • .An 

analysis inciicates some subtle d i stinction be trre en e~·clusion and expulsion . In the latter the courts have been ~ore prone to interfere (57). 

This Sa.L1e basis has be en used to avoid the Ju Toy decision in the case 

of a person arrestecl Ti ithin the t e rritory of the United States (58). 

As time has g one on the courts have ove rcome the ir fi:-st skittishness 

and have founct more l'easons to clemand the ir intervention. Alien 

9838 
-24-

procedure :ras ha:csh a.ncl op en to unfavora.ble critic ism (59 ) . The procedura l d.ue proce ss clause was nore closely inter·:'reted ( 60). he requirements of evidence have been tight e ned ( 61 ), and questions uhich 

might be s a id to involve questions of ei tl1er J.a\7 or fact are tre ated 

as questio ·'-8 :Jf law for the co1.,.rt 's interp:ret[l.tio1 (62). 

Govern 'lt is supplying uublic services is taldng on a ne\7 type 

of duties. _ The extension of g ov e rmnent into such functions has been 

continuous ( 63 ). Our posta l service (once carried_ on a s a :9 rivate 

business), until recently furnished one of the fe1'7 examples of such 

activity on t he part of the federal government. he ~portance of 

administrative orders ( 64) to the efficient conduct of the bus_iness is 

so great t l:lf!.t the cou:tts Etre hesitant to interfere in 11ost c ases (65) . 

Decisi'ons b y t he a<irninistrative officer of questi ons of fact and 11 even 

upon mixed questi o:1s of laTI" and fact, or of lan alone 11 u ill no t ordinarily be r eviewed" (66). The court in the case, from -rrhich this 

language is quoted, suggested that it he.d the p oTier to review, 11 and 

will occasionally exercise the right of so doing ." Here a s in other 

fi'elds, cases involving almost identica l que stion s \7ill be t:.:eated 

differently. ~he determination thC~.t "faith healing" cla ims were f raudulent, the cou.rt held to be a matter of opinion not su:9portable by 

evidence (67) (although if medical questions are presented to the court 

it will allow a jury to d.ec'.ide on e :x-pe rt testir:1~ ), nhile a claimed 

panacea may ·o e declared fraudulent uv on evidence thought by the court to 

be substantial (68). 

The basis for most of the early cases a nd. a criticism has been 

voiced by M1~. Justice Holmes: 

11 The decisions thus far have gone largely, if not 

wholly, on the ground tha t if the government chose 

to offer a me~s of transp ortation which it was not 

bound. to offer, it could choose what it r7ould transport; '.7hich is \"Jell enoueh when neither law nor the 

hablt that the ov rT~~ent's action has generated has 

rJade t l1at means the only one. But \: hen habit a..1d law ' . . 

combine to exclude every other, it seems to me that 

the 1st .Amendment in terms forbids such control of the 

]? OSt as was e xercised here. It ( 69) 

In cases clearly involving a valuable ancl. substantial privilege 

s u ch •.s the second class maiiing privilege, the courts in normal times 

( 70) -:? i 11 rObC~ bl r exercise a more careful scrutiny ( 71) of administrative action tha n in routine matters (72) • 

. This surve ' shows t hat narrow r eview is no precise doctrine, 

easily st 2.ted 8.nd. completely followe d 'in any field. Rather it repre-

.Se!).ts an 81'):oroach taJ::en by · t he courts depending u pon facts peculia r to 

. narrow revie 1 f i e lds generally, to some particular fielcl, or even an 

. individua l class of cases. Rules for the exercise of administrative 

p0\7er may lil:::e\7ise v ary (73). In narrou review fi e lds there exist such 

statements oy the courts, t hat the · could, if des ired, exercise as 

effective a che ck as they do in the broad revien fi e lds. The important 

f a ct is, the3r onl-, upon rare occa sions of individual har('lship is such 

exercise had. 

9838 
I I . :BROAD -~VIE .T 

:;:ecently, e,;ovE'rnmcnt ~l<·"' pu ... l' .. e0 .. ·1ore ''.nl'. I!10re into the regulation 

of private b't ... ;;, in ss . .An ;;'1 ti :-c l :r nc•. orob:L .n h. r. been pre s e n ted to the 

COI.U'ts . ::Sefon' any CC'l,ons a··v off 3l' 'H'. · o:. t~ ... e COJX..'tP 1 attitude as 

sho11n b7 e ~,; :-· ses , the t':.ro 1.10st im.JOi tnnt fec.Lerc:1.l J. ields shoul0. be 

cons i cl.ered . Such r et;1.'l <1t ion pre ::.; c nt llrn:· cUff lcul t problems in 

adL1inistratio11. "'")e:;ulatio s~10ulcl not rli_;_) e out ~' rivate profits, if 

State regulc).tion, not State o,-mership , is tlle cJ .. esire o c.im of the 

statute (74) . B.::l.ln.lCed asainst this mu t be the p ublic interest behind the statute . Out probl er.1 i s not one of ~o owere, but rather, of 

such fairne vs , as LlC courts ':'ill a: prove . ID1en adiainis trations have 

failed to meet the encl. de s i r e b~r t he l egisl .:1ture, o r have caus es indiviCl.ual i njustices in effectint; the :9ur:9ose of the stntute , t he co1.rrts 

feel that there is cause to intervene (75) . The problem of sucll rr!gul ation in fie l ds of dis~uted social and economic po l icy r eau:re ~ ; · 

cisions upon que stions of fact ;.1ot susceptible to precise <letEr•.i .. _.u,t ion. 

'])he adequacy of service , t l1e reasonable ness of a rate , t he 1 lr..i'"' u ness 

of a traG.e practice, involve op inio:;,1s \7hich 111ay val'Y as 1; 1 oc ial and 

economic philosophies of these en trus te cl. ·Ji ~1 t lte i r d.,t ~J ~ ~nat ion vary. 

Such problerns mi::l1t be Cc.llec".. ll ·1 ixed questions of ]..., ·-'· f ac t, 11 but 

t:1is noul c"t. be of littl e he l p , for this c2.teo o··y set"r : ~o have been 

created foT such ? roblens "-rhich the conrts do r>'l c;,.:ce to hanc.le (7 6) . 

Tl1e ~.r ~i h istory of the I nterstate Cor:me n .. e Cormission. is one of 

being chec ~:ed an0 .. h[l.Ii1pe recl b:r the cou::-ts (77). Tl e courts ' full r evien 

wo.s soon <3 .. istasteful t o Cons :-ess . The HepbD_Tn .Ac t, a tterapt ing t o curb 

the COUl'ts l~esu ted (7 J ) . ron , e:r ee.t fi nctlity i s given to the Coi!1fil iss ion's 

determinations ( 79 ). Tl1e cou:tts eve n c ite narro-.;r revien decisions from 

fields invol vin:; the 1::;overnment t s O"::n ~J:< perty ( 80 ) . There e.r e fe·u · 

cases ·LXpon p 1·oceclural form such o.s · t.he Al ien Cases bring up, for the 

Commission follo·7s a irl ~r comp l ete pro ce0 .. ~~. . I t i s through the 

evidence requirelilent t lle.t the co1.u ts exercise the ir g r eat est control. 

The com:ts have no <lesire to reduce t l1e CouEl ission t o "a mere instrument 

for the ru·~·ose of to.t :ing testinony to be subr,1i tt ec1 to the courts for 

the ir ul t i rw .. te a ction". Although, great fino.li ty i s claimed for the 

Corm:Iission, t :ui.s. may ap~J ea:L~ onl y beca.use the court is no t so displeased 

v1 it~1 ind..iV iG..UD.l deteroina tions <18 to revie,:r thei•l. Cert a inly , the court 

ha s stated i :1. sone C<1ses a brb<..c"t. ba sis of reviev . In Inte rstate Cornoerce 

Comn i ss ion v ·. Union Pa cific ·:. . Co . ( 82 ) t he cou:ct sta ted the t raditional 

for::::1ula of :L'evie• · to test Con stitut ional <:-Jld .. sta tutory i ntr a vires, and 

mistal:e s of l aD: 

"Questions of f a ct 11a ~r be involve cl in the determination 

of que s tions of l ar:, so t hat r •. n orc'..e r reg1.1lar on its face, 

:-1e.;y be · set asi cte if i t appears that --- the r a te is s o 

lou e.s to be confiscatory in viola tion of the Constitutional 

prohib i t ion asainst te~-:inc :pr pei· r, u i thout due process of 

la-.7 , if the Cor:1m ission actecl so c.r o itrn rily or unjustly a s 

t o f ix rates contra r y to evidence , or r;i thout ev i denc e to 

supp ort it; or if the 8.uthor i t y t~1er n involved ha s been 

exe:·cised unreasonably .n 

This ca se i gnored .. EJ. long line of precedents urgecl b~r counsel upon 

the court ( 83) . To save itse lf the burden of complete judicial r eview, 

9838 
~ ----·~---~-------.. - 2 6-

the court sta te (_ that it ll y:roulC. n ot exauine f c.cts f \rrther t han to de -

termine •7hether there nas substa:.r1tia l evidence to sustain the orcler 11 (84) . 

I.Iore in line n ith t h is l atte r sta tement, bu t staunchl y demanding an 

evidentiary require:nent - tha t ie finCI.i11g be not ontra ~r to the 

n indis·out able cha r EJ.cte r of the evide 11 - was I nte rsta te Commerce -'- ' _ _:c_.=...:._-=..-==----=--=-

Commiss ion v. Louisvill ~ anC.. Hashville R . Co. ( 85 ) . ?e a_u ire:1en ts of 

evidence ar~~ further '1:7i t h tl1e s tateiuen t t i.1e.t an orcler 11ay not be 

issued "vii t h out a;r:iy evidence whateve r'' to su~:9 ort it (86) . 

We have seen in t his field. a dis ~c. osi tion, a t first, to ca r efully 

r eview· t he Co1:Illl iss ion t s finf..ing s of fact. Wi th a neu. sta tute this 

attitude was rela."'{ed, but the court ha.s ke:')t a gri :9 u·9on the findings, 

by its occasional requirements of substantial or some evidence. The 

real problem has been practices .rather than rates, _a l though the courts 

from time to time he"ve tried their hand a t v a h ;tation (87). On the 

whole it may be s a id_ tha t after a bact st a .rt the coTI1r'l ission has become 

a reTJarkably efficient insto.nce Of ac3.minist.rative action, in the field 

of regul a tion of ~pr ivc- te business ( 88) • TJ:1e · Corru:liss ion's orcLers have 

received a finality approaching na rr·ow review, though effective check s 

rest in the CO'lU'ts, rrhich they will not hes i ta~e to exercise up on 

occasion (89). No one ansr.,rer is re adily available to the questi on, 

why has this ComE1 tssion a.chieved so much finality. I.iuch credit must be 

.give n to t l1e f a ct tha t Cong ress intend.ed_ a nationa l systen , a.."ld t hat 

this neeCl. ,-;as e:p·;recic-" te0. / the cou:.. t (90_). The pl~oblem had o.eveloped 

to such a.cute :pro:ool1tions tha t exist i n::; laYr '.7as obviously inao.eq11ate . 

It was ·not 8.- si t\k'1.tion of fi ttinc pieces into Em stin~ :9attern, but, 

rather, the derJancl rras ~or an entire ly ne '"T ·oicture (91). Cong ress, 

in f a ct, ~7a s most pers,istent in forcing 1zoo~ the court the Co11n ission 1s 

continuecl debands for p m7'er ancl fi:nalit~r ::~ its e xercise. ThEn , -toe ; · --· 

t!:\e · 2.1e c ':-.s ~ -__ :cy , -J.s c c-· f . ex:ne:rt ;:: ~.l J :) :i:· 1: s E::..l t (' d cfu.G- s t i o'L s 1o t r <:::c:(; i 1 ;•r c l P,s_:.· , 

t o_ t iJ.e courts. I n such situ .:-..... 0~Y ; t h e. mo st .co:t!.v e:1i en_t so utio;_~ Wl'.S 

tG r $fus e review (92). 

The Federc:..l Trade Corpaiss~on has not yet . a chieved the desirable 

status YJhich the Interstate Com.r1erce Commission enjoys ~ith the courts. 

Mainly, the Commission has been ltmited to false advertising (93), and 

to standards of unfair practice knm1n to the common la\7 in rrh ic:h it has 

be en a_ui te successful (94). The attempts to cievelop new concepts and 

ne rr stanc'.ard.s have until recently been uniformly disastrous. Its po\le rs 

of investigc.tion have been limited (95). When it seeks to enfcrc:e an 

order, t he y roceeding is such that the cow:- ts may readily. subst itute 

their on n vievrs a s to t he conclusions to be drawn from the f a cts (9 5) . 

Such cases 8.S the Gratz Cas~ (97) ancl 'the Curtis Publish ing Company Case 

(98), to mention but two of the bette r l;:nown case s, stru,ck heavy blo-.:1s 

a t the earl y usefulness and even r a ison d'etre of the Conmission (99) . 

In the l a tte r ca se, the court employed the subst o..ntial evidence requirement in conjunction nith its a ssert ed authority, to rule nhether 

in l aw t h2 f~ cts constituted. C1l1 unf::.ir ne thod of competition • .Although, 

recognizing th._'l,t the usU?..l procedure where the evidence was inadequate 

v.,rould be to remD1J.Cl_ t he ca se to the fact-fincUng agency, the court saw 

here a situation where "in t he inte rests of justi-ce, the controversy 

should. be decided without 'lu~ther delay11 (100). This it proceeded to 

do. 

At the time Ca rl J.1 cFa rl3.J.J.d (101) wrote his c are ful study the state 

9838 
- " , 

of tho cnsos 7~ s su h t: <'t 1 e co~. ~. 1( . bitteJ.~ y s.;y , II T~ven juries nay 

acce t or ~~cj c t cv i 1.encc nn ·1. h ·,-' · .iiL ~ --c ncc .".;, b"n t he :ii'ec'.er--1 r:'l .,_{ .. e 

Com::ti sion :~~ ~ cl. nvit' .r ll (lOt ) 0 i'his Jtu,>r CCGcribos the ci.ifferont 

:positiO.lf of t '1e :-'e<.1E'r<1.1. 1'r"'·\."'-l"' or tn i<·.,i o · ~~. t 1·u I :c1tc> rst<'.te COJJI'!lerce 

Cor:niss ion (lu:-). 1. 'I'l e co-tu:ts r "' o .sit'er tho e11ti ·~c record ns r\ 

bo.si fo:.· tll.J orclcrs o-" l1~ J'GcLern. Tr·,ie CO.ll"'lis r ion, •hile the orc1c rs 

of t he I nt r t t.e oum0rce Co11un iss i on arc ch:•Jlcn.,.od only from the 

upp rouchc of 1.U.trn yire~ rn e. ev i 0.ently sufficiency ( 104 ) . 2 . Tho 

treutme"lt 0.1. tJ.1c cvide ,1ce is te 1pered 1J:~ the jucUc i c.l n ttituc1e to\7a rd 

the leg isl:1tion involver_, its subject natter, E>nc. its udnini stro.tion (105). 

3 . The court h:;.s c.cce :Jtec1

. t '1e )01 i c:r c~e lope d b y thG Inters t u te 

Cor.:1::1e rce OoP.Uriissi on, but h[.s :;.~efused tht'.t d.eveloped by the Tro.<le 

CoJ"JIJlission. 

Lir . i.icFnrl[1.nd. ne xt offe _ s nn o~-::_ol:'.n<1.tion for these repor tecl 

differe nce s . He sug -ests th:"'.t the subj e ct mn.tter is fundamenta lly 

different . T.Lle Inters to..te Cm:merce Conu is·s i on trer.ts rri th ? Ublic 

utilities. The colirts a re used. to theiJ.~ regulation b:~ the g ove rnment . 

On the other hund., the nercantile noTlc o: tJ.1e pr.st h us oeen relatively 

free f:rom r egulo..tion. The ·courts, there:o::.·e, nr e reluctant to a lloVT 

innovations i n this field . . (106). 1. It is SU[;g ested th;~. t the 

pe rsonn.el of the Intersto.te Cor.1J.1erce Com.;Jission h~s exem~0lifiecl the · 

best use of the e:~oert ['11ll th:-'.t it is rmuerior to the ·oe:l.~sonnel ·of the ~ .. -

Tro.cle CODU!iS 3 ion. Coupled 1:i e 1 tlle ct inhn.TL10ny D.l1 ~- lack of tact U{)On 

the po.rt C?f tlw Trace Coamiss ion i n t :1e conduct of .its internal unc:.. 

exter nC~.l nffo.ira, :~r. cF.:t rl~·. _ see s i::.:. this situa tion a basis fo:~ sone 

of the Traci.e Co::u_!iss ion t s "difficulty ·c 10 7) • 2 . !Ie sugge sts tha t the 

Trade Corrmission Is ·o rocedure ho.s be e n o·oen to wore D..11fn;V'lora.ble cooraent .l,; -'-

thun th<-.t of the I:1terst ~te Cm:.merce ·com:1ission. 3 . Of particul.:tr 

importance a:ce the op inions give:1 o-· t:_e t'flo Conn issions. There ~s an 

indic~t ion th:"'.t tl10 T:c[l.cla Co;.uis ~: ion t s l1::we been h·:~. s ty, ill dral!n c.nd 

bE>.secl ~on insufficient eviclence . Tl1e L1terstnte Commerce Comnission, 

on tl1e ot:1er :1<' .. n C:. , hcs nucl1 uol e c~ :;.~e ~ull~r f ollonecl ~he jud_icial 

technique , drc.wL1t-; its op inions carefully c:mc:_ fully considering the 

evidenti.s.r~r basis for its r.ction . }:r . ~cF .rlanct concludes thE>.t the 

opinion by such Coi:li1iss ions sl~oul J_ sto.te f o.cts nnd the reasons for ·the 

conclusions dr [1.1.'Tn . The suggesti on is obvious, that the more jucl.icial 

the opinion, the more likel:r it is to be clothed u ith finulity (108). 

4 . The courts offe::: an e~::-ol nntion for tl1e d. iffe:~ent treut ment based 

u;_oon the s to.tuto:cy l t;nguage . :2.~ . l~cFar land thinks tl1is is of little 

importa nce us o.n e-c:9l nnat ion. 5. The doctrine of revieTI if bo.secl 

upon the fornulo.._ o: 11 que ·stions of lo.n" ancl.. Hquestions of fact." 

6. The different enforcE?;1ent pr oced-Lll~e s providec1 invite the treutment 

that has ·been accorded the . t r:-o COJ!!n is s ions. The orders of the I nterstate Cm:u:.1erce Commission become effective in a l~ecified time unless 

set aside h3r the courts up on ['~O ·"":· lic E> .. tio 1 of parties affectecL. The 

Tracle Comsission, on the ot ~'le l~ ~.E' 'l C. , Llust a-p:91Y to the courts to secure 

enforeement of its orde l~ s. 7 . Tl1e str.nd9-r c1 s set u~1 for the I nterstate 

Commerce CO!J!niss ion to follou, .':'.1 t h Oi..\_,l1 coucllecl in a s bro2.d lo.ngtlc'lge 

as those as the Trn.c'.e Com1iss ion uses, r efe r to nore particular s i tuations ( 109) . The: uri t er has Sl..lf;geste o. 2.bove in n<lcl.itio:-1 to t~1is that a 

greater umount of eJ...:pert knovTlec:ge of c\ ldnO. not :cea _ily digested. by the 

court , is r equired in the functioning of the Interstate Commerce 

Cornn i ss ion ( 110). 

9838 
- 2e8. The more s a tisfactory the exoeriment in administration, the more 

authority nill flow L_~oli1 the leg isla ture . .And.. it might be add.ed t h a t 

the more pleased the court, the greater the finality t he legislation 

will be given. 

Much of the difficulty of the ee.rly Trade Commission mat be 

attributed to the lax standards of the Act (111) which amounted to a 

broad statutory grant to work out the law in a certain field, within 

the limits of the te:rm com-petition. It was the very laxity of the 

delegation that ·must have made the courts feel that their careful 

supervision was needed. (112). Confidence in the administrative 

body's ability to meet the problems presented to it in a capable and 

not too visionary manner' comes but slo\7ly to the COL.U't (113). This 

confidence is essentia l to any real aa.;-ninistrative finality (114). 

McFarland e~ores ed the nee cJ. for legislative ancl aclministra ti.ve 

reforms if real good r:as to cone · froE the Tl~ade Commission (115). 

Without awaiting new legislation, almost as a c·ontradiction of 

NcFarlancl_t s thesis Cai.:le [1 series 'of fav6ra"ole 0.ec is ions. :Sut instead.. 

of being a contradiction, these cases furnished f1.rrther evidence to 

substantiate the thesis which had. been ·advanced., for they represent 

more careful tl~eatment .r the CoEunission • . The opinions .TI'ere handed donn 

at a time rrhen economic forces inCl.ice.ted a greater . need for trade 

regulation. The Royal Milling Co. Case (116) merely involved an unfair 

advertising· problem, a field in ~7llich the C6ITL1iss ion had been comparatively succe'ssful. · The juclicial note struck in the opip.ion was new. 

Where the order of the CO!Ili.]ission is supported b;y evidence it will be 

upheld. The Alagoma Lwnber Company Case (117) used a lmpst idential 

language. The facts. and the language of the Keppel Case (118) are most 

revealing of the courts 1 ne\7 attitude. An ord.er of the ConElission had 

been direct ed agi:dnst the clistribution of packe>.ge candy by the llbreak 

and take 11 method.. This· the ·commission had found to be unfe.ir competit ion. The cour.t denied ·that the CO:mmiss ion t s jw~isdiction was limited 

to practices that have been fotind unfair r. the court (~19). It frankly 

recognized the gradual process of Judicial inclusion and exclusion (120). 

The language of the com~t best illustrate.s its more ready attitude to 

give some finality to the Commission: . 

9838 

11 \fuile this Court has declared it is for the 

Courts to determine what practices or methods of 

competition are to be deemed unfair - - - -, in 

passing on that question the determin~tion of the 

Commission is of weight. It \1e.s . created with the 

avowed purpose to · it in "a body specially competent 

to deal Tiith the:r.1 by ·reason of information, experience and careful study of the business and 

economic concli tions ·Of the industr r affected, ' and:~ 

it Tias o:rgani zed in such a manner, '.7 i th respec.t to 

the leng th and expiration of .the terms of office of 

its members, a s ,·roulcl 'give to them.an .Q:p:portunity' 

to acquire the expertness in dealing vvi th these 

·specia,l questions concerning the industry that comes 

from eA~erience.t Reuor t on Senate ComQittee on ~ ~ 

Interstate Commerce, No. 597, June 13, 1914, 63rd 

Cong . 2 Sess ~, pp. 9, 11, • See Fe de r a l Trade 
Commi~sion v . Beech- l'Tut Pa clting Co ., 1prn, n.t 4.53 ; 

compare I llinois Central -'- . Co . v . Int rGtate Comme rce 

Coou is ~ion , 206 U. S. 441, 451 . If tho uo int were 

more doubtful th'"'n 1.re thi nk i t , 1.·e should hesit a t e to 

reject the conclusi')Jl oJ:' the o u1i ss ion , based as it 

is U"pon claur, s:pecific ~10 com.9 re~1en~ive fi1dings 

SU".fY-Jorteo. by uv i cle:1ce .11 (121) 

This c ora:pc:1.rat i e S'lrrvey has be en extended. to the l ength necessar y 

to sl101.1 . 1. the reluctMce of the cou::.·ts to g ive :f inality at fir st and 

2 . how much fina lity ma~r be "..incd <1S the courts ' confi dence in the 

administrative boa.y increases. The cases o,l so indicate tha t subst:mt i a l 

means of revie 1 n.re ouen to t :1e courts, an0. tha t ey -rrill be u sed nhen 

the courts de em theD ne ce ssa::.-y . 

Where prope:cty i nterests ai·e involvecl the court.s a r e quite cautious in extending c~ in strative fina lity. Of cours e , p roperty interests a r e involved in taxation, but for many re asons·, thouc ht good 

by t he courts, the g overnment r s ·ne ed. of narron r e v lei! is fei t to far 

outrTeigh the interests of t he· irui ivicLl.c-'11 t &.x.-oayer . Professor Dickinson 

h8-S sugGe sted "that the r eacdness of tll.e cou~ts t o revie TI tends to 

Var" Stl'Ong l y Tiith the Size of the p rop e'r t y i ntere s ts at stak ell (122 ). 

The court s thenselves l1ave given rvreight t o this view· . s-...unmary action 

has bee n he l d_ pro:9er as to i terJs or littl e worth, such a:s fish nets 

valued at fift een d.olla rs e ach . T-:'le cou::. t , recognizing the difficul tu 

of dravving the line , consciously adopt ed t he value test· (123 ). La r ge sum 

sums of r;10 ney involved in litigati on uill C8.use t .he colli-t to give much 

more comprehensive treatment t o a legal point alrea.dy res adjudicata 

(124) . 

· The regulatiOl1 of l"aCLlO co!:l! mn ica ti on is an apt illustra tion of 

the forces &t work in su ~1 fie l ds. If a n a:9~o lication for nen time or 

increased :power is made , the c ourts, tho·J.,_h g iven a sta tutory review, 

are reluctant to up s et the a.G.ninistrative fincl.ing s , (125 ). The courts 

have a wide charter of r evie 1:r; the hear ing must b.e adequate and not manifestly unfa.ir; t he find.ing s ijust n ot be contre.ry to tJ.1e indisputable 

char ncter of the evidence ; a.;.c~ the f e.cts must, as a matter of law, 

support the order (126). This charter will be resorted to whe r e substantia l r:1o ney has be e j:.. inve:..: t ed in good f a ith and the Commission is 

jeopardizing this investment yrithout compelling rea.sons (127) . 

Tl1e regulation of comElon CCl.llings or "busL1e ss affected Tii th a 

public interest" because of the l arge pr erty i nterests have r e ceived 

particular treatment bv· t he CO'u.:' ts· (12 8) . The f'lmction is regarded_ as 

"delicate and danger ous, c11· ".. 0'\l,f;ll.t to be exercised rri th a keen sense of 

justice on the part of t he r egulating bo d~· , - - - - The CouTts ought not 

to bea:r the ':!hole burden of s aving pro:pe rty from confisca tion, th ugh 

the ~· 11ill not be found -r;antin ~ ':he:ce t he -p roof is cle ar (129) . The 

respons i bil i t~r of the regulatory at;enc;,r is even mo r e great than tha t 

of an ag ency operating a Gove rnment Ti ne ~ business, fbr the question of 

profits and t he clenial of pro:pe:ct y rri thout due pi-ocess of l aTI" a re not 

similarl y ese~ted (130). 

T~1e couJ.'ts t interest il1 socia l anc: ec.Jnomic facts has a lready been 

9838 
- 30-

observed. I n fie l ds of Qi sputed s ocia l policy the judicial technique 

usually involves an e x tended. anal~rsis of 4he facts. The temptation is 

strong for the court to substitute its pwn conslusions. 

This jud icial attitude has crysta llized. into the Tie ll-known concept 

of "business affe cted .with a public interest" (131 ) . Other business, 

it is he let, c an not be sub ,jected to certa in tJoes of r egulation, particularly ~orice-fixing. The p1.<.blic interest c once:9t sees the fixing 

of price s as a guarantee D. payment fo1, tli.e ded.icatio:.1 of business to the 

public, and the limitati ons L~0 on the free use of :pro~ertg thereby engenered. A number of tl1e fed.era l courts x::::rre ~ed t l1is re l u c tance t o 

approve price regulatiam, in ca.se s involving JITEA cod.e s (132) . In a 

:case ( 133) involving the saJ:le statute' concerning Hhen the Nebbia case 

(134). so libe r all y construed the concept of business affected Ti ith a 

public interest, "the Salile couxt shoued a disposition to be ap~o rised of 

all t he operat ive f a cts in the case before g iving any relief. This 

interest in previous profits and 11spread", both -oe fore and since the 

issuance of the Ol'de:-c questioned, shows a constant interest, in 

economic · questions and possible injustices, properly presented to the 

court (135). The conclusion 1mist be had that private business not, in 

the courtsf opinion, suSficiently affected by a public interest is protected by a broad review exe~cised by the courts. This :protection 

takes the form of forbiddipg certa in regulat ions pr op os e d by the 

legislature, and a fortiori by an adrninistrative agency. This migpt 

even be called ''judi-cial leg islation" to clistinguish it froL1 the broe,d 

review which will be seen to exist i~ ca s es of business affected nith 

a public .interest. The point that this conside ration has meant to 

emphasize is the keen intere s t the courts evince in any :positive regulation of business, and their dis osition to fully review the basic 

economic facts, and to substitute their own views for legislative (or 

administrative) declarations of policy. 

In cases of St a te regula tion, the Su:p:ceme Court has long shovm a 

disposition to ·fully consider the facts involved. This doe s not mean 

that the court has overruled the administr ative decisions, but it does 

show an early intereE\t that some facts be present upon whi ch a "fairminded boa,rdll coulc1 determine the conclusion r eached (:J-36). The interest of the court, also, has long been ext~nded to the confiscatory 

nature of rates. Although the court will not make rates itself (137), 

a judicial dete rmination has been declared_ essential (138). The court 

has not hesitated to declare its theories of valuat ion (139), nor to 

make demands ove rruling the 0:9inion of a "fair-minded boc:>.rdll (140) . 

All this control could be exercised by the court,while leav ing the 

primary fact-find.ing final and undisturbed in the administrative hands. 

That is, a r evien bz.r the courts to see if there ne re proper evidence 

present could furnish a sufficient check . The re a lly upsetting notion 

is tha t inj ected. by the :Ben, .A.voh case (141). The inclicati ons of this 

case are. t hat the courts will a llow ·a trial de novo b;) the loTie r 

federal courts, both of the facts and ~e l aw . (142). The ~~ reme Court 

of Pennsylvan ia referred to the r eview of the va luation order of the 

Public Service Comn~iss ion b ;-I the S1.1perior Court as 11 mere ly the substitution of the (court's) judgment for that of the Com.m issionll (143) . 

The Supreme Couxt of the United State s sustained the action of the 

lower Pennsylvania Cou rt: 

9838 
looki1 ~ ['.t u:') c:1tire o-o1r i ol1 \.r(' <'. e compe lle d 

to con lucie thc.t the Su ~eme Com' t int L. r!' .~. e t c d the 

st['.t 1t e a s rithh ol d il __, f r OJ'l t he L: O"Luts p o\ .rer to 

de t ermine tlte anen ti o11 of c onfis .c.tion r.c c ord.ing 

t o t l e i o• n1. i;1clo31e 1dent j1.l.(l.t;JTlU"lt r.r: len the a ction 

of t l1e Comu i s.:>io cones to be consid.e r0cl on appeal .----

11 I n F1.ll sue:. cc.:.s e s , i f the mme r laims conficca tion 

of llis rope rt r n i l 1 r e u lt, t he s t a t e must ~:r vi e a 

.1. ~ i ::c opportunity ~ br.~ it tin-.:> t hat iss ue t o a 

j udi c i 1 l~ b·unal fOi' de i~min tion u_p on its orm 

i nd.epende n t j udgmen b as to bot h l an anc~. f n.cts ; <Dthe r -

u ise t he orcl el' is void b e c c.usc i n conf lict 1

.7i t h the 

due :proce ss claus e ." (144 ) , 

Broc-.d rev i eu of r egulation of business D.ffe c ted \1i th a publ ic 

inte r est , and j u dicia l interf e r e nce vritb. regula t ion of p riva t e 

busine ss are est ablishecl facts . The 3en Avon ca s e is still the l au, 

a lthough not ever;y- a llege.t i m: of "conf i s cati on" n e ri t s such comp l ete 

r cvicrr (145) . The u:~ ts t i nte:.:est in the s1ibst a ntive na ture of 

socia l and e conoiJic. regula tio;1s l1'l".S t be r'.ccep te cl.. a.s 0 .;1 ope r a tive f a ct 

in cons icle ring the schene 1li1Lt c rlJ,. ing t he ''HRA. 

9838 
- 32-

III. JURISDICTIONAL FACT 

The courts' use of jurisdiction and jurisdictional f a ct questi on a s 

a method of review has be en observed (1.46) . The :_J recis e har~ te r of i t s 

use in the cases demands some attention. The probl em i t s el f , is not new 

but it has gained recent importance in a dm inistrative l aw wi t h such decisions a s Cro ell . ~son (147) and Ng Flmg Ho v. Wh it e ( 14 8 ) . An 

early English case (149) ·.)oints out the p roblem. Did a chart er g i ving a 

colleg e of phy sician s au t hority to uunish mal:Jr a ctice g ive them j u risdiction over all p ractice? Lord Holt, ans ering t he quest i on, held tha t the 

authority 1111 as not 1 imi ted to those uns>dlled in fact, but ext ended t o 

allow an inquiry into any ad.Ip inistration of 11 phy sick 11 to determine if it 

were unsk illful. 

The question of jurisdiction over a definedsubject matter, since it 

clea rly demands sta tutory interuretatirm, is a question of law (150) . Again, the baffling problem of trying to ·distinguish questions of law 

from quest.ions of fact arises. It is seemingly an unsolvable p enumbra. 

The difficult situation is wher e jurisdiction rests U\)On the determinat ion 

tha t ·the evidence is susceutible of more than one conclusion as to what 

are the 11 Facts 11 (151). Another y roblem is the attempt to limit the administrative body, not to a general subject or field such as t he p ractice 

of medicine or the injury of an employee, but to the precise quest ion the 

administrative body is call.ed :upon to dec.ide, malpractice or a ccident al 

injury (152). If the court so restricts the administrative bo~v it does 

away with much of its usefulness. The cases a re simpl y t wice adj udicated, 

and the administrative board is Jlaced in the position of master for t he 

taking of evidence f ar the court. When the entire function of an a dminstrative body rests U-:)On the determination of a f a ct, held by t he court 

to be coextensive ~ith its jurisdiction, and so also determinable by the 

court, it is no long er clothed with the inde:9endent nowers, ·117hich i t 

would se em should be its u rop er here if its a ction is not judicial. 

The courts have frequently ta en over the determina tion of such questions 

as whether a comuany is insolvent (153), a horse has glanders (1 54 ), or 

a railway has uaid in ten p er cent of its cap ital stock (1 55) . The court 

frequently finds that its )inion '"'·grees with that of the a dmi nistrat i ve 

body. This attitude is found wher e the court carefully examines t he 

evidence, but concludes tha t the determination made s ro ~er (156) . These ca ses have not stirred uu the criticism, a s have t he ca ses where 

the court disagrees with the administrative determina tion. 1Jevertheless, 

the technique is identical. 

In U.S. v. ~~Toy (157) the ass ertion t hat a claim of citizenshi p , 

by a )erson of Ch inese descent seeking to ent er t he United Sta tes, went 

to the j urisdiction c f the aQ~inistrative officer was deni ed. The District Court had entertained new evidence and found Ju Toy to be a citi zen. 

The court eak ing through r.:I r. Just ice Holmes was appa rent l y a-r;>"9 r ehensi ve 

of a flo od of co.s e s , whatever the justic e of the particular case . Uuch 

crit icisr!l was di r ected a t the court (1 58 ). Jiore a s a ma tter of individua l unfa irne ss than a s a roblem of prop er law. J fuch of this critic ism 

finds a ba.sis i n the f a ct tha t ali en n roc edur e has b e en none too consider a t e of individuals under its jurisdiction (159) . Seventeen y ea rs 

l a t er, al'l almost i dentical question was Dresented t o the court in 

Ng Fung Ho v. White (160 ). The court r eversed its f or mer "9osition. The 

9838 
-33-

only im~ortant actual differ ence in th o cas8s lay in the fact that in 

the latter case tl e etition•.'rs we e vlthin the ter ritoriP.l bounds of he 

Unite States, n the immi ti on o ic rs claimed juri ~d ict io n over 

them . These uersons had once b e n f: 0t)·:in.''" entr,r which h."l.d been allowed . 

:9y this , they seemed to h<:l.ve )' sf,t:: <.i tnt'1 n fnvore ' class. It is thought 

that today , upon t he authori t·- o .... ; is 1 att r cn.se the Ju Toy case migh 

be r evers ed , pnd in a hn ec!.E.. co_n1s .. L.o ceecl i 1 o- , aft er administrative 

remedies are xm~sted , a tr lc.• l de. nov?_ in a f eder a l court might e secured on the fact of citizenshi ). If i t e not , it could only be , because some specia l significance is att(. chad to :P r esen ce within he country, 

even t hough t hrough illegal ent:r· . The courts have long exe rcis ed a control over quest i ons of law which oft en appear to be very clos e , to , if not , 

of a jurisdictional natur e (161). 

In conne ction with 11 bro ad r evi ew , 11 the Ben Avon case (162) has alr eady 

been fully treated (163) . That cas e rested upon the re osition that the 

:oro·9er allegat ion of 11 confisca.t ion 11 rais es a constitutional quest ion going 

to the final juris diction of t he administrative body. This is called 

11 Const i tuti onal fact, '' which mea.1s jurisdictional f a ct in those cas es where 

the Constituti on furnishes the limitation (164). It means that the case 

demands an independent judicial hea ring to det ermine if the administrative 

body had jurisdict ion , or had jurisdiction to make the decision it did 

(165). Befo re t his cas e , the Suy reme Co~rt was cont ent to acce t conclusions of the State administrative bodies, having some rea sonable basis 

(166). The broadest ~evi ew , a nd an ability to substitute an independent 

judgment, whenever the administrative action do es not accord with the 

courts 1 'views are the real implications of the doctrine (167). The recent 

case of Crowell v. :9enson (168) takes the doctrine one step farther, and 

appli e s it to findings of federal administr ative boards (169). The Supreme 

Court allowed the District Court to m~ce independent findings on entirely 

new evidence as to t he juris dictional questions, whether, 1. There was 

injury upon the navigabl e wa.t ers of the United Stat es, and 2. Whether the 

"master and servant rela tion" existed. Sa id Mr. Chi ef Justice Hughes , 

speaking for the court: 

11 In cases brought to enforce constitutional rights, the 

judicial power of the United States necessarily extends to the 

independent de termination of all questions, both of fact and 

law, necessary to the ~e rform an ce of that supreme function. 

The ca se of conf iscation is illustrative , the ulti~ate conclusion almost i nvariably dep ending upon the decisions of questions 

of fact. This court had held t he owner to be entitled to 1a 

fair opportunity for submitting that issue to a judicial tribunal 

for de termination upon its own independent judgm ent as to both 

law and facts. ' 11 (170) 

Mr. Justice 3randeis, in a vigorous diss ent, pointed out that this 

view had not been a dont ed in cases involving the Federal Trade Commission, 

the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the Packers and Stockyards Act 

(171). ';j).e majority opinion does not specifically refer to the Fifth 

Amendment, but that must have furnished a basis (172). It has been suggested t hat the. ca se may be limited to the admiralty power of the court 

and a holding that Congress may not cut this down by making the findings 

of an adMinistrative board fina l (173). It is probably true that Crowell 

v. Benson wa s merely an outcropping of a somewhat obsc~red theory of 

review which has long· .existed. The courts can not hope to r eview de novo 

the facts in such cases. The task would be overwhelming. On the other 

hand, administrative bodies cannot hope to always escape this potential 

review, without the exercise of extreme care and fairness. 
- 34-

It i s qui t c possible thc.t t~1.c e~:e :..~c is e of this theor r by t~1e co·,_,.rts 

r,1.:w be gre--.tly r e duced ·bJ r>.L.mLlist r !"', ;:; ivc .ction . Questi ons lL.ely to be 

CL'.llec". 11 jurisd icti o:c10_,l f .c ts 11 shoul <l b e tr ed !"',S questions of f ::tct 

::tlo :c1e . A. '.. overYrhe lming r e cord to su:--:··ort the L'f.l7linistr'"'.tive cleterminatio~~ 

s n oul cl,. b e ·. ns t :.kL1gl y built. It miGilt eve11 b e ne ll to t hro -! out some 

dot.:ibtful c1.ses , until su:f j icient judici ..... l s2.nc tion for c.e ci cl.ing such 

:p r obl ems h .d c;r:::.d1.J.,: .lly 2.Ccrc t ed . The s ... _ ... e c ourts ~lr VC been uct~nt to 

r evi ew C]_Uesti0!1S of 11 jurisrliction <.'!, l f r· ct 11 7he :tE' the ['.dministr··.tiVe ctet c r -

mLV:. t i o11 wc.s S1.X"·) Ort e d b;y- sub s t -:-.::1t i ·"'.l evider.c e (174) . The jud:ici ~. 1 techni que 

is suc~1 t 11 .:- t if t :1e cou rt CLt;r e s s \"Ii t h tile n.c.rniLi strati ve :: i ndi:n.c; , e~.r m 

though n.l .l the f ;::.cts <.re most <" l~ full.y revi e'.<Iecl, t :1e de cision l'TL:'.y be l)Ut 

L1 t e r ms of t:;ivL1g fL1c-.lity to t J.1o .::.c,mii'!i strc.tivo de ci sio~l (175) . It .ro"'J.ld 

seem t h:--.t ·by t /'Jci n£; . c<..r e , t o .1C<'.r ~~. 11 por ine~: t evi0.en c e , Y~ . .:~Jd:;, g 

juri·s d iction o:1 l y in cl .:~ r case s , t he ~cill1i:i.1 st 'J. ti ve f'.gcncies c o·_lcl C:..en:.ncl 

o. r espe c t f ::-or:: t he c ourts , r e flc ct ecl i:1 2.n i n cre :-.s i nt; f reecom fr om r eview 

by the 11 ,ju.risdicti.ona l f n.ctll r.1e:->.::.1s. 

The re is consi.c:Lern.bl c co;.1 fusion --.s to ':·rh:..--.t }) r oc ed.u.rC'.l requirenents 

a ctUD..l ly c t1-n be s o.id to exist (176 ). 1e ;)roblm:1. _1£\S been s o.id to ~..., resent 

11 a wilcle rness of singl e i nst .'"'.nces , c.il1b i guit y c..:11c"t. i n c o11sistency of p ri:i:1ci}1 l e s 11 

with 11 2. wide differe1.1ce in the scope of judici.::-.1 r evi ew i n diffe r e:1t fiel ds 

of .dmini n:· tive regul o.ti on 11 (177). 

Procedur2.l r equiremm1 ts c. re not V!e l J.- defined . Ho st o.ttorneys think 

of o.dmil.1istr o.tive du e p r ocess :--.s no tice ;:-.nG. he:::.rL:.g . Of course , it C£".J.1 not 

b e expe ct e d. thc.t in c;ener<.l t he n::qu il'er:lents of ,judd: cio..l p r ocedure must be 

fo l loHe0-• AdmL1i s trL'.. ti on is mo r e infornr.l. The ~oroced e of the c ou.rts 

is not tho l_J r oc eC:.ur e of c. d.m inist r~. ti o! . F::.ir::..1ess in the :.)".rticulr-.r c ::-.s e r-'.1.1d 

t he :o::..rticu.lo..r . fi e ld. must be t hc touchst one m<.ti nl· · r e li eG. up on . 

Proc eclu:c l r c quiremen t s v:··.r y wi t :1 the f i e ld. They c.ro mo_ e ~x i:1 

tho se fields studi ed i n o~r:e c t i O!'l wi th i.lO.. rl'O ~' rcvi en. Police pov1er th:. t 

r equil·es SUi1ll112.r 3i" :-.cti on C<-:-o.n not b e :1inclered b y r equiremm:ts such :·:.s :-:.otice 

nd he ring be f or e o.ction (17 8 ). Prof essi o1ml :pr~ct ic e over~. :::.eri ocl of 

time , or the pe culiD.r socio.l history o f o_ :problem m[t " ht1.v e t nc deepest i n -

fluence U}'lOll t he r equirements of p roc erluTe in ~"U'.ncU ing such 1 roblems (179) . 

In the :5. c l cl of cust or:1s :-t~0p i s.:-'.l s (1 80 ) the :proccc:; r .:1.l r equirements ~rc 

light. The so ci[\.1 history of this fi e l d , i nv.olvL:g .:'.s it .- oes our riff 

:polici es , an c. the e st C'.blis}\J·tont of tl.1i s f i e l d vh en tho courts we re much l ess 

prone to inquir c into exc euti vo tl..Ct ..L on, {_;oes f ,.-.,r to e:x11 l :::.i n t he ~. x r equire -

ments. He r e , it h t.'.s b e en h e l d th.::.t ·.1roceeclings y be s e c re t withou t tile 

right to cross- exr'..mi ne wi t :w sses b oi :Q.c; :c fforde cl ; t h;. t ~ .. 11 evidenc e ne ed not 

be disc l osed to the i mport e r, if !le h-.s c:. right to st ~. o .i:is views :-1-nd 

sugbest questions to b c ".sked witne s ses (lSl). Like ;vi se , i Tl the fi e ld o f 

t G.x coll ecti ons, S1..1111J.lr.r y .:,ct io:1 Lwolvin,g d i stress ;.nd se izure of :propert y , 

wi thout notice , he c~ rin£; or O}Y··ortuni t;.r to confTOj.l t .'.nd c _·oss- e_-:-Jnine 

opp osil1g ·witne s ses , i s prope r where._', L--.t e r judici l or :::..dni nistr."..tive 

e~r ng i s ff or d (183 ). 

Ali e n procedu re h<1.s mcmy questi o:a,:_ble f eL'-turos (183 ) . The he.:'ri ngs 2.re 

he l d before l ocL'.l itruni g r a.ti on i nspe ct ors who .:.ct :.s jus tice c: L'..nd :prosecuto rs. 

Usuiilly t he a liel1 h:.•.s no counse 1 '.:.1 ~ the he<:.J~ ng i s p ri v:. te . Evi t':.ence is 

9838 
. inform·.l , T:1e t ri 1 L1 the Den· 'rtmc1l iG "w;.p c r o:1c , "nd t1 c ct tut " 

d o rnt ·: c:.1 r c C}.ui r e t1>. t . ., lct;:.lly t r ino c..~. or CA.'Y)Cri 1ccc1 11 crson p \.;;,.. i ·c . 

All t hic- i done md"' r 11 ju~tific _)n of Gpced , e >..1)l rtiz , · nc.l c co:1omy . 

Of these , Dc'"'i1 ""·11 Vloclc s .yeo. : l . s ,)(' d is o t ne CCS '" ry ; . Tl1 ' . o ... ici:.l 

i s :1o t ..... :.1 c::'l c rt ; 3 . Econom :1,y e:. ju" t ific t l on (l 81l) . In the c..., rlv 

ccses , ~,n con r t co ~ quit L.. cont L: '..t v•iv n such p· oc duro . Th ..... t :.n r' l ien 

d i C. : t Ul1 : r"t· 1cl .., }'lrOC'"' ec i lV'' rr s bcii,g hclc1 b c ' USC of i gno r "'.nc c of tho 

Enclish 1"'.l ~. u.-" , ·.:1c'. t l 1-.cl: of ..., r i st'"'.}1CC of counse l or fric:1ds w:.s not 

:.b or;·c.1 t t o ~he courts , d e ·"'i t e ~. hi h oundii.1C st ". t .1c1s o~r it .:-.bout t uc 

p r oc e s )f 1"'.\1 (lf'5 ) . Ro c , i1tly tl court ~:u:. s evin c nc :. mo r e c-tric t :. ~ti ude . 

The l1c :-- r i ·1g must he mor e tl ·".n ,, me e s cmbl·' .c o ; t he right to p r oc'ucc evi denc e 

must n o t b e deni ed . A l oY!e r fe clcr • l c ourt }1:1, he l d. t h '"'. t wl1erc Dil 

o..lie n do es i1o t Ul1cle rstJ.nc. t estimony it n ust be exp l ." incd. to he r ; t ?lcrc 

mu t b e r' L ordc( the p rivilege t o ero s - ex:-mii1e nhich the court referred 

to o.s · 11 Constitut i on:.l ri[;ht 11 (18 7) . Cou:.1s c l m:'.y n o t be denied C'.ccess t o 

t !1c 1e:.ring ; r'.n ~ it is fundc..mento..l t h,.., t proc cC.ur e se t up by the f'.g cncy 1 s 

ow11 rul e s mu t be .--:. C: .~. cd to (18 8) . 

I n t !1" t:;ove rnme nt ' s p ost .1 or er t'i ons , t he .:10st stric t proc edural 

requir ements '.ris e vJhe_ e t he m:.i l" :.1g J•r ivi l ege is ii1vol·:cd , Even in su ch 

c :--.s cs :-. l1 ~: ·Llg :aced not b e or--.1 , n or must the de c i ding o:.. f. ici c..l st ".te 

the rcQs ons fo _ h is de cis i on (1 89 ) . 

ro ur l r e(l_uirement •: -be c one more strict i n fi e l cls des gn te ( .,,s 

recc ivii1G bro;.c. r evi ew . The co n trol b y thl, 11 sub s t ".nti ·'.l evi clenc e 11 

re auiremc:.1 t of I nt e;rs t o Cm:1!aerc c Con1r1i ss 2. on de t e rnir~ ". t ion s ru:-~s been 

observ ed. , Frcque::1. tl;y , Congr ess mo..y b y st:.tut e dc fL1e c e r t ".L1 requireme nts ;.s in t he Cl.se of the Fe cl e r -:.1 mrrun ic ons Corn::iss : on (190 ) C'.nd 

i ts p r eQ.ec e s s or the :i? cc:er.'\1 li ..... d.io Cor.n.!iss i on (1 91 ) . Whe re D.n orc.e r by 

the 1.--:.tt e r Comr iss1 011 CD'"'.ng i ng <.:. st on s fr ·qucnc y ''-' s to be c ome offecti v e Jlp ri1 30 , the he ... rL1g being co.L e d f or J une 17, t h is 'vvn.s su ch error 

th '. t the or cle r vr .s ce c l '""'.r ecl v oid ( 19.2 ) , Tl1e r e c ent C'"'.s e , involving c.. 

Vi r g i :n i :->. st ·~ tut e emp oyreri ng t he St;._ te Hi ghw.".y Co;:1n i ssi on c r t o ord e r t he 

e limi 2.ti on of g r ".de crossi ng s , .:' c.~ f 0 .i l i ng t o p r o·:i c.i.e f or noti ce.. , ·.·.hec.r i ng , 

or ev ~ of t ' of1 icei 1 s ct n W'"'S he l d ~~ desp ite C:e cisi ons of the 

h i ghe st Virc;ini C'. cou r t r.fford i ng .:'. r cvi ev1 if t he C'.ction wC'..s n.rbitr ry (193 ) . 

I n '""'.C:C:.. i ~i n to v ·'.r yi::g wi th the fi elds , p r oce clurf'.l r equir er:1ont s mo.y 

v0.ry wi thi n o.. f i e l d , Th i s oes n ot mc o.n mere l ? t hc.t , chrono logi c :;.lly , 

t h ey ·oe c orae l e s s or mor e s t 1·ict (<'.s in t he C'.licn c o.scs } . It ne0.ns t h.:.t 

th r 1!1:--.y vo.r y Yri t h C. i f ::: e :·:- ent jur i s c'..ic tim1 s or even L 1 t h e s 2.me c ou rt C'.e:pe ·1d-

~~ ~on t he }X:'.r ti cul'"'.rs of e tl.ch c::·.se . P.'"'.r t iculC".r 1y i n t '"'.x c.:-.se s invo1vine v :--.l u. ..... t i oi1 !"'.,nc. 2.s s essment , the C<.s es ·r.ry c..s to no t i c e o.nd he "'-r ing 

r equi r emen t s . Th e onl y r C' tio:.1::'.l e , in · obvi ous , is t h '' t no tice o.ncl. 

he .:~. g ::.r e r e quir ed unl ess the .:-.C.mi n i s tl'.:'.tive boC.y ".s suc h :.n ext e11c.i.ed 

j u risdic t i on tm .t i t r e n c"',.ers such r e quiremen t s i mp r ".c t i c t'..l (1 94) . 

Re qui l·c:·Jan -: s • f :.1o t i c e vf'.r y . A no tic e rr.n.y b e g iven b y sto.tute (19 5 ) . 

If s o g i v en the me e t i:1g n ust b e ho l e',_ i n the p l n.c e t'..i1d :::.t t he time spe cifie d 

b y t he st <:'.tut e (196 ) , I t h:.s b een hel cl th8.t where o.. p .:-.rty , wh o c omp l <'.ine d 

of f o..ilur e t o mee t , showe d. no d ispositi on t o o..tte·1c. the me e t i ng , he c ould 

no t succe ssful ly u rge l a cl of no ti ce (19 7) . The p r eclomi n t'..n t r u l e , howev e r , 

i s t o c1emC'.nd 2. s t r ict st --. tut ory c ompl i o..n c e (198 ) , No t ice r e quirement L1 

t o.x c n.ses , ::..s 0.l r e ·:.c'.y p oin ted out, v 'lry ( 199 ) . I f ". subse quent no tice 

9838 
- 36-

2.nd he..-: ri lg i s to -b(; ~· cl i:"l kx r:--,~;- cJ.·s , l!Jticc a: t!1r. former proceec lnc s 

is not eo ui_~e d (2')U) . r~ il s to c;ivc x :tice (e~)Cld.s lS_Jon tnc ur:-·, :..ic lity 

of .;he s i ~Q".'CJo ": . li."" s uch ~ .. ~ '~· -.s . t:-·,x -cr:>c"J/ · i 'G J.: ,,:cton(eC. jurisdiction 

or ·,vb.e r e ''- s-urv ~··.- ~y o.xo:r.c_l.;::c :f .... oli ce )')V>!GY to !_Jl' otect --.ublic -1e "tl th is 

delTk"\ndG c'. t',ncl t l:.e r ecu l o,ti 8l1S to b o rrr ·o ~1 ~· l, b-; too one :::- o'L!.S notice 

r equi r er.1ent s e.r e l j_e;ht (201). 

Re quir e: 1e:t1t s nf no t ice ;-,r-s ,..,-rc;oc

~ .; ..L _ , l c. ,-,-1.. .l. ( • . econor1-l- i c· 1)0l :: _ l- r>v ....., c.• ~1--8·~-- , .. V i - u' · 

cJurse :1e<·vi c st in f i e l ds of dispute( 

c.:L c c tL1;.; ivi :: .c:: l p rop erty ::_nterests 

(2•)2 ). 

L1 pr c-, ctic ·~., ly <:m~. ~. se tl1r.t 1·equires :r~otic , ;--, he :::.rL1g is ::'.l so 

r ecrnirod . The' fo r :J.e r it ~lOUt t he l e- tter o:u.ld l)_S'IJ2 l ly be Q b .:'..rren ~:>ro

t e ctio:t! 20~3 ) • rl'l18 right tJ b e 1.-::.c ::--_ r .::. , if ~-em :--.nC_e(~ , i S general ly CO!lsiclered 

vit .. l to ;-,ll [',ominis t :rc,tivo ."\ctian, vvith the exc e<)ti on of ,,_ f eH L:st .nc es 

where 'che i ml ivi(u; ,l woulc'l. .:.::'' in litt l e bzr t D.e requi.rcEent , o r the p u'olic 

wo ul c~ -oe too gr ~-- ;y i r:. c o:r:.ve:!:;.i e:lc ec_ (;;04) . Ee -.rL:c; :-10vr0ve r G.oes not , 

in lnO"' • .._"') t i;1S _ ~··. . J. .. 8~" .. ....,. • • f o-r>It·!'""1• • l • ·~~0C - v '''·-........ '1J. ·e /\ .--.. or;v ) t ' YIOT 

___ _ l· ~ ~ .... 

"" v ~re +v~-h'fYI .!..t. Jne he ·"- '-'-rl . . 

.... l,o" _ 0 

usu.::> .i.~ ' :t-icceco.so.,r;y· 6). ; ,:Y.;st st ~.'. te .1 :nt i s , t:n::tt i n en ch Cf',s e , t!1e 

1.-~e ::>. rinc mus t b e ·f a ir (207) · · As ·. :~ ~ Justice --, ozo ir.s s a ic: 

nT-le ' 11e '• rl·-.l"'' t ,, . .., .... co······ l· c.i:: o,-, ,.. <> re to l . J. • .... .... 1 G v ..:..1.... •. v • • • • ) ~ - ....... ..._ - ~ J ;:, .. _ -

giv e mus t b e oL:;,pte <1 to th( c ·.:. i1 s equenci::. s tlr,t .:te o 

follow, to t:1o 2.- t t::.l.cl: "'.r.'' the I'evi e ·.; tc w:i1ich t h e ir 

orde rs ':ri lJ. ·be sullj e ct • 11 (.208 ) 

The ~LJ ro ced:u. c\ l s::degut.l'~:s r·lost. usL.l<D y cl. .Jr.1t:\~1C~ed c,r e n otice 2.-nd 

he"' ri , or, c.s i t ll.~;.s -t:h-.:0 11 ot!1envi se t e !'mecl , .".n opp ortunity to defend 

(209 ), w~1er ev.c r f ;'.irnes!=: C-CT!~ "' nC: . I :f the :r8 is 0n.y s tutory Sl.lbge st1on 

indi c ,::. t L1g <.'.'.n in te;Jt .ion t h :,t s>J_ch s.:.lf eg'llD,l'O.s b e :;:Jrov i decl , or th-::.t. t e-,ridence 

be r e.q-\Jirc.d, n ot ice :: ',:. cc:_ ) -:.:::.-,· :L:·l(; C:i:Ce :~ bsolu e essenti [~ ls (210 ). Other requirements .::-•.l'e LC',do , :.s s~lec ::.c ch :.:ges 1·e ::-~ ll;r ~n ~·,spect of notice), 

cr oss ex:~.,mL1t:"v ti n c_,, tfLWstL;-_1 :::.s t o ·dw c:--, cc DL"'. Y of t he he:--,ring), <-nC:.. the 

ri c;ht to ;-l,r _::;u e ·t he 1 ''-W ·;.nc1_ L -· cts C-:. l so ,..,_ 't£_ ring p r ob l em ) (211 ) . Just 

wh::·,t .t y)Je of ::.1otice '.nc: }y :.rLv; n.re suff icient :..~ es (:=5 12). Where n full 

ju cld.~ · r evi ev·r o r tri0 l cie nova is •lresel'l t the t.dmL1i s tr . ti v e r equirements 

e :1 ·.J t so 11GOY'J (:': ). ~1 ~·~T. ~t rob r~bl;r is ~1c ad. qu ~. cy :md f ?,irness 

of t he J)roc eecE ngs. Althout,'ll l~_o ti o ."'.nd :·w :- ri ng m~,y i:c...ve ciism'_V:\i.!.t::'.&e s 

such .:':s expeYls e a nd de J; -:;,~r (2l3:l) t he ir de s:l.r2:Dili ty should clc_nc."lnd. their full 

utili zati on c:.s s of -(wot.e cting t he J-.-r-'o lic. 

There o.re r\ munbcr of .",clmini s tr<'.t ive :-,ge::1ci es which function as 

c ourts c l o sely folJ.owi n g ju ~. ic::. "'. l p r<Jce cJ_U2'o (214 ). On the whole , the 

bench <nd the ~. r 1ln.V c both s hm-.rn .. . d ispos:;. ti•Jn to :-t.c cor( such court £: 2.. 

hi ghe•~ :pL".CG t1Y..~1 E:; ivel! t o ; tos·c o the r adn i nistr".tive ~d ju icc::, t~HY c...:;encies 

(21G). r~h.e i m;Jlico,t io:t_ ~- s t~l. t t he mo r e jur!.ici "',l or more fr:.L::- i:1 -.-Je ~·- r2.nce 

o..n n dl tlinistr"' tive C' d_jud ..-~ tio i.l scer , t ho g:·en..t e r t he fina lity it wilLbe 

e'xt m1C::.c d , othe r L:,c tors b e i · --. oqu ·"'.l. 

A n ow "-c~m r1 t r ."'.t i v u .:;.l;e:1cy c~e·-~ llnlc; ,_- ::._ · :_ f i eld. __ o: cli s:puted e c onomic 

::.n c,. soc i "',l 110 licy is 1.mcler the c l osest SC''UtLl;) of the cou:rts. I ts >,cti ons , 

'prdce.'_ur --.llJ 2.~1d subst :lt iv :t , must b e r::ost cirC'lliDSJl e ct .,_nd its p r ogr ss 

most c.",roful, if it is clr;sired to l.:ee}) j udici·;,l c ontrol ·>.t the minimum. 

Even ~he so p re c<.uti ons of f c :.' .110 f,1J.r: J t e e , if the couTts ~. re ~;:e e1~ y en?ugh 

L1tercst e c'L . I t is , howevE:.r , ·1. stc~·1 ;_:1 t i.w r i g:nt d ire ction , tne ctlrcct::.on 

1CL~C ", ted by t he Ci'..GC S. 

9838 
P A R T II 

P R L B L E M S 0 F A D ~ I N I S T R A T I 0 N 

A D A D hl I J I S T R A T I ! E L A W 

I N N R A 

98 38 

- ' oC. APTER V 

THE SCHE}E 

(me of t he f orem o t adv ntA es of r ed. by the admi nistr,q,tivP 

device i fl x i bili ty. It would be, inde ed , unwise to att ornn t to 

crystallize into form l ~nd absolu t e ly binJ i ng conceu ts dmini stra t i ve 

action a s it stands today. It i s a new t·echnique, off ering many va r i "l 

tions to meet t he new a nd constAntly arising p roblems of s ociAty and 

gove rnment. As thfl comm on l aw developed into a body of more or ess 

fro zen concepts, and as equity ha s t e nded to d o the same, so may Fl.dmlnistra tion. Any attemp t to hast en this \'VOllld be undesirable. The VPrf 

value of administra tion lie s i n its empirical stRte, in its oas ~,i~ptability to the demMds m,q,de up on it. This is far from indica tine that 

every ne ;v administrative devlCfl should be welcomed, unques i one t , q,s a 

contrl blltion to government. Cn tne contrary it should be carPf lll l y 

tested, not only by its apparent ability to me e t the problem, ou t by 

the p .Lecedents of other n.dministre1.tive forms and the clrcumst 'tnc, ,s 

surrounding their use. Such a test is t he first necPs :-~.ry s.t e when the 

NRA is to be observed. 

It was obvious with the passage of t he NIRA that ·oo1111Prs more v,q,st 

than those ever before delegated (except in wa r time) were delegq,ted 

to administration (1). It is nrobably that some of t he p rsons responsi ole in drafting the ·.1Act and in its first administra tion reali zed that 

here wa s an agency ~ui generis. (2) uthers, outside ~of N~A, latPr 

expressed such recognition (3). The Act itself was qui te inde finite as 

to what plan or plans if any it had sought to copy . I t wt=t s equally 

indefinite as to what actual form, as a matter of plan and nrocedure 

the administration of the Act would take. It was most apn arent that 

the plan ~) roviding for application by ri vate members of industry f or 

ap oroval by the President of a scheme of law oro;Jos ed bv these indi viduals would be followed. As the Act W!=lS developed t. hi 3 1roved to be the 

case. 

As shall be seen, there WP re few ececi ents i r:. Americ an government 

for s u.ch a plan. The most an8loguous system is OYP folllld in Engln.nd. 

This method of administrative law-ma._'k: ing has bee n c .'-.. !. led. "u roced ..1re by 

scheme" (4). As history is long nd interesting ~no t odav it represents one of the major administrative de"!,ice s used i n English .e;overnment ( 5). The nrocedllre consists of a pro-oosal by H. g roup of interested. 

persons. An investigation by government inspectors follows; next a ,~ 

loca l he a ring is held. The hearing allows counsel to be heard and to 

examine &~d cross-examine witnesses. The inapector (much like qn 1mA 

Deputy Administrator, or an examiner for the Federal Communications 

Commission) t hen submits a flil.ll reDort, analyzing the facts F!.nd setting 

fort h his recommenda tions to the ap arop riate Finister (o). The procedure of p ron osal, inspection (the act1vities of Research nd Planning 

were analogous), hearing t=tnd recommendation to a superior for his auproval, i s quite analogous to NRA procedure. 

The subject matter of this administra tive form was, in its early 

history, almost always limited to local projects of little general 

intere st . This explains the reference to it a s "private bill leg isl:=ttion by a depa rtment" (7). It wn.s u.sed , for instance, in connection ;;rith 

9838 

-. 

slum clearance projec s (8) . After tle . orlcl :h r the us wqs broad ned 

to include wide r rne~s~r s of social iz ion . Such need CRn be seen 

in ~nglanJ not divided as is this ountrv into t Pr ritori a l States 

eectl 1t7 ith conrid~?r'1ble lo a l 1 "'lslatlve oow r. G1ouos r uri? enting 

speci a l interests or a r as m1y ~u ly f or ap )rova l of schemes. An 

ex~mple of t he s b tRnti ve p o lem no w cal t 1Vi t !1 i .... thP amRlP,amatio 

of mines in a distr1c t y agr~? ei ilPnt of a majorl ty of t.hP owners and 

aporoved. by the r oper ninister, alt.nough a minori ty of t he ownt>rs rrfuse to coop r a te. ( 9) The developmen t in England h~s been slow. It 

h~s been suoj ~?c t to t ne Courts' test for ultra vires (ln). 

The N'-RA a s .q urocedural sch~?r.1e ' s not the result of anv such 

gradual growt i1 or {; neral devPlopment. ·Few examples can be f ou.nd of 

power delegated to administrative officers or agencies' to aoDrove privately proposed schemes. Upon applic~tion of g roups the Federal Trade 

Commission has a;u?J roved rules of unf· ir competi tioi1 solely .q,s .q, cooperati re p rogr aT!l for _roup members. 'l'hese t18cl. no bind inP effect upon 

members of the group or non-members (11) althourn they mi F!ht serve as 

the oasis for a cease and desist orde r. In the 1) rocedure under the 

Flex1ble Tariff Act (1 2) there is an analogy. There, -interested 

domestic producers could apply to t le President for a levelling out of 

costs of production, by increasing the tar iff up on competing foreign 

manufactured rticles. There were precedents aplenty for governmental 

regulation of business (13), but there were nra ctically none suggesting 

that the individual indu stries frame their own laws (other than the 

f act t11at nearly a ny pressure group can se cure introduction of a bill 

embodying its own views. This, of cou.Ese, does not involve administrative approval). 

As many have sug estecl (14) the Act was indefinite as to the form 

of the administrative agency (15). But since it W'01.S recognizPd by the 

Act there would be an agPncy or agencies this created no legal difficulty for the use b:v the PresidPnt of ·such assistance was contemplated. 

in specific terms (16). It was agreed that the Act intended some measure of cooperative action between government and mem.bers or groups of 

industry (17). No provision can be found for the stens in code-making 

that beca'lle e·stablished (18) or for the administrative set-up and internal plan of procedure that developed (19). The NRA as developed 

creates a difficult problem in classification in terms of t he established forms. Here was an agency giving away its oowers freely, often 

lavishly. This presented a question of powers, but an unusual one 

of how much er could be so delegated r a t her than the usual one of 

how much the administrative agency could gather to itself under its 

charter (20). Here too, wcs an agency exercising ~ewers partakins of 

the leg islative, the administrative, and t !l.e judicial nature (21). The 

most important power exercised w:ts the ap]:)roval of codes and the incidents of that power. The problem of compliance h~d a separate character and will be considered later ( 22) . 

The l'ffiA Legal Division proceeded upon t :.-le basis that code-making 

and P proving w.q,s a le F:; i slati ve fu.11cti on governed !!IP..inly by the court 1 s 

at tl tude in 1.e Korwegian Nitrogen Case · ( 23 ). Procedure, the Legal 

Division seemed tc feel, might -oe -lax {24). In the case so strongly 

relied upon the so-called Flexible Tarriff -Act was the basis of the 

9838 
- 40-

procedure ·there questioned (25). The Ac.t was a 11 delegation- - - - of 

the leg islative p rocess'' (26) to the Presid.ent, who could ::td just t he 

tariff sche d.ules to mePt lower costs of ·orod u.ction .q,broad . The sp ecif ic 

points involved went· to the adequ~cy of . the he a ring . The TA.ri:ff Commission, which . py th~ A~t ha.d ·been g iven pqwer to cono.uct inve st n. i ons 

to assist the Presid~nt (27), refused to g ive information to t hP interested importer e~s to· the costs of nrodu.ction of a local f a ctory (that 

owned by the applicant) ·. Counsel for the importer wrote a lett f'.r. _demanding to see .11 every particle of evidence 11 gathered by t he Commission 

and that he be._ allowed to examine all witnesses including the inspectors. 

The d.ata had. been gathered with the understrmding it would. be held confidential. · 'I'he court, speaki_ng through Mr. Justice Cardoza, dE;lnied that 

collllsel 1 s·. ·demands mus~ be met to afford due process of law. It based 

its decision upon the following -pointers inter alia: 1. The history of 

tariff procedure, both legislatively and ad.ministratively (28); 2. The 

Commission's activities being disting u.ished from limiting uowers of 

public service companies (29); 3. The Commission being merely ::tn adviser 

to the Pres-ident, who was not bound by its advice. (It WR.s not 11 an arbiter between adverse parties 11 so its procedure might be built to fit the 

problem in: absence of more stringent statutory requirements ( 30) ;. 4. ·It 

being unreasonable here .to force the Commission to disclose such information, or trea~ each person affected as an individual litigant (31). 

The next .i.nqui:ty must be the vaiue of this decision as authority 

for 1m~ practice. 

The Norwegian Nitrogen Case proceeded upon a broad statutory 

grant in the case ·of orocedure. This was positive recognition by ·congress that the Commission should. be free to develop its o~ procedure. 

The NIRA, on _the other hand, made no ~revision for procedure. It can 

not be said ~ith :equal force that Congress positively felt that the procedure adopt~d. would be the .. -best when it did not even know what q,gencies would be used ·or the exact charactE?r of the problems. That the 

NIRA failed to ·pr.ovide procedure did not authorfze arbitrary action. 

The due process requirement d~manded that I)rocedure be reasonable to the 

end sought. · There · is. some evidence indicating a reasonable comparison, 

some indicating a reasonable di .stinc·tion. : The touchstone must be in 

the subject matte_r dealt with and the end s~mght. 

Historically, the government has long exercised great powers in 

the tariff and taxation fields (32). Our political policy has favored 

the imposition of ·tariff. _ On the other hand, government regulation of 

or -cooperation with business is relatively new an~ far from beihg so 

widely approved. It may be said that the policy behind the tariff is 

fairly well settled while in the field of business the economic and 

social ~olicies are most hotly d1s'9uted. 

Beside -s this historical difference, t a riff collection ru1d regulation are closely related to taxation. Despite the economic significance 

of tariffs, they are fundamentally ta."'':es. The· tax field is one accorded 

narrow review, with sli ght procedural requirements. _ Business regulation 

on t.he other hand is a field subject. to the closest judicial control, 

where procedural requirements have been relativ~ly· high (32a ). 

9838 
The court in ttl tnriff fi pJ d \"'lS inf l Pnc ed by '"1. j d icial 

attitude tha t had rown un wh n the court .;; wt- r e exe r cL sine: ""luch l ess 

control of dMini s t rnt i ve ac t i on . 1 tho ;h thP co t i s not subje c t 

to any strict res ~u i~~ not 1on o1 bei Pg bound by i t l:; own decisi ons , 

they have a strong influence uc on t he cour t unl , s th r e is compe lling 

r ason to ab~~on t1e c st abli hed view . A mere rPference to 

Auffmord t v . Heddi 1 ( 3:5 orin, s ba ck t he visi on of quite lav:: admini strative .9rocedure in this field bearing t he approvnl of the courts. 

uf course, in this case the le isl~ti e RSpects were practically missing, being outweighed by the adjudicati on given . This merely places 

the legislative proced u.re in tho Norwegian N~ tro gen CA-se in a. stronger 

position for it is gene r ally conceded that administr ative ad judication 

requires higher st~ndards of orocedur e t han administrative legislation. 

The economic sanctions should be obse rved. A major p ortion of our 

wealth is represented by our industri es. Importers, however, a re a 

small class. Although large SQms of money and substantial prope rty 

interests a re often involved in the ta~iff questions the courts are much 

more keenly aware of tne intere sts 0f .9ri va t e business ithin the country. The voice of business ·booms; tnat .of the imoorters is s.eldom heard. 

Mr. Justice Cardo za specifically sta ted .t nat the c ase was not like limiting public service cornpqni~s in t he transaction of t heir .business (34). 

A most significant distinction lies in the fac t t(1at by the 

statute the Tariff Commission w::ts m- de an advisory agPncy purely, whose 

r ecommendations clid not -bind the President. The NIRA autho:r;-ized the 

de legati on of any functi-ons c:tnd powe rs g:i •ren to tho President (unde r . 

Title I) (35). This. meant that the President could mal<:e the agency 

NRA more than advisory. This he did specif.ically in. the ·case of industries employing. l e ss t nan fifty t hou sand employees (36.). It would be 

improperly technica l to stop here. If the President in fact bound himself by the findings of t he R.gency he created., without exercising indepe ndent action of his ,own, it would see~ i mp roper to say t hat the agency 

was merely advisory. Especially is this true if it is argued that, when 

such a. fact is formally recogni zed ·by t he Pre sident th8 c:tgency is no 

longe r merely advisory. To say that NRA was merely advisory would be a 

fiction as ·absurd as those often found i n t he common law. The indications are t hat 1.111hen a statute ·is silent .. ex cep~ ·- ~o allO'IV the agencies 

used to exe rcise all power g i ven by the A,ct) _a.ncl final power is in fact 

given to an agency the court will re.cogni z_e this. (;ur courts are not 

known to be hampe red by sucl;i a Gordi~ .knot ~f. legal r eas·oning a s this one 

suggesting the agency to be· merely a,dvisqry • .. 

The last and a dominant consideration suggested by this case must 

be: werP t he approach and problems of NRA so predomin-antly legislative 

as to exclude other considerations or were there sUfficient adjudicatory 

aspects present to dem8..nd the procedure re quired by such problems? The 

courts nave recognized t hat the fixing of customs duties is more than 

fact-finding (37). It involves "the kind of discretion to operate an 

intelligent legislative plan11 (38 . The problem pre sented to- the administra tion is not in t he nature of litigation (39) . The poiicy stated; 

the gove rnment 1s merely using this machine;ry to effectuate that policy 

against one group - the forei gn competitors. Legislative action ·by an 

administrative agency though required to hold. a few formalities is, 

9838 
comp8nsatingl y , gi ven much le ss .power procednrally . The Interstate 

Commerce Commission d the Federa l Trade Commission ar e e re at l y limit ed 

in subpoenaing witnesses '?.nd f orcing t hem to testify (40) . ·This feeling 

tow·ard · administrati.ve legislation may be colored ·by ~he f.q,ct that a. hearing is not a prerequisite to the validity of either ~mbli c or private 

bills in this country and the doubtful va lue of op-l nio·ns usually at such 

hearings when held ( 41). Even being a ole to call rffiA hearin.e;s legi slative would have urovided no cure-all. The freque ncy with hi ch courts 

have refused to accept fi~din s by legislatures is all ·too well known( 42). 

While some writers have thought that the r a te-making po er is legislative because of its enormous consequences on the future (43), othe rs 

more discerning have seen another problem (44). This other problem is 

the conflict of interests between competitors and the adjudication of 

this conflict ba sed upon the administration's interpretation of what the 

law requires in the particular case. Fixing a rate may be legislative 

as to a shipper, b11t when the hearing iresolves itself into a contest bet~een competing roads it assumes a judicial nature. ~e think of legislation a s involving a group rule for future conduct. But rate regulation may involve the judicial determination that in the past one road' s 

rates were unfRir or discriminatory and result in the administrative 

action of" declaring a future rate. So in l:JRA the problPms presented often 

had this judicial a spect in large quantities. Few hearings ·,. there were 

that did hot . become sharp contests between op\; osing competitors e a ch ad.-

vocating a standard. of conduct as being proper or improper. To have 

listened to one of these hearings would have ·been enough to suggest the 

definite nature of the dual c.ontests tha.t so frequently arose. The distinction is not clear, b"t:l:t a ·general rule interpreting a statute so 

drawn as to hit particularly at a small group or an individual, t hat is, 

competing with the group adv.ocatirig' the i·nterpretation, partakes more of 

the nature of a judicial conte.st t'han legislation. This fact has been 

recognized by one of the leading minds in the field· of administrative 

law (John Dickinson) ( 45). .An :order ·applying to · an ind.i vidual or a 

few individuals, as against a ·regU.lati.on applying to a class is said to 

require, constitutionally9 notice and hearing (46). · 

The evidence most strongly indicating legislative character was the 

product. These codes of fair compet i tion were drawn up in form of 

br~ad rules of prohibitions or positive action. On their faces they were 

as legislative as any statute for a class. It is when this mask is torn 

aside, and the creation of these· codes is understood to include rulings 

making the course of one competitor proper under the legal standard 

given, and. the course of another competitor unlawful by the same standard t hat the judicial character of t :'le contest becomes apparent: Certainly, here there existed often a most bitter and personalized contest. 

As the Act WRS framed, unless the courts had ruled these rules involve 

question s of law for our determination (47) (in which CA..Se NRA would 

have been made equally impotent with the Trade Commission), the only 

question upon which there would have been necessarily due process of 

law procedurally, would have been whether there was a violation of a 

code rule. Although legislatures need not give such guarantees, administrative agencies usually are not allowed such freedom of acti on. 

Patterning NRA after t~e Tariff Commission would have availed little , 

if the Courts felt that its subject matter was more of the type handled 

by other commissions and its contests more personalized. 

9838 
' r 

-·. -

CnP t1'ong irr> .• ( 'lr' l "l ~in ·'' t o suo .)ort tht contention t hat 

NRA r bl rn~· ·o.: rP c: c j ,1 i1l 'l ~ tl 'f' 1 1re o ed.ural safe- a rd s 

e istin in t he Interst.qt. P Com;, r P r.ornrn1 .; ion c::wes is thP fact tha t 

the Act did not snecif ic·1ll v r e q .ti · 1. :1 ··· rinr in t 11P sect ion r elied 

upon in NRA activity ( •J.c) •r.·i t.1 e ;· t · in c·;\cf'o tlon .. · . HowE~ver , fR.ilure of 

a statute to r e quire .q, LlP: ri11 o 1e • nr•t ne n t h ·:.t onr> may be dispensed 

with . The due urocess requin~u·n t is one of fairness . If fairness 

demands a hearing , onE' must b Lad . And the he a rin must be just as 

complete ns net>dE'd to sA.tisfy t .1E' t e ·ts of fairness. 

Al t i.1ougl1 t he Act made no general hearing requirement, it made a 

limited one of most si gnific ance. Section 3 (a) affords the only sug-

~P st ions to be mRde a basis for t he Code process . Congress p l aced two 

· eflnite li1'1i t at 1ons upon this process . The f irst one, directed against 

"monopo lies or onopolistic practices" , is well known . Less publicized 

W!:!S the Con£;ressional provis o read ing , "Tha t whe re such code or codes 

affect t n services :md. welfare of pe r sons engaged in other steps of the 

econoMic proces - , nothing in t ni s secti on shall deprive such uersons of 

tne r1 ght to be he,g_rd p rior to a.poroval by the PrPsident of such code 

or codes. 11 This requireme:1t woul d appear to be of the utmost determinative value . Few codes w-ere ever al):proved that did not affect 11 the 

senrices and welfare 11 of oth e r not i mmedi a tely \• i thin the industry. At 

le q,st, the Congress contemplat ed a heetring in such sit u.ations. It might 

be a r gued tha t Cong re sc· , f ai ling t0 p rovide for hearings u pon purely 

int e r nal probl ems while p rovi ding for he a ri ngs upon external matters, 

did not contemplate a heari ng in t he former situations. If the courts 

had accepted this argument, there remained the constitutiona l 11 due process" a r gument t hat such matters requ.ire a hearing . Coupled with the 

recently evinced attitude of t he c ou rt's holding administrative bodies 

to hi gh standards of action ( 5tl) it i s hi ghly probable that the courts 

would have ·said NRA procedur e must embrace a full hearing. An attempt 

'Pas made to furt-he r meet this sta.tut ory r equirem8 nt 'by an executive 

orde r providing for hearing and aatoma.tic stay until determination of 

the issues r a ised in the case of pe rsons outside an industry showing 

thq,t t hey had not part i cipa.ted in e stFt.Lli shing or consenting to a code 

( 50a). 

Whe t her leg islative (51) or judicial the p roblems of NRA in form 

and substance we re much more closely related to the rule and rate making power of the Interstate Commerce Commission than to the duties of 

the Tariff Commission under the Flexible Tariff Act (52). It must be 

und.erstood that the use of concepts of leg islation and adjudication can, 

at best, 'be only s11gge sti ve. All three of the usually classified p owe rs 

of --~o ve nment may be p resent in one administrative agency (53). They 

may be sc a rranged that any attempt to classify them will be hopeless 

(54) . This wa.s certainly true in NRA (55). It would be unwise to be 

deluded by concep ts. The "legislative," "judicial" classification is 

often more t ext book than case book. 'I'here has be en a recent disposition 

by the Supre~e Court to demand higher standards of administrative fairne ss ( 56 ). AQmi ni strat ion is not legislation by legislatures, which have 

historically A- position n.ot ::;.o easi•ly que~t]ioned ~b:;t ·t.he _rc6urts~J .~.r'!!he _ j · . 

Chicago u.~.'1ct ion Case (57) suggests that vvhe re a monopoly is g i ve n there 

sufficient basis for a l i n tere st in a comue titor to challenge the 

9838 
order. 'I'hi s indicates a f e e ling on t he part of the court that such 

directly affe cted l' P.sts :'.re i mp ortMt and must be con sidered. It 

has be en su ggested a bove tha t NRA1 s positi on d i ffe red f rom that of the 

Inte rsta te Commerce Commission i n t he instant CASe (58 ) ina smu ch as a 

he a ring was required by t he s t g.t u te t i.1.e re involved while t he NIRA required no such hearing . Howe ver, t he Pr esi dent contemp l G.ted that he a rings be ·:held (59); Ju.st what weight would be p ut" on t his is diff i cu l t 

to s ay . As NRA purp osed. to af ford a hearing t h e· courts would p ro babl y 

not ap·9 rove a 'hearing which it deemed u nfa ir or inadequate. 

It must be ·admitted t hat t he evide nce i s contr ad ictory . The 

strongest a nd most abunda nt e·vid.ence suggests t hat t he cou rts p rob'Lbl y 

woul cl_ have held NRA to a rather hi gh stand ard of p rocedure. In f l'lc e of 

the evide nce it WA.S imp ractica l t o assume ot te r wise. The hi gher t he 

standard adop ted the better '~--1e chmces that the courts would have approved the p rocedure. 

I I ' II 

9838 
'r: -· ·-- -

Should it Of ~ld:ti tt.,d t 1·r t ~e cod. - .•t:)J·i:.__ )rocc ss wns ndllinistret·vc 

lcti;isla tion what effect · o 1l ci. '~ is : <' ~~.: •> Oii its statu ... in the Court s? That 

the questi on of ".due:' nrot.:ess 11 i n cod C' \~:.l· i n .. : c JUJ.. d. o.ac un ca n not cnsi 1 ; 

be denied. Trlle , tl c PrP de:t it 11 0 t ,-:.Lbjc·r t to exirC'o r dinary legal remedies as ha been u~;c:..eRed in t }•i B c1 : . .t; d ' ( r ,J.:• ). ·r• i s crea t es 1 cgal difficulties, but not lorn mi.:.ntp s·· u lr! i t J C "·o·.~t,h t t,:n t t Lc;r a rc ins 

mountable . Lcgislut i on itseJf ir; u IJ"~' .. il 1 ;:ti.l it is enforced. So to o the 

codes until he~' '!.r rc enfor ~t' '·::.ct J.it ' l <.< o.L' c,~ t UTIOi ··1roncrty and individual r i ghts, exc e •t t hat b9rs oJ. t.:c ·mt i - t rust h J.w we re let d.own to suggest comL>i llati ons which Mi ght b e di rcL.ted ~1 e;a ns t these ri e;hts. A mo t 

circwrtS3)eCt enforcement """"\roccss wl1ich would g i vc every d esirab le ;;ro c edural 

safeguc.rd i t i s urL;e d, by t hose who · eel " due :Jr:ocess concepts should not 

be ap· l ieu to code-rnaJ;:inb , would preclude the due 1")roccss questi on b eL1g 

rf'ised (59b) . 'l'l:is argument me~ns th." t . no matter ho\'1 a r bitraty , capricious or unreasonab l e t h e procedure of code- mal:i ng , since we dub it "l egislati ve 11 it es ca:9cs judicial control. By nea t l anbuat:;c a nd classifice.ti on 

this vi ew has y r od . .:<. ced a judi c i a l mi racl e . It bas ext en ded to a n administrati ve :proc.ess CLeal int;; subs ant C~ ly wi t h . n r i vat e i ndust ry and busi-

~i ess , a more narrow revi ew thaa can oe found in the a l l.en or land :patent 

cases. The p r "Oponer..ts of t his vi ew hav e not gone so far as to argue tha t 

code- i!lak:i ng woul d no t be t est ed by sub st a ntive due process. Le:;isla tion 

by Coi.1c ress end St nte les islatures i s subjec t to thi s c ont ro l. A fortiori 

admj_ nistra tive l et, i slation r.lUst be subjec t to a revi~v: on thi s lbasis. 

The resul t of ~1e n.r gmnent i s thi s : the pro c edure r1-:a~r b e ha:9hazard or 

eminently unf a ir; t l1 e r esul t , however, mus t mB,., t t ests of l egal fai r ness. 

Thus a compl et e divorce:, ent between <)roc edure a n d sub st an ce is had. The 

pat e1t difficul ty and t he one i s nor ed is that u n j u st ~ro ure is a great 

per suasive force u~•on t"l:e courts t o de t er mi ne t he_t results a r e unfair. 

Fa i r p rocedure and fair r es.1lts can no t b e 's o blandl y divorc ed. To know 

v:he t her r esults a r e f oi. r it must 'oe de t ermil1ed w!1e t her a ll t he per t i nent 

f acts are l ikel y t o b e b efore t he ndmin is rr' ti "~".r e body and t o b e c onsidered 

by it in a r rivi ng at its decisi on. 

Certa in specific evid.e::.ces i ndicate th-;.t t t e courts woul d no t r eJ.il: ;_ 1i. 21 control over aCL"':li:i. istr;::~. ive "legi sl a tion" me r e l y because it is 

anc-tl ogous to a c t i on. by a coor dinate di vision of t:.Overnment. As a mat ter 

of l o.;i c a n d anal ;'lsi s i f the tri :nart i t e divisi on of E;Overnment i s ,treated 

as more t han a hel nful di vi sio:n i +: coul d b e argu ed t hat t he j u dicia r y 

shoul d have no control over <:. d,~ ni strati ve ap~) lic ti on of t h e l aw. Admini st rati ve a g enc ies ~er orm f u nctions de l egat e d t o them oy t he l egi slatur e . 

Frequent l y t~ ey a re r es;_Jonsi b l e to the exe ctu i ve b ranch of t he go vernment. 

So it mi ght be a r gued contr·ol of adrni ni stra ti on sh cu ld r e s t e ither i n t he 

l egi slative or executi ve or in bo t h . No mat ter what t he desirabil i t y or 

t he l oE-; ic of such a cont enti on , t he j u d i ci a r y i n our syst em p l ay s a mu ch 

more vi t a l r ole. The f irst :'Je.rt of t h is study has b een devot ed t o pointi ng out t hat t he j u di c i ary havi ng a cquiesced i n the del egat ion of power 

t o administra ti on has neve rthe l ess ~1aint aine d a strong c ontrol over t he 

manner in which po•uer has b e en exerc ised t hrou gh a vari e t y of co ncepts. 

( 59c ) It is well r ecogni zed t ba.t a t t h e begi nni ng of our go ver mnent, 

once j \l.dici a l r evi ew h cvd b een e st ablis h ed, t h e cou rts c :ml d have ap:,_J li e d 

the doctri ne of del egat a , uot e sta s ~ p ot est de l egari t o many a cts of 

Congr e ss. Whe t her fr om weakne ss of positi on or genui ne desire to ai d 

in the orderly development of nee ded g overnmental for ms, delegati on was 

a llowed. Later as adrnini ~.a ti n b e came mor e vi t a l t he cour ts qui etl y 

develope d "broad review" d.oct~in e, ( 59d). It must b e r emember e d t hat the 

9838 
- 4 6-

first declaration UlJOn this p robl em was one of 11 i.1arr ow review11 • (59e) 

But let it !10t be forcotten t ha t a review WG',S i ndica.ted; ·. ~"b..at is i m_po rtan t. 

Now v:hat is 11 a dininistra.ti-,:e le lati n?'~' Whose. term is it and 

what are the imp l i ca ti ons of i t ? · Dr . F. F. blachly, co-author of a treatise e1.1ti·tl e d !'Admini strative i:Jec;isla tion ancl AC.judication ," states that t b e 

t erm 11 admini stra ti ve lee; i slCl..t i 0 n" i s used .both i n Fr e a Dd Gernar..;;r . 

He believes, however, t hat the rSal basis for t he term' s use in t h is 

country is.·t]'le frequent r eferenc e by En;;lish writers to e.dui :ni strative 

rules and r egul a ti ons as "del egat ed legisla tion" e:"'.nd other r.el a ted · -!J c::r' s • 

.,(59 f) If t 'hi s be true, t h ose who b eli eve t1:e name " le6i sla t i on" works 

such mira culous chang es in our .. e,dmi n:i_ stre ti ve lan hevve iled to co.sider 

tha t ' as t he term is used in En.'::;lancl it .embra ces bo th 11 l .e6 islation11 in 

the sense of cla ss rules and "a djudicati on" in t he ~ense of orders directed 

at particular individuals. (5Sg ) Pel alJS , legisla ti_on is being distort e d 

from its true meaning when it :.s loo:;:ed upon as a 'class rule. The ._.great 

mass of legislation 'has aLways been 1)riva te bills, a n.d too, classification 

can be easily extended to the }'"l lace where a rule rJay af::' e ct only C?ne 

individual. In f a ct, it is extremely difficul t t o find any tenab le · d.i_stinction between n.g,d.ministra tive l egis1 a tion" and "admL1istrative ad.jud.ication.11 Prcfessor Dick inson offers the following: 

11Wha t cUstiriguished legi sl a.ti c:1 from adjudica,tion 

is that the f Ol'mer affects the ri ghts of i n divi duE:.lS in 

the abstract anc1 must b e ap::ilie d in a further proceeding 

before the. legal position of any ~pa cicular individual 

will be definit ely touched by it; whil e adjudicati on operates concret el y upon individuals ii1 t l1eir individual 

capacity." ( 59h) 

Professor Dickinson does not · contend for any hard and f a st distinction with entirely different l egal consequences flowing fr om each class. 

In fact he speaks of the futility of try ing to cl ssif r a particular exercise Of ad.mini strati Ve power as either 'IJVhOl~y le; i slati Ve Or Who lly 

judicial (59i). If pushed to its log ical extre--:1e and to a use Professor 

Dickinson never intended, it woulo. indicate t hat t he "cease ai.1d desist " 

procedure was not a djudica t or y merel y be cause enforcement against a stubborn party cou],d b e secured onJ.y bjr rec ours e to tbe cou rts. (59j) 

Wha t the t est z i:ven amounts to is t ha.t: Wl1erever the ; enforcenent 

machinery lies in t he c ontrol of t he a.dmi YJ.istrAti on, its act in using 

that machinery ' against any individual witb t he re sult t hat his property 

or his })erso.n is a f fect e d is "8.djudicati on. 11 The i nstanc es wher e this 

is true are n ot ira ny. ~r exist, pc.rticuJ. a rly , in "b road review" 

fields. Tax coll ec tors 1,ie.y di stra in Jel~ty or a li en ins:pectors arrest 

an a li en. If the t est ; is not based U}lOn the a ctue.l Bnforcement of rul es 

or orders r.ade it 1nu st refer to classes a s opposed to i ndi viduals. This 

has already b een censide red. 

The difficulty of cr eating c.ny a ir-tight disti nction within t h e 

fi eld of administra ti on is n,bvi ous. It ~!re sents a n even greater p rob lem 

tha n creating such distinction in the general field of government. It 

i gno res a ny accepted cla ssifica tion of g over nment. If ' e treat admini stration as a fourth division of ,overnr.1ent , this view s ays administrat ion i s no t different from the l egisla tive in certain segregab le parts 

nor from the courts in others. Thus, t he raison ~ etre (a flexible 

9 838 new go v ernmental form) for a sepa rate administr a tive division falls from 
- ..J:7-

t h e ei ._~h t of closr·i f icr' ti oll. If oven r ,nt i f v ciHed as p oli c;v mal~ ng 

~ •. d JC')l i c,. .1 1· · · •• _, , r·L i .J.· .t .!." f,_;_ •• ~r'· ch b el on!; ... to the l a t ter f unction is s o cl assL .i e a"' to '-·~ \r :~: ·e of both. 1: r- e the clifficul ty 1'Jrobably lies in tha t delcba tions h <'. ! E' • . i ven c.G.: 1ini .. trn ti r) n 3UCh _Jolicy 

control in t l.c past t · t t '1c r c:- .1 f 'J .• ·~c t.i. 0. 1 of :1r:. .i -;:i.-·t ering a sta ted 

l c 0 i lativ " po l ic;· : Jc. t; €v' l·~. .· or; ·c,1 . ,'J 1e.1 t "1i s is con idered t l1e 

value of clp ~s ce.~ ions s1:tch ·ts " l ee;; i sl <1.t .i on " rti1d 11 a.djudication11 to 

bind the co rt a nd. our mi :i.lds must Je ser.iousl y oue stio1 ed. 

11 Lct,isl:1.ti o 1" und "a L judicc.. .ti on 11 are merel y conveni ent anal o.;ies. 

Merely because an a dmini strc.- ti ve bo is 1.1 \ :ta ·· a g enera l rul e i n conforli1ity with a oLc r stat e d do s not . ean t hat t his action shru l d be 

outside t h e courts' control whil e t he enf orce! e!1t of t hat rule is carel~' c:1e clccd as to :1rocedu re . If the courts ado:v ted t h is vi ew t hey 

. i b·-t s ell b e 11 swa llowing a camel " for questionable a ctions could be ut 

in le.;ivlati ve form whi le the criforcemer..t ~ve the nost elaborate rocedur.: 1 e,1..1.o..rantees. 

It is a well- est ab l is ed 1 eg,'.l p rincip le that the legislative judgJlGnt is not to be questione d as l on.; as it o·)erat es in the ambit c f its 

~.,; nsti tutional :90 <ers. Ye t many public men and studen ts of public law 

.1ave repeatedly .~ 'l. ecl our .. 1i gl1est court with substi tuting i ts judgmen t 

f or ~1 at of tb.e l egislature . A legislature du e s n ·) t need to hold hearings 

u"Jon a oil l a l t h :)Ug':l it u suall.y d oas. It is pr esumed to know the facts 

u po n ~1 ic:1 it base s its juCl.grnen t. v~wn-ev r a c ourt st eps in and says 

t h ose facts are i nadequate, it also says in effec t e ithe r t he legislature 

had an L l:pro:;,Jer factual basis or it did · no t follow a view .w:1ich could 

be r easonably sustained b y t h e facts. Ei t l: e r of these vi ews amounts to 

a l i gher p r oc edural r equiremen t b e int; lJlaced u pon the l egislature. 

Th at t:1e courts do no t st elJ i n ·:.:-(1 place limits u pon the parliamentary conduct of either :!.1-:;u se of Congr e s s as a deliberative body does 

not mean t hat t :1e magic of t:1e wor d 11 eg ~lative 11 covers any action taken 

under its mantle with an invi ncibl e a r mo r of· lJrOlJri e t y , or sanctifies all 

pr oc edure bra11ded wi' tl'1 i ts nar'1e. On t he c cntrary, whe r e t he Congress 

delegates t h e legislative functi n of tnv est igati n for t he pur os e of 

legislation (59k), t he cou rts l1a.ve e r ected s ome rather stiff p r oc edural 

r equi r ement s and limitati ons (591 ). I f t he Federal Trade Commissi on in 

its invest igatory capacity b e ei t l1er an a rLrninistrative body or a legisl a tive agency , it would seem t hat the fac t that limitations were imposed 

b y e !. e c ourts s t ands as author i t y f or the pr oposi t ion t hat the courts will 

und0r yr c}er c i rcumstance s lir!'l it t he p r ocedure of administrative bodies 

a cting l egislati v ely. 

It c ould har dly be er2ec t ed tha t by t e r ming administrative acti on 

11 legislati - n 11 i t vyould b e cl o t hed wi th ~1e same di gn ity i n the eyes of the 

court as t h e acti "' n of a coordina te branch of government. Tl1e courts have 

not b een lJrone t o classify administra tion in any final fo rm. They recoL;ni ze t."la t all administrative acti Jn· is not a l ike (59m). Mr . Justice 

::olmes pointed out t hat t he se ac ti ons mi ght be · "legislative , judicial and 

execut ive in nature. 11 (59n) Treab1en t d :) es not de1:end so mu.ch upon t he 

t ypes of administrative acti :,n but u pon t he )ar ticul ar questi ..... ns t h at 

may c ome as t o o:_Je r ati un in r el a tion t o t lJ.e i ndividual. Much is made of 

t he Norwegi an Ni trogen case , whi ch }las already been ful l y distinguished 

f rom t:1e NRA :pr obl em in t 1.1is clla:? t e r. That ce o rJIU st be limit ed to the 
- 48-

fact ~1 t t h e a ttorney of t hos e aff ected by the Tariff Commission ' s rec om1nendat i cn demancled t o see all t '1e ev i d enc e befo re t h e Commissi on , even 

t h at wh ich it h a d a cc ept ed a s c ·:mfi den ti al . :ie r e ~1 e t erm "legi slation" 

presented a conveni ent ana l os'Y t o sugbe st a s in t h e t ax a ss essment field 

not all t:.1e pr oc edu r al . guar al)tees of " a t o'tm mee t i ng" o r a jud i c ial 'trf-al 

need b e affo rded t o p r o t ect the individu al. Proper admi nistration is a 

balanci ng of administra t i ve eff ici ency and fairn e ss t o th e individual. 

The Flexible Tariff · Act s ets 1') rt n p r o cedura l r equi r emen t s , part i cularly no tic e and hea ring { 59o ). .A.l t hru s h the cou rts h ave enf orc ed t h ese , 

o t h er qu e stions uf t h i s cltara cte r J.lav e not a risen exc ep t t he limited pr oblem already sugge st ed 9p ~ The sta tus of t h e law u pon t h is a ct is so 

indefinit e t h at it· can b e saf el y sai .d t hat t h e r e seems t o b e no r.eal ly 

strong autho rity existing f o r t h e "l eg islative vi ew." 

The Panama and Schech t e r ca ."es have been :;_Jo 1nt ed t o as l ending 

credence t o t h e 11 legi slative 11 ap) r oa ch . In t he l a tte r c ase ~1e court 

us ed t he t er m "l egi slation" t o strike clo vrri t h e delegati on , no t as an analogy u pon wh ich t o limit its own ;m vv s of jud i c ial review. Legisl a t ive 

power excep t with in c e rtai n l imits can n o t b e del ega t ed , said th e court. 

Th is was no indication t hat wh e r e :pr ol)er l y d el ega t ed the cou rts would i gnor e 

their control exerc i sed in t lJ. e ) ast over us e cf d.el ega t ecl powe r. In t ,1e 

Panama case much t h e same si t u..a t i on i s tnt e. Th er e i s , however, an additional and v a luabl e ev idence. Alt e rna tive grounds u pon wh ich to st r ike 

down t l1e governiill.Billhts cas e · we r e off e r ec'l . er t:l a.;n the i mpropr iet y of 

t he d elegation t h e court said an exe cu tive J rder must h av e associated with 

it some possible f a ctual basis u po:I:l w~1 1 ru1 offic i al may a ct. Th is is 

sigp.ifican t. Tl1e order i ssu ed. wa s just as b r o-ad anc:t gen eral a s an NRA 

cod e . Its ch aract er as l egisl a tive s e ems i d enti cal. Ye t t he court i ndicated a willingness to control t he t echni c al :;_)r ocedu ral que sti on indi c a ted. Further, t he court indica t ed :th at ·it sti ll con c e i v es of a dmi nist rat i v e 

action in t e rms of f act-findin g a s _op _)c; s od t o t he traditi ona lly st a t ed conc ept of legislation. 

The diss ent of Mr. Justi c e Ca rdo zo has b aen point ed- t o as set t -i ng 

forth p rop e r legal t he:or y a s to t he na ture of e Pr e si d en t' s action. I t 

i s sugge sted that t h e diss ent s ays t h e Pr e si dent's or cler i s "l ~gis ati 11 

and not subj ect to p roc edural r equir emE)nts. It i s t o b e exp e cted . that t he 

Justice who wrot e t l1e op inion in t h e No r wegi an Nitrogen case woul d u s e 

similar concepts 11.e r e . No ·ma tte r h ow much .on e appr ov es th e p,1i losophy of 

diss ent ers in d esiri ng freedom from _j'udicial r eview, i t shru ld no t be f orgotten t h at law i s stil l to b e found in ma j orit y opini on s. 

Th ere is a r ec ent cas e whi c:h gi v e s Mr. J ust i c e Br ande is an op~J rtun i ~ 

to off er his vi ews, writing fo r a una...-"lirnou s court. (59q) Her e e a tta ches 

soii!Dle of t he ch a r a cte r of l eg i sl a tive ac t i on t o a d1·ni ni stra t ion. It i s t o be 

c a r eful l y obs e rv ed t h a t t h i s r ai s e s no c oncl usive -:pr esum:? t i on but me r ely 

r a ise s a prima f a ci e p r e surnp t ion of val i di t ;y- ( 59 r). Pains we r e t aken t o 

·po int ou t that th e f ac t t h a t the a ction wa s ca l l ed sl iv 11 did no t 

make it binding up on t he court. Th is is in h a rmony wi t h tile l anguage f ound 

in the d i ssent b y Mr. Justice Ca r dozo in the Panama case . 

The a tt emp t in t h i s s t udy i s t o :poin t ou t tl1e state of t h e law 

and possible judi c i al tr encls i n t l1i s a dmini-st r a t i v e l a.w p r obl em. Proper 

we i gh t must, of cours e , b e giv en t o e.ll t l-. e pertinen t fac t s and anal ogi es 

9838 
- .. . 

in any ~)a icular si t unt1 ·n . Tnc r oali t i.,s )f judi cial centro can no t 

b ..: _~n r od . It · ~ t .',.. vj ~-'if , 1.. t , \:rit 'r t ltat t.wro ls little hope t o 

avoid t 101ln c• .'iclll ·uch a ~~].A br nu.:.:.t ,< flniti on and clas~ification , 

or by adding n. st8p (l et;i latL.; n ) t u the il.cl,nlnistrativ c ) r a ce s. wl ich 

by i ts nat u r e incli c::tt v·:> t:'l'l tl>JJ...; '·nt·. ,n f ::;:rvat (.r powers to administra tion 

and an not _ o:oe t o 1'in<l Lmrn0d.i:~. ~ fav o:r · n t He ju.-li ci a l eye . 

N'o on wo1lld deny ~Jet t t .. 10 0l0_;t'l t i .Jn strucl down i n the Schechter 

case was declnred bacl be c au e · 1er e V.'i), S an a t t e;,1p t t o delegat e gr eat 1 egislnt ive :_Jower. A such tl1 c whol0 ~) , G- mnkinb p r oc edure was ill egal. The 

only t .. 1ing t h:i. s study can ho..._lG to do is, consi de ring t he powe rs gran t ed 

existed consti tuti nall~r and tha t t he del ega ti on was curably by se tting 

narrower limits u pon a cti m and se tting mo r e. wel l-defined st andards , treat 

t hu l)r obl E.ms as ordinary problems in aJministration. I f the d elegation 

!lf'd. lH .. H.m cured it is ~ighly impr ob ab l y t h a t t he powe r s exercised by NRA 

iJc uld la e b een of such a poli cy nnt ure t o :1av e made t he wo rd 11 l egisl a ti cn 11 

sucl1. a bogey. Tl e ) robabili t y is t hat NRA woul d :mve b een suc:h a factfi nding ~ency t '1at p r oc edural r equirements would l.1 ave unquestionabl y a tac-~lecl . Problems i n Nii.A ad.rnini s tra tion are treated (in t he chap t e rs e 1a t 

follor;r 1 lndividu.ally as a matt e r of good a dministration and justic e in 

the particl..Uar c i rcumstance s surrounding it. Each p roblem i s vi ewed in 

r elation t o law nd p r :-J..ctice i n r elat ed administra tive ft elds with a particul a r consider ation of wll ~1e r NRA p robl ems d emanded such procedure . It 

is no t i nt ended t o s:pli t h airs b y a ttemp ting to point out t he l egal limits 

:~ f unde sirable a cUninistr a tive p r a ctice . Ratl1er it is hop ed to suggest, by 

vi e\'ri ng t'.1e ts and t he circums t ances, w~ 1at p r a ctic-e would have b een 

so emine tly fair and ,j ust · that · it would es a~)e questi on upon grounds of 

administrative law. 

Tl1a t tt1e Pre sident was giv en powe r by ~lt, Act to approv e proposed 

Code s r aises s OI11e i nt e r esting c on si cle r a t i :ms • . -.7ould mandamus or injunction 

lie against l1im ei th e r t o fo r ce th e i ssuance of des or to p r ev ent t he ir 

approval? Fr om h is position as ~l ead of an e qu a l branch of the Government, 

t he President uncle r .~1e s epar a t ion of l!Owe r s. t l1eo ry derives i 111111.ll1i ty from 

judicial l)r oc ess ( 60 ). .;..YJ.o ~1e r basis has in ~l8 r-mal ogy be t ween the Presid.cmtt s positi on, as i1ead ::-f :~ e gov e rnmen t to sove r e i gn aut:;1orities in 

o t-1er gov e rn,nents . Stil l a furthe r and com:9e l l in:,g basis r e sts on expediency. 

Altl1oU ~1 h is a ctions in ~1p vin g a Code may no t be enjoined, t he courts 

C(;Uld ac~1 iev e t l1e same r esult by d ecl a r 1ng 1e President lacking in powe r 

( 61), or t 1le ap~ ov d Code arbitrary and unfair in sub stance or in p rocedure. 

It would seem t hat e President c ould 1a e b een a rbitrary or capri ci ous in 

r efusing to ~;lJ:rov e Codes .wi tl'~ou t affording aggrieved persons a judicial 

r emudy , no matte r ~1ovv cl osely- t heir !Jr opo sals we r e in ac cord with t he r equirement's of ~.1 e Act. Sinc e t he .drive was t o ;p ve co des it was not p robabl e 

t hat t h i s que s ti cn rrould a r1 se . It do es i nd ica te, howev e r, a difficulty 

that !lay a r ise fr m giving sucl1 powe r t o t he Pre sid ent. 

As t o an Ad.ministre.tive :Boa rd o r offi c er bo th mandamus and injunction 

will l ie in p r o::;>er circmns t ances. ·:r.~. e any discretion involved has b e en 

exe rcised anr1 al l tJ.lat r emains i s a mini st e rial duty mandamus may lie ( 62) 

·l r whe r e juri sclic n is r efus ed by an a dJTiini strati v e board mandamus will 

1 i e ( 6~5 ). So mandamu s mi[5~.1 t ~lave 1;r o:.9 erly lai d Wlle re NRA r efu sed to c on sider the p r oposal of an industry , r Mle r e an of f 1c ial r efused t o forward c e rt a in pal)eTs ic~1 :le ~J. ould ~1 e fo r war d ed u nder tl.:.e :pr oceclure as s e t u p 

983.8 
- 50-

( 64). I f a sh oviT ing we r e ma cle t ~1e mere oval cf a Code by the President would h av e cau sed i rreparabl e inj ury , i t ~l t :1ave be en urged t h a t 

t:1e f o r war ding of th e Code by t :ae NRA t o the Pr e siden t could be enjoined. 

Such an argument woul d h ave be en of doub tful me rit ( 65 ). Th e effect ·would 

h av e b een enj oined ~1 e President . It is n ot oontendGd re t hat w~: er e e 

courts migh t vi ew NRA a s ac t i ng a s c?Jl a.g.:m t of t h e Presi cl ent i n a narrow 

sen s e t h at extra or dina r;y legal r emedy \?ould i ssue . Th e r e s b een too 

littl e t ime t o fully con sider th is p r obl em. I nst anc e s w:J. e r e i njuncti on 

mi ght ~:;> )er y li e can be envi saged al t lvu. g.1 the cour ts a r e ex t r emel y reluctant t o i ssue extraor dinary lega l r emedi es. T11is i s esp ec iall y true 

of mandamus. ~1us, a pr emimn· i s pl a c ed U] on ina ction ( 66 ). s may be 

only an incident of tbe courts f e el ing , t h e a ttitude h aving a ris en f rom 

the r eluctanc e of courts to giv e r elief r equiring p9si tive a ction by t hose 

it ca,n not easily control. Th i s d i s cu ssi on has b een i n t end ed t o show t h a t 

·: "the _·'introduction of th e Presi dent as the f i nal a dministra tive author ity 

complicates t h e situation a s f a r as ~1 e a )plicati on of extraordinary l egal 

remedi e s b ecause of t he d i gn i t y of h i s po sition bo th ana l y tically and h i storically. Unless t he r e vvas s~me compelling r eason it would s eem d E? sirabl e to have such final autho rity r est in some other per son or body than 

the President. 

The N. I .R • .A. make s specif ic p r ovisi on f or con di tional or der s of ay.. 

proval (*). Ther e -a r e a f ew case s invqlvi ng t l1e u s e of such orders maki ng 

requirements not specifi cally incluqed in a statu t e. ( 67). The f ew case s 

s eem to allow r egul a ti on s r eas onably con_sist ent with the sta tute and i ts 

purposes (68). Prof essor Freund h as su gge st ed t:1at 11 in t h e absence of express statutory p rovision t h e power of administra tive autho r i t ie s to annex 

conditions to licen se s should b e deniedf!_ ( 69 ) . T1lis seems c orre ct where 

the administration tri es to ga.i n ends it could not r ea sonably reach under 

its statutory p owe r._ It woul d. n ot se em to b e so compelling whe r e the conditi onal orde r was l1arrnoniou s wi t l1 t he st a tut e and made to r emedy a d efec t 

in a pr o1)0 sed sch eme. Al so c un siderabl e merit can b e seen in t h e u se of 

a conditional or d e r a s a _:)r o t ection t o 1e public (70 ) . T:1e Act provided: 

"Th e Pre si dent may , a s a condi t i on of h i s appr ov al of any such 

c ode, impos e such c :mdi t i ons (incl u d i ng requiremen ts f o r t h e :naki ng 

of r epo rts and t he keeping of a c counts) f or the p rot e cti on of 

consume-rs, compe titors, empl oyee s , and_ ot l1 e r s , and in furt;.1 er a n c e 

of the public inte r e st, ... . ...... . ..• as t21e Pr esid.en t i n llis clisti n d e ems ~ssa y t o efi e c t u a t e t:1e lJOl i cy he r e in declar ed . " 

Th e r easonablen e s s of t :1e u s e t l1a t 1e President ' s cond i t i onql orders 

we r e put t o woul d s eem to have b een t l1e t est . 

The Act was couched i n broad t erms. The pr oc edu res t o be used were 

not specified. Th e dominant s c!1eme of i ndu stry wr itt en code s , ap-?r ov ed by 

the Presi dent, wa s a n ew gov e rrunen t a l f or m. Its ma in pre c edent , t lle English 

( * ) SectL n 3 (a) 

9838 
I • - ..__,.l. -

proc edur ., by sch me , l ad n uv e r been put to such laroe u es. T1 e prol - 3 t ' :·.1 _./r..;c ;' ~ i~ .; t ·, · .t .. · ~~ t ~),_ c.• • J]: e<i. ~y tll e courts a r e difficul t 

o1 ascertu..i.nuh.mt al tj,,,· .j•. t ~' evi. .u11ce ln d. Jat "'s t1u t the I n t e rsta t e 

Commerce Commissi Jn sup >ll "'d t~ e losclst w1n.lot;y . T.t 8 ubject matt ~" , 

al t hou gh not t he .1anner \ f tr ,~ atm E, t, wn ifltJ !~e cJo:;ely r elated to that 

~tl t wi ~1 by t~'. e ~::''.u 1 Tr· ' ! ... o •J i · ·;L n . T' c making of Codes ap_pears 

t o have b eL:n bo t i.1 1 Gisl.:1.t,;.v c n~ 1d adjuc'U catJry . Placlng final power in 

the President c r eat ed a l egal difficul t ;y, in t h.- t t :1ere is no r ecou r se by 

extrao rdinary legal ocess ain t : is acti'n o r inaction, as did t he 

fn.i lure t o s-ye cify t'Je cond.i t .i. c•na l o rder of ~) pr al as a prope r device . 

An addi t i anQI problem lay ln ~1e admin istra tive ap} roach . 

9838 
- 5.2-

THE ADhii NIS TRA.T.IVE .APPRCJAC!1 

•' • \ • • J • • 

The NIRA was dE;J signe-d t c. me et· not- one :pro 'blem but a numbe r of t hose 

presente d by the "Dep r e ss._ionh. For., this v e r y r ea so n t he so-ca lled t heories 

of t he Act ~ ·too um e~q us ( i) : t o .. f-v;rmsh any r ea lly u sef u l gui da nce to 

most y e rsons inte re 9ted i'n -the · Act_-_( 2 ). · The n r ·.Jul nr name of t he statu_te 

indicated t l;1at ·it wc-1s. ena.c.ted. t o do. a j ob - sta rt r e cove r y . This i s f urthe r s hcrm b~r t.he s elf-deyisod nBme "'f t he Admi nistration . I n a dditi on to 

the lin i t n t ion· 'of the Act · in · t he crea tio n of t he scheme t he re were l ii:Jita.tions L1 the circmnstances e xistin:;; a t t he time cf the Act's pass a ge . 

A st2 te of nea r IJcmic ~a s becoini ng al..l:'Ja r ent. Actio n wa s the essen ce 

demBnded. The a dva nta.ges of swift efficien t admi n istrAtive a ction uere 

nee cl ed if t he i mpetus of rec0ve r y ·,!RS t c be felt a t once. (3 ) I t WP S 

this i n i tia.l impetus i"Thich it we s thought •.vou.ld be the momentu.'ll n e ce ssary 

to bring r e covery. 

N?.A started from scrRtch . TJ.1e r e wa s little oli cy Bnd no orgeniza t i cn . 

The latter fact has cause d some edyerse c omme n t ( 4 ). It is doubtfu.l i f 

this cc n;-;ent is we11 t aken f or t he i n t ention wa s every1'::rhe re an:parent t o 

e ffect en or gani zation as s0cn a.s no ssibl e. The r e WAS t he sugge st i on thBt 

the Pre s i de n t could nullify the '.rrhole Act by doing nothing ( 5) . ~her e e r e 

ma.ny lc)1.'-' S ·which he could make inope rative by f a ilrt.re to a ct. The i ::rroo r t Pn t 

facts a re what is dcne or ca n rea sona bl y be e xpected , not t he weird 

po ssibilit i e s. 1TRA hBd enough d.ifficu l t n rcbl ems to face without conjuri ng 

up i m}Jr c·oa ble "straw men". 

The situation was such t ha t spee d was n r e ferr e d t o slow painsta':i ng 

survey. Th is wa s the case because a co n sensu s of action by inciust r y . .-as 

de sired , and the latter methc d •:1113 s not i n u articu.la r f avor in a n)r event 

with the then NRA Administration (6) . The dema nd f or celerity of a c t i cn 

re g:uired a certa.in measur e of industry c cc:9e r a tion. It 1"'Culd hav e been 

imn cssible t o have crea ted the codes t hat were ma de withr u t such a i d . Of 

~s e it mi g ht have been }JO ssi ble to have licen se d s m!le of the lar G,;e r 

indu stries but this roce d~ure wns not de s ired. It sma cked t oo mu ch of the 

ha.ted c cncept of ngove rnment in busi ne ss". 

Gene r a l Johnson ha s describe d 1~ s p osition: 

11 All othe r a ge ncies ha d billions to loan or g ive a l'my . 

NiA ga ve no thing . It tC' ok . It i m;Jc' s ed. sacrifi ce s. Sve r ybody 

li s Santa Claus. No body f Avors Simon Le gr e e. C0ns equently , 

'il ~ ma.de u owerful e nemi e s". 

rhi s could only mea n tha t coope r a tio n of i ndustry cc ul d be se cured by 

offe r i11g conce ssion s , s hol1ing p ositive o d.vant a ge s t o be ga i ned or ~r 

t hr eateni ng t o use t he license powe r. The fo r me r t wo metho ds were chc sen 

alt hcuc;h NRA wa s not sure hO,J" su c ce ssful t hey would be ( 8 ). A number cf 

i ndust r i e s offe r e d c ode s be cause i t w1-1 s be i ng done by other indu st ries , 

be cC)use i t wa s t he pop1.lie r t hi ng t o do . This was i n p Art a r e sult of a 

treue n dr us s a l e s e f fo rt o n t he part of NRA 1'?hich mi ght be mo r e unki ndly 

called 11 P~ ll oo . A numbe r of i ndust ri e s poss ibly more keen to the i r 

9838 
r '11 i • t l'Cft , tll ~~i J.v tr i l .l i I~ tr .... trJt1d () ,n inst t he Adh1inistration had 

t be < L.'e r ed l,rsitivc in tJr.t.J.ves . . A11on:·:· t he i ncentives ff e r ed 

were f r et:::ldc m f r om the Ant i - IJ.,rust l C:J' ·s, •mJ ;) DO si ti ve sAnction in cnfo rci ng 

a ·Jp r rved i ndustr y t)gr e e1:1en t ·s U:l1 0 n n .: ~lei t l·:•n t membe r s rf i ndustr y . 

N'R.A l!flS domi'18ntly ntE.J'I.3~;ted in Sl" C:tri·ng be tter Jo nclitions for lnbor, 

hi, heJ.' rro "'e s and n s r eadi·1P' cf t he :c rk . Thi s rms a.on tc raise t l1e ')1..1r- '-' ~· 

clu.')sL1c; _~ c .. ·c r c f the Masse s ~.l "· erAst uncm·o lo~rment (10 ). Industr y ·as 

ee: L1£; ·Ksitive Rdvn t FJ bes t hrcu8·h f;:wr r -'3 ole trAde p r Actices for its 

sacrifices (ll). The r e ult was usually A ba r gaining by industry Hith 

e:c'v .r nr1ej-: t (lla) . This wa s r e cogni zed by a number of NRA officiels. 

Ge" .~: JC'hn s n describe d t he si tu.a t i on as ll·olain hors e trading and baJ.~e

;~ ce f~ 'Jr' .:.• r la rin " (1 2) . vther h i gh rffi ci?ls l e ss robustly ca lled it 

<' ll r LliG. _J r9 __ _g_uo "(l ~~ ) c r "partia l co rnJ_le nsation for increa sed labor cost s 11 

(14) . ::;_ ~1e nc tion '· e cr!me s0 poTJula r :rith admil1istr3tive officials tha t 

he ~· ~n:..<:;, _, ested it to i nclustries, ·uerhep s thinking the industries 1."7ere no t 

ufficie ~1 tl y a wR r of t he p ossibilities (15) . Codes grew up and '7e re 

An•Jr t~vo d, not bec[luse l-GA thou ht there was evidence to support t he }Jr ovi sir~ls, but be cause they co n taine d the best p rovisions NRA thought it 

co,1l 6. rbt ain from i ndustry (16) . It must be remembered that NRA wa s 1ot 

a ·1 i ·'•Jr• rtia l judc e . It was a p rop one nt of certain ends (17). 

ill1rther result cf the code technique ~a s to p lace agreement and 

majrrity vcte a t a 'IJremium. Often this became t he only guide to the 

prc:p:,:ie ty of co de p roposa ls. ~is w2s true bo t h as a r e sult of t he 

dil'f:L cu!.t.,r of secu ring ne cessAr y e conomic data t G form a basis and. the 

vie n s ci pre sidin~ officers. Eve n nl ~re a p r esiding officer ~referred 

to c J. l u ct evidence he wa s handicc;?,U}Jed by the p ressure to get codes 

~J cved . After the e xcitement of t hese hearing s following the first 

fe 7 c-~ ge ones p residin·g officers a s a ,-,hole tried to get some explanatir:n 

of t he ~-T }J Ose of code ~1 op osals. T·.v o t h i rle;s p robably prompted this: 

1. A desi re to avoid later i nternr e t ative difficulties and 2. The 

i nsiste11ce of the Legal Division ~ t he need of "building a record" (18 ). 

Often the re nas a fe e ling that nego tiation sho uld take place in the confel·e :lCes, and that industry a gre ement was the only essential other t han 

the rfficer' s own often nAive vie,,.,., that the p rovisions be legal (i~). 

This l a tte r view usually me an t a· clearance by the L·e gal Division, members 

of .7~lic 'l often \"'lere swep t Along by the haste ever;)71:vhere surrounding them 

t o ccncl us ions none to c caref,J.ll;:r c0nsidered. Provisions for control of 

subct:>ntiai economic p roblems by majority vote was written into codes ( 20). 

rhis c".iscnssion of mCJ j c rity vote as a substantive test is not offered 

crit ict~ll~r, a~though it is felt that such guidance is not always the Do st 

wis e in c:1n e conomy so intricate AS ours. It is offered to afford a backgrc-c· .c". frr the p roce dur.e followed in 11RA. Majority a greement p rocecturelly 

se ei~s t f' be a poo r substitute for cnreful exolanation of means and ends 

se t J:.'r l~~ h i n a record •.,rhich ma Jr be p reserved to offer to the courts as 

"justification" for action ta'·:en or a::mroval g iven. 

As 2 l~e sult of the serious admi n istrative problems and the relativel ~r 

c rrr .:~n dL'l s· ~9 0 si tion of indus try, the Adrrlini stra tion' s po sition offered 

many { ifficulties. Haste in s('me nBt ters, delay in others, and co nfusion 

in nccrly all existed. There was n ressure from all sides (21), by i ndust r y , 

by pC1 litical forces , and spe cial labor cmd co n sumer groups (22). 

9838 
- 5-1--

Busine s s came to DRA mor e ~ic ly t han wBs anticipated. ~h d no suffici e n t organi zation to handl_e q 1e n robl ems re en ~d ( 23) . Coupl ed 11 i th 

the yJr e ssure to rse t code s "th['OU(;h t he rn i J 1 11 it ca n be _eAsily se e n ho11 

e rrors ,_vc ulci -creep in, _p rovisio ns rycul d no t -be fully 1p1derstoo d and Tiellr ea.sc ne d judgments :.not a,l we,y.s. g i-ven . Of t hi s , a l l 1ffiA dire cting of f icials 

must have been fully cons ciou s (24) . I n t he balancing of dis advant~ s 

they p r c babl y con sciously chose t he c ours e f ollo,'"e d - hast e i n appr ovi ng 

code s. 

Ha ste in securing p ersonnel wa s ea sily appa r ent ( 25). No sy st e na tic 

scheme or necessAr y qualifications f or 13n;y re sponsible po sition s were even 

a nnounced. 

One of NRA' s most imp ortant f unc t io n s should have be en fact-fi nd i ng. 

NRA. up s meant to de FJ l . more rea lis,ticBlly Bith business p roblems, thAn could 

the col1rts or the legislature 36 )". . I n t h is there was such haste t hat i t 

wa.s a l i,lOSt impossibte for l'ffi,A. t (' ~rop erl y perfo rm this function. The confusion ( 27) and press:ure were s o grea t t hat responsible offi c ials cculd 

not stElnd the pace phy sica lly ( 28 ). ':Vi t h ne rves linstruJJ.g and body tired 

care ful f a.ct finding became a. dista n t d.re em (if it were · .even remembered) . 

Nru\. 1 s ou n p rocedure d.emande.d su ch hA ste t ha t a busy p r e siding officer or 

aclvise r could not hope .to e_ven learn , let alone a na l yze , the basic fa c t s 

of a n i rJp ortant industry in the time a llotted ( 29 ) . 

In the drive to get codes approved sp ecific policy was i gnore d a t 

first (30). When policy was issued it often n rove d s o broad and swe ep i ng 

that numerous exceptio ns were requ ired ( 31). 

Haste had a p owerful eff ect on p rocedure. Hearings were n e cessa :rJ' 

evils to be disp ensed with a.s r eacUly As p oss ibl e '.'Thenever t here wa s a 

demand to l)Ut a code or a provision through ( 32). The wo rk could be mo re 

quick l y d.one in the co nferences. That the record fqiled to con tain 

these cfte n valua ble evidentiBry discussions mattered little. The quiqke st 

most co 1wenient administra tive me ans a re not a l way s t he be st , esp ecia l l y 

if t here is 'P ossible judiciAl r eview ~:S 3). The d ifficulties t hat mi gh t 

resu lt from questionable ,p roced.m·e s eems no t to have been reco gn i ze d . 

There was no p larining tha t a sea rc h will d isclose othe r t ha n t he 11 gol d.U 

fish bowl" and "controve r sy" i deas ( 34 ). The r e sponsibility of t he Le gBl 

Division should have ·been of Cl most gr1:. ve c ha r act e r. Reco gni z i ng t ha.t 

many p re siding officers h8 d no l e gAl trAi n i ng t he l ega l a dvis er s hould 

· have ha.d co n siderable ha nd i .u s h.a p i ng t he c ourse of he a rings. Even rrhere 

t he p r e siding office r mBy ha.ve ha.d. le gFJ l tr g the r e wa s no a s surPnce 

that he hed a. proper ap p r e ciation of the p rocedur al r e quirements of a.dministretive law. The same holds good f or l ega l advi s e rs. The Lega l 

Division a s a unit seems to lwve pa i d little attentio n to t he p r oblem of 

p rocedure. A c a r e ful check of i n structions g i ve n t o l e ga l advi se r s di sclo s e s only fifteen me rnorc:mda with Any bea ring on the · p r obl ems of thi s 

study ( 33 ). Of these only a 'Siery few t ouched -o n pro ce dure ( 36) . The ir 

da tes indicate tha t they came in t he fo r m of a ra t ionAl i zati on of e xisti ng 

procedure r a the r than a ca r e f u l r e c o:J,nendCl tion upon nh ich p ro ce dure should 

h av e be en b uilt. In a resume of c ase s upon the NIRA publishe d by the 

Legal Di vis ion there is no division d~d ic ed t o nro c e du re de s·o ite the 

f a ct t ha t some of t he cases suggested t he p robl em. (37 ). 

9838 
I t i11 ·lff .Lr.lll t tr :1 ] P ~0 tho ';;·· l0nsibil i t ;v cf the lAck of thcught 

t;.~. v J.1. G . 1 10 1'• . • ~ :~ :, • 1·l, J,"' -ro r e .c;iv en ornll~r . The Leg;~l 

Divisi\n Tie s aru~ e f t e •ln•bJ.,,,n iH1 incll c :;1ted by its mcmo r::mdn eve1 if 

the awe.re '1ess e n-me ns .-=1n nft e r-thr'\t ,'·h t . Th ' r csnonsi bilit y probA bl.f VPlries 

c1~ c:-·se t <"' CCISC . ~."<"'rc ,., ·: ~ !::i. f~' t · .,n .,,r, •H' rsrnPl] f;,ilin,css must oove 

bt:ei.l t :10 driv tr Jl'Gc1ll c G , .; , -, .L.:·: .rr ,Juc tion d('e s not mean per- ' 

manence r:r· stC'lbiJity . P1·o p~~1: ·ln·cEhl llrG cc>u lu h::ve e;r·ne fer to h':lve insurecl t h is had the Act be ·n held. c<' nstitu ti na J. . 

~~Oil. thf' need frr uo lic;y wr1 s. r ecopli zed t he re was B tende ncy to rrArcl 

t 0r gTe Fl t l~i ::~ idity. Go v v rrunent ha s devised no sounder methcd of de.sling 

with -Jro blerJs of economic an0 SC'Cifl 1 imp ort thr:m the case roe tho d . The 

difl'i c 1.1 t •' foun d i n t he Ailti-tru st l aws, it wa s clah1ed, +ay i n t he ir 

_l}cl ic ~ cf ~ in.:-r to fit "'11 i ndustries to one mould. NRA in its l a tter 

dAys deveJ.o"9e d in this direction (38 ). There we re situations where policy 

!i-1 S net F.l sUfficient a ns ve r t o t he economic facts. A pol iey that might 

() l lcr: cne industry, because of its organization unusua l liberties mi ght 

be disti:1ctly unfa ir t o another. The f o:rm of such trouble lay i n a llo'!-

in0 toe great freedom to an industrybecause po licy requirements had been 

me t c r i n the desire of Denuties to a Qhere to olicy desnite industr y 1 s 

.,...ell- .::;rouncLed r e quest. . PerhAps .the difficulty lay not so much in the 

ic~r B!ulounced but in its forms. Standards of ction, stAndards of 

me::J!1S e nd end, cC' u:pl e d with i ntelli g ent admi n istrAtion may be far me re 

u r od.uctive t hpn a bsolute rigidity of det.<:~il. Of course, the latter is 

desira.-Dle BS a ma tte r cf uniforr:li t y IThere no o t her ou t rreighing con si dera.-

t i ons eJ;:ist. 

It iilBY have been tha t such 11 olic:v g rew up bec;,use of apprehension of 

hi;l1e r BdhlinistrP. tive officia ls tc u.<:J rd the Administra tion of t ho se 

off i c i a ls nost close l y i!-1. contact · . .ri t h i ndividual industries.(38a) :6;<.".c1 ~t.'tir 

tc t l1e haste with which pe rson nel was s ele cted t he re were other p ressing 

:9ro blen s ?Jre sen ted by p ersonne l, ·0a rt icu 1a rly from Division AdministrB tc rs 

d O\Tfl tc Flnd_ including Assistant Dep uty d; ist ra tors. NAA ' s personnel 

p rroJe:!s c8n not be assigne d t f"l p o'J.itical pa tronage fot it is common 

kno··leCl.[;e that the Vf.lst mc:> j c rit3 of t ho se i n resp onsible positions 

( c.nc:. ;n ~r ::10t i n such p o s ition s) ;7ere brought into the organization 

thrc-t.:tgh personal connections with t hose a lrea dy in NR.A.. The immedia te 

nucleus of officia ls r.;re r e .tru sted f ri\3nds of GenerAl J ohns 0n or b,_,_siness 

Bssrcirtes. There were S('me l a·oo r lea ders. On the who le they or their 

frie nds seJ dom furnished the i my crtAnt presidi ng officers. Peop l e there 

··, ce 0:ol en ty desiri ng to orl~ for l\!RA. There may have been a suffi cient 

mlln-oer c f ·cana ble <~c1-n r... i::>tr tors with a -) ublic viewpoint, but this is 

dc~btf~. One thins is certa in. Many residing officials had no concm:>t io n of t he T)r oper ch.g :cacte r of an EJdministrn tive hearing or its :1ur-

:Jcse . Zven 1.:orse is t he SUGgestion th8t presidi ng officers may have 

(·ften :l."~.c1 r r at t he time hod subs ten t i a l interests in the indus tries 

o;~Llg under them a lthough this was rob bl r contra r y t o NRA p olicy ( 39 ). 

There ue1·e a number of cases where l\TR.A officials were gradu;,ted into 

t lle an. s c f industry a t compa r a tivel3r p rincely s a lAries (40 ). This 

does no t :·1e an t ha t the re wa s dishonesty up on the :oa rt of such persons. 

I t (1_ic te , hovrever, such An ak iness of sp irit that the public ntel~es t 

AS .D ~Jc ::..·t f rom nd.u str ' s interest or personal interests might have been 

s c 1etin e s sl i gh ted (41). The rinci:ple is well st;,ted in the judici2l 

9838 
- 56-

field that no man shall be a judge in h is O'J!T..Il cause (42). There is l i ttle 

reason 1.1hy it. should not a··opl y in t he administrative field. It is s o 

reco gni ze d in .Engla nd; ( 43 )·. The rule is 8 p r o tection to All i nte r e sted 

persc n s c:n1.c1 to the judge.- No rna t ter the ho nest y of the p re siding officer, 

it is u ise to avo id the a·:;pearance of p c s sible evil. The cry often 

raised WDS the nee d for trained Elen. A man r;ho k nows- the p r oblems cf an 

industry too in tiroa t e l y bec13use he has once le bored. with it may be so 

bio.sed El.S not to be an i m:partia.l judge . It 'is p ossible to underst::1nd the 

problen s of an industry. without having ''JOrked for it. 

Perlwp s in light of the circumstAnces l~ could ha ve done no better. 

It rrc"Lllcl.. h0.ve be ~n im:po ssi ble · t o have call ed u .. pon the Civil Service. The 

job rra~ too large for it (44 ). The Brookings study well st!3tes the 

situation: 

tiA 1;rr blem in ymblic J?e r sonne l admi ni stra tion more 

difficult than that of securing industrial specif:llists 

f or code · drafting and code enforce:· 11 e n t can scarcely be 

ii:1a.g ined. To secure at once p ersons we ll versed in the 

intrtca.cies of the industry and yet free from bia.s and 

questio-nable interests v78 s a d if:!:' icul t y of · t he · first 

ma.gni tude. Many p ersdns would have had· m0re confidence 

in the selections if e1igibility for appoin t 111ent had been 

determined more in the open by an i nde:-oendent personnel 

agency using a. sy stem in ':'lhich the facts of education, 

ex:perience, a.nd interests were pD ssed 11pon by a special 

cc m:11i ttee of comp etent examiners of high stF.:mding, Elnd one 

which left a reasonably complete record". (45 ) 

Th is element of bias· so ue tirnes shrwed itself as insufficient a \?a.reness of any. public interest. Respon sible of:f iciF.lls made p r omises Tihich 

could nc t RlwRys reasonably be kept. For example , a. res~p onsi ble official 

ma.de 8 ~l T'l ise that a.n 0p roved code nrovision •;;rcu ld not be touched .. until 

the i ndustry agreed to the c hAn.ses (40) ye t th8 Act indicates a de sire 

that the President modify or ca ncel e.i-~y c:mprcved code provision \There he 

deemed such ACtion ne ce ssa ry ( 47) • 

.A:.1 a.ddi tional difficulty lBy in the f a ct t ha t p residing officers 

did not a.h ;Ays get along 1:'!ell with their o.dvisers. Advisers like heBrL_gs 

were sometir:1es looked upon as ·a ·: needless nuisance (48). Much of this 

feeling resulted from the idea that hearing s were t o 'be forums of co ntroversy opposed by orders to rush the code~ making process. Controversy 

dela.yed hearings. Long hearings delay ed " putti ng QOdes through". ' . 

The theory ~f industry self-government p rovided a stro ng limi tDtic n 

upon s.clr,1i :t'1i'stratiori. Many f e lt th-:~t ~. lith adequate industrial i nforru!:lticn 

much of t he solution of the de:pression uould come from indus try ( 49) . 

Many ino .. us.trial lea.ders a nd soi11e NR.A off.icials follo1:7ed the theor. t hflt 

whatever a repre~ent tive · group in an y. industry thcught best f or t hc: .t 

indu tr ~· should be accepted as prima facie in the p ublic interest (50) • 

.After cc des were app r0ved this 1:"as ext.ended t (· .· th~ p lace that 1TR.A. 0fficials 

often discouraged the sending of }:>e rtinent infr.rma:tion to the Administration (5:). Indifference t 0 the public i n terest as suqh further colors 

9838 
- '- 7-

sowe .-f t he diff i ci...Ll tie t c: be :fo1Lncl i n t he ,'1 ctl!J intstrative awo ro a ch . 

.Any consideratio n of t he 11' e d1:;.r nl 1·r o bl ems must be mAde only pf te r 

an understanding ifc; hod cf t l o i nh· r ·nt .LiL!i t ·"' t i ons f the scheme encl t he 

ach.1i nistrative c:rppron h . I n <'1 u :··tr ;·r ' s ;!.iJi l i t.'.r t n~ gFl in, t he trust pla ced 

by NRA in industry se lf ov nmen t And. t J Ll · value of r.1aj ori ty vote, t he 

haste cmd corfusion surrOUL1d in<": ~1e ·. ho l e undertAk ing , the failure to 

recc g;ni ze t he irr1nortance ond d i ff lC'll t y C' f p ro cedur ... , a nd t he 1 i mi tFl ticns 

of the -p ers0n!1e l nll had irnportent inf lue n cf' s upon due ,Jroce"" s of l r-m, 

both p rocedu:r a .LJ.y end substc:mtive ly, and t he lock of it in N.RA. 

9838 
- 58-

CHAPTEH VII 

JURISDIG11 I 0li .PJ-;D JUI.ISDICTIC'JAL ~' CT 

NRA assumes a vride range of jurisdiction. Whether this was al.ays 

properly c.ssume d i s a prelirnine.r,y cons i d.E.:retion to the p rop ri ety of procedure. The review exercised by the courts ove r admin istrative action 

through q_uest ions of jurisdiction and. jurisdictiona l f ac t has alread;)7 

been observed(l) as ha s the recent i:·1portance of the latter questio ~ in 

the fielo. of administrative av: ( 2 ) o Jurisdiction has a close relatio:'l 

to que. st ions of l a,·· and it i s ClUi t e ··JOss i bl c that a number of the b:i.~oad 

terms in ihe .Act might have been subjected to judicial definition. ·J:lhis 

it has been observed happ ened to many of t h e problems of the Feder:U Trade 

ComTT:ission ( 3 ). A more teL' in : r evi ew ·nould have been for the courts to 

have cletermined v"'hether the e.ctua l f e.cts supporting jurisdiction existed. 

A nu.m-ber of questions tha t i;·ould h~ve furnished both p roblems in 

jurisdiction and jurisd ictional f 8.ct apJJear in the Act. Tne codes were 

to be .s;pplicable to an 'industry o:;:· tre.de or subd.ivision thereof (4). 

'7That i s JJTOJ!erly an industry or trade ? Did tfl.e Fc:: bricated lv.etal s Code 

(5) cove :-· :1ore then one industry? J:lhe code for the Graphic Arts Industries ( 6) pu:i.~_poted to cover an~rone who mi ght perform the 11 act or process 

of :p rintin , 1 impressing, stamping , or transferring upon paper or paperlike substonces, of any ink, color, }' igment, including any and a ll partial ]Jrocesses end services u se d_ in rin~in 11 • The code by its title 

covered more than one industry c;.l t hough the Act did not specificall~; 

authol~ize such coverage (7). It seems, of course, that subdivisions of 

an inc.ustr·- might be split up. Even thi s might be 9arried to such e_:treme 

end.s t hat courts vrould interfere ( 8 ) if they felt tha~ such actions had 

been carried unreasonably f s.r. The Droblems mentioned are illustrated 

by the titles of such codes es the L~b r and Timber Products Code ( 9) 

ano_ 1vhe ;'Ao:f? Stick Cod.e (10). Could a verticle cod e be said to pr po rl~,. 

covel~ an inclustry? l 1he resale p rice ma i n t enance p lan of the Tobacco Codes 

were in effect a verticle code (ll)o It wa s often -r;:>Ossible to 11 fre e ze 11 

a d.ist:cioutive system with such a code . It is quite possible 1""ith the 

courts' knovm antipathy to this t ;y:9e of a c tion that the courts might 

have sai6_ Dn industry was n ot mea11t t o refer to such separable activities 

as manufa cture and sale n o t generc:~lly ca rried on by the same pe rson s or 

firms. Imp rope r classifica tion of f irms a s belonging to an industry 

where there vras good evidence to sho'.'! they d i d n0t is an other possi bility 

(12). The suggestion is that the c ourt might ha ve tried its hand a t 

class ifice,tion. Overlapping codes furnish still a further problem. It 

could. be e asily thought that it is 1mreasonRble to r equire a firm to :9ay 

tribut e to more than one Code Au.thori ty v-hile pe rformdmg only one OlJeration (13) o:c to bo in the d.ark a s to , ·hich set of fair tra de p r a ctices 

it must ope rate under. The Baking and ?..estaura.nt Codes illustrate the 

situa ti on (14). La r g e r e st aurcmt cha ins ope r a ting: bakeries for use in 

conne ction wi th their re st aur?nts or s epe r a.tely, were covered by the 

Bal.: inc~ Code (15). Overl api•ing cocLes mi g:ht mean tha t a small group uould 

be coapellecl to abide by a particule r obnoxious p rovision (16). It is 

quite possiole tha t when code stn1ctures became unreasonable the Court 

would have said there was no jurisdiction under the NIBA to approve such 

9838 
• 1 

- ' -

a coclc or tlwt th · ,,rou_J couified ''Ll"' n yt in f· d :'11 ii <.us try in thL 

met.Ullj · of th Act. 

Ot~1er n::t' blem!~ esidE 1' Olil ode !:-; tructuro r:.ic; e th e question wh otlPl 

coU.es ere within the mrpo es of th e Act . Coul cl. a co ue J> o,. tly covo · 

pe:.'r>ons ~"'m o} oyin no l::.:.b or ? I t 1 us be"'n tho .;ht not . ~ct , t lti' is o:."~,

ci se ~- ':i~D.t t h . _ r Tr'1.1 rp inr Col'l trc ctors Co de did ( 17) . The Act says 

llt:i.'c<ie o .. : incuf.t r;y-' 1 , not em'··loycr'" o C :~ or . 1-:0I''evel· , the e-ntire struc tur e 

of ~~C' Ac ~ indi .at s hat ~e l Rtte wLs i~tendcd (18) . In t he inst2nt 

Coc ~c the p rop on nts were Loui iana trc:rr:p r s of 'T.Uskr ot ,,·ho l ee secl the 

tr·>;.:; Jing p:..."ivil gE's on e od ~ o s•· :Jn pc .; n~ ... :qe rcentC'"'8 of the 

c .• tch. Somf· t :.'R').Jp ers en" a ctua.l e'11n l oyEi. s of ::' nnd- ownt:.rs 01 intE' rrnoo.-

i n.te lD c~ l8 sors . Boti1 th . trnppe r s and the l an<.·-o· ·n e rs end mi drJ.lG- won 

who l eas e( fr om the L nd-o -mere-. and to the trn~0p0 rs de ';i r eo. 18 ~e "? :i.~cen tages of tl' e catch. Colonel Conklin.!S , t he Deput.y Aclministrc:-. tor, f e lt thc-.t 

t he lcnd- o\me r s ha0. the upu .r hL ncl an-1 tha t the t r 8.ppe rs vre r e i n n aec. of 

r el i ef. This he Ci.e t e rmin ecJ -to c.·i v them throu..: h tbe med.ium of a cocle. 

At fL'st e l l ti'1e :·" viser-s incJ.udin.o; the eg:a~ vi se r (19), exp r esse d 

the o·,) inion th-Lt this ,"'rou p cvul d. not o) i·op e r l y b e g i ·en a. Code . Fi nally 

Colo::hO;l Con:;:l i n. p r e vc,.iJ ed en(. the Code V'as ;--. il1~d Fur Tr.::rp 1ing Con trEJ.ctors Code instepd of Yu.r ·.I' .c-.:,me r s Co de . The~ ma •·ic yrord "contra ct or s" 

with a grou·n of dU!llmy l a bor p r ovL ;iOrif ca!Il:Jufl.::£;ed. t he situa tion s o t hP.t 

a carle '.7LS i~s,_l d ( 20 ). In such: . si tuD.t i on "·· court I:l i bht be e x-oe c ted 

to s at/ .. the:;."c i s no r <:B sonable rel : tic-n l-..e re ·,-ith codes con t empl a t ect in 

the Act ·ar:d. t h "' A6ministr at ion h - r. no j 'iri';-.d.iction to approve such a c od.e. 

-11en <lef inition s -- el~e hast il ~r an d. l oo F"e l y d.ra.v:rn serious ·questions 

of jurisf ic t ion often arose . Pro1abiy the best ruean s of settling these 

cor:ter: t c r:-ould have been to revi ew the r ep r esent c:1 t.i ve char a ct e r of p ropouent s c:mcl c: .ssenters. Thi s ·UJet:i:wc. vras fr equen_tly i srnored. In its place 

in ter :p reta tion wao re so:i.~ted to . .t..n in t c r pretat1on upon the be:.s i s of 'i70 r o.s 

used in the definition mi gh t ext end. t he cod.e ' s j u risdi c tion f 1. "r be:rond 

th2..t nh ich it could cla i m as a ma tt e r of r epresent a tion ( 21) . If a g:i."OU:!_J 

......-ej:-e brou{;i'l t unC.er a cod.e a s a r·e sul t oi such G. p rocedure it auld have 

an excellent c :::.s e on r.·hich to chr1.ll8ng e the cod.e ' s jurir diction. · 

Jurisdictional ·problem s bet• een gove rnments and b<~ een the ir agencies 

frequaLtly F.ris e ( 22 ). A number· of juris6 .. i ction81 probl ems l ay in the 

wide r ef e r enc e of the Act to trades or industries, ~h ile othe r agenci es 

existed " i th a mec:.su:c e o± indu s t r i a l control. The Fe derC'Il Trade Commi ssion ond t he Department of Justice had l ong been a ctive in the fielQ of 

i~C:. tri l relations. Con sent de crees and injunc t ion .; "'ecured by 

the se a (.;enci e s p rovide the largest probl em. The~e ?-as a n ef f ort mad.e to 

cle "-~ r:i th the De-pa rtmen t of Justice , and nw.ny' cocies we re d.elayec. be ca:o.se 

of thi s ( 23) . Although some decr ee., .,...-e re forrne.lly modified many were 

n ot, ~~ et coC.e p rovisions nermi tted a.c tion c in viola tion of court o rclers 

( 2~ ). A.'1 ll?:us·.l ,1 si tua tio~ would ha ve ari !? en ha d t he courts puni she cl as 

cont <"'n:pt such actions. 1 o such action by the courts hc:s been brought 

to the u rite r' s attenti on. 

A m;JTib e r of p ropo sod and •? prov ~ d c ode s involved or int e re sted 

other fecieral e-:2·encies. The At ricul tural .A ci.justmen t Ad.ministra t ion , the 

Petrol eum AdJn ini stra.tion and. the Federal Alcohol Control Ad.in inistre.tion 

9838 
- cCeach exercising powe r delega ted under the Act r·~re int~rested in a nUt-nber 

of codes ( 25) . In the codes int e re stinr-:; the l a tter the Treesury Dep artment b a ct c. g rave interest as t b.e licen sin-g a gency (26). Then too, the 

ation p with the vq r i ous labor a.genc i es was not clearly defined (27 ) . 

The public utili ties· y rop osed codes ee.ch involved a r e l ationship rri th 

oth e1~ govG:rnmental· a g encies. The Teleg r o.pn. ic Commu..nications Industry 

was substantially" rela.t ed to the p owers of the Fecie ral Corrrnu:.1ications 

Co ~.: ss io n (28)·. Th e Nature.l Gas Inc,_ustry V''as of interest to the Petroleum Bo a rd ( 29). · Of more interest and. gau~ing consid..erable d i ssention 

was the Electric· Lig ht and Pomrer Industry ( {30) •. Al though NP..A. 1 s relations 

We l:.e !Jainly' Of the most COrci.i a l nature in 8. Case lik e that l ast ref e rred 

to had. NRA ::_)ersiste d in codify ing t he industry t he re mi ght probably have 

been pre s ented a jurisdictiona l pro.bl em for the urt~ . 

P...n i mpo rtant p roblem of ultra vire s. is. p res en ted. by code l egi sl c:>..t ion 

v:rhi·ch undel~took to g overn p(·;rsons outs ide of the industry making the code 

(31). The re were ·many r e finements of this p roblem. Some codes accompli she · 

the desired result by · providing members could not sell to or deal with 

f1rms engo.g ed in certain p ractices ( 32 ). The effe ct VIas usually su-ost.:mtia l. To remove · a sou rce of suppl;y: or a market may be as substantia l in 

results as leg isla tion in "'o rd.s. The Legal Division recognized the serious 

nature o.f this problem (33). Desp it e this, exP...mples t''ere frequent. 

It · Has g enerally conceded tha t as to the d..e sire . to have a code propon ent~ Im..1.st have been r ep re sent at ive. The exact tests which should have 

been aj}plied were in dispute. Of course, a representation of as high a 

percentage ·by e a ch test, and of over fifty p~ rcent by a ll tests '.'TOuld 

have been d..esirable. Economic data we.s so sca:rce tha t . it vras possible . 

to misre:;) resent · representation· in many in st.:.'nce s e ither through i gnorance 

or desig11 ( 34 ). The p roblem o.f actua l representative character is certainly one of jurisdictiona.i fact. ·· There was a p ossibility t hat the 

courts rrould_ undertake · to det e rmilie . this question themselves if they felt 

that l'TRA ha.CL found incorrectly . NRA 1 s drive to approve codes may h a ve 

often caused responsible off icials to . acce-;:lt. l ess evidence than would be 

desirable up on this problem. Upon the vrh ol e , hol!"ever, this was one of 

the p oints mo st scrupulously checked by the Admi nistration, particule,r l y 

the Legal Division. 

1 

Asicte from the cod.e as· a whol e ano ther' question presents itself. 

Was it necessary that the r e b e a ma jority of a ssenters. to each code provision? Certainly, a · maj ority of the i nci.ustl"J by spme test must be assente rs. Di e. it me.tter t ha t their a . .:.-· sent ·"0ras gc:l.ined, despite strong and 

even viol ent obj e ctions to certa i n code provi s i o_s ?. Cases can be im2.gined 

where this Lfl i ght have b een import ant. Of course, many of tpe more e::]_')eliencecl i n c".u s try members refused to c:.sfe n t until assured of their c".. es 

( 35) . . 

This brief survey shows that NP.A 1 s juri s d,ict ion r." as open to mcu1y 

questions. The f a cts upon '.-rhich jurisdiction v·as thought to r e st ne re 

not al rra~' f.J reduced to absolute c erta inties. I n ·both these questi ons of 

r el')l"esentative character there exist ed. a r regnant. possibility of judicial 

check. NRA often a voided. possible d.ifficul ty by refusing to a ct. any 

que stions could not b <=:J avo i ded.. The ,·ise course and the one usually followed. ,.,as a st1:i c:t requirement t hat industry groups be as re}Jresentative 

as j_) Ossible. 

9838 
_,· LCL TEE VI:::: 

A.'· 1i istrr> tivc -"':cocco u::ce i s :1 ot t i:e for .:.- ~1. 1rcc cdn!'C o_._ t >e court!; 

( 1) . Il~ it , , !.' r.mc:1 of 1e v::c--.. 1..-c e of t :1C' a(. L1istrativP tcc:mioue ''ro l~' 

'Je ~ ~ tro ··eo.. · ·o :';E'!le !'P l rules 01· f o:_~~;:1 s c<:u1 'Jc e::1.;ec te :~ . Froce-'nre is 

us·l.p·n -· ·Juilt to :1eet tlte nec c's of t~1 . 'l)<),rticulCJ.r field ( -2 ). 

St. c:> t u t C' PStc )lis ::.i : .. r'.J istr; tive a_; 1cie V<.."'.r y as to t :!e ,.:" ct':l.il 

\'{1 c.. r ·. iC l t~1ey .s e 'c f ort'l t : 1e )T oce c~ ce t o be f 0 ll0''!8 . Sor. e s t a t utes 

i.:;n .. ·:C" ~~ e ··)!'Oble::1 ( ')); >1 s f'- 2'.Y 15 ttle; still ot lCrs ou.tlil'le ~- e ·;J.' Oce·> .·.:e 1'<- t:~er ci.ei L i t el:r (. ). T: ~· e --~ as bee n <'. recent te·1 ~ ency to L1-

clu E:' ~. re0uire:-:1e 1t fo:· n :.ec-.rh; _ _,i ':1 s t c:t.tutes ( ":). If .·!O Trocecl.ure i s 

s- eci.:i.es L e a g enc y ::12.7 use ::J. '1Y ~C c' son 'Jle '')1" oc e0.u r e i t ~)ein -: Dresu..1e ·::: 

L ...at U'.e -,rocess of 1:'1..'7 is int 1.3ec3 ( 6 ). 

T~1e Act contained fe'·' r efe::' ence s to -)r oc eclu re ( 7) . 

r1 . .L'.1.f ...........

"' '. . J' '.. st ~.-'er.

1. - .!. t -.... .J --.L oc ec',, .... ..L .• e ( q] , • 

11. ce·1si ··-- .. ,.,.,ov1· s1' on ( 0 ) "" -; :, · • _. ·~· J - • .J C - I. -'---

(1 )) . Ot>.er 12n t~1C\t t:1e Ar: t 

otice [l.l1c: r: :t in:; we r e 

s·"'eci "'.1 i ·:.s .s. ~l ~ -~ .t:1..e 

1S P S S i }. 8 1 t . 

Th ere "!a s C'\. tas~cc ~ i~ t~e 

code Droce ··~ure 

.r~ e Sc~. ec>. te s 0ri ef (ll) ;.rent "' t ··:>.~e r- t J.c~l '?: t~l to -')ojn t on t t ' 1.is 

feat'L,_re of the st.::>.tute. S·;eci.l.':cPll r it --~ te ' out t ·.1..e2·e r;ere no ·1rovisi o~1s for notice, t:1e tc::~ci:1:, of evi•-:ence, <-'. ~1 c. _ e '-' 'C 8. ity of e fino -

i ng e,"L'. i!'e ·~ents . It r·lso su :- :es ~ t~1at t~ e Pr esi ·'ent's a'01Jroval :·.1e.y 

oe uttP.::-1'· e.:·"Ji tr ~y :-· i.'lC' c<=nricioL'.s . A:.; :-·_fl0 a lr ee.C!y. ~; ee n Sl.lg:?;Psted , 

~~e:.·e is c• juli'cic-..1 :.1e :: >~ m ... 1g~ : ul·cra vires U'00n L1e ?resi 0e j'. t i n a ll 

cases , e::ce~·J t 8. re fus~ l to c>.c t ,-,>_ic :t ·:.-oul " :-:: ot be L1 v-olve~ i ::1 t :.1e 'Jri~f s 

su:= : estion an~, ·· a./) (1 2). 

-::· -.e fc:> ct t :::c-: t i! O '""~::oce -:_we ;'n>s statet'. L.1 t >e Act i s not U.:.ll.cor.'. ·Jon . 

·:a~ ;) .sets c.' el ec;atL1.; :'.c~ l. r~ istrat ive ·.,o·:re:" ('o :-:.ot state H -"'rocer'ure , out 

a llo -· t:1.e c:>d.;i·1istrr>.tive ·Joc.l.- ~ to set 1.:n its c,-,.:l ··. :·oce-~; 1. :.-e . Of cours e , 

·r~:et> "· ~1 s ··woc er' ;_re "')rovi6.es ->ue :process of l a-·· fo:t i:.--1(; ivi0uals a.ffec tee' is 1.'.1 tL:~.:- t e l ;- t o iJe 0.ete r .. 1i :ned .by the Court. : .y t : c Cour t 1 s 0'.7~1 

ie ci sio 1s it is ce :-t r> ~l L:<:1 t e>.:1 Act ~J~i Dl~ovicUn_:j iJroce?u~ e s·1ecificn lLJ 

toes ::ot escc.;;e ~1e ;roce ~u l reouire::::n.ets of t:·~e Fi f t :1 A:-1.encL1ent . T:1e 

Sc>ec .ter -.Or--)ora.tion 1 s 'Jrief con t L'luecl its Rt ·~ ~ ;o~1 t >e Act 0 3' s;:~ ~r

in-:; t '.c-· t ..:'e-::' e:c"l.l 1::·:<' f e Co::L iss i or. procedure "Jroci de 0. ue ·1 roc es s of l c:>'7 

':<:li le L ' e :•rocec_u re of t~ e :;_e cov e r ;' Act c: h ' .. ~1o t ( l '..J ). :Ter=: e~ c l Tr:=tde -".rocef.:,..:::·e ~-ac: 11e,;er 'ueen s evE:rely -- nestionecl . ·Z:.er e \as little ::1eed to 0.s 

juclici:-1 revie'7 , "' ., s0 r e.c·.c'.i17 .:-.v ,·:ilP.".:J l e . Still tile Fec:ere l T-rade Go.:1-

:l iss Act (l~) ·r[I.S f 8.r f ro .. 1 est 8.0 lis oin:; <1 :1y full )J."Od c·~u.::.·e. COLnse l 1 s 

ar.:i l Je: ... t :;r oceec; eO. -.;_•) On t>e fal1.2 CJ' t:..a t ac; ~·.: L.1i S trc:>. ti ve ,·'\.1.8 '01.'0Ces S .ms t 

-ue est ;:.) li~~lec' 'by L1e s t c:.tute . It trPn sc e:rv:;s t~~e stc?b.J.te . 1e r enu ire-

:1 ~1t is :"P.c"e 0y t~1e Co nsti t u ti o::: . It ~~1e y 'Je su·J')li ec. c")<'r t from statutory ~irec ti on or in acco e~ ce ~ith it. It must in any even t be ord & 

'uy -~ e _l;,C: .'inistratio·.: or L.e c ourts .. rill offer it n::.e:::. [1. ''E'O"Jer G:'.se co 1es 

'uefo:.· e t~ L: . - Co·:msel c-._l)O~(' te . "Ll_'•)o·.1 L .c i s f'.r .=;i.l.:tent ( 15) . \V:.'l.ethe r t:1e c?.r-

:; u.·.1eTt · l'efer ::eci. t o t:1e enforcement procedure or the code :1~i g urocedure 

is ·1ot clec:r. ever , it is only i n enforc men t t~w.t t:1e r e i s a close 
anrt -;~' L· t :. e --,~o-)l o·.1 of :~oc c·u. :e · to· t~:e ·::::~- e!'"'. l 1'r 2~J. e S0i:1 .issio ~1 . 

Counsel a:: :::·ueo. t >r>. t t~ e J· c t ·:p s 0::- ;~ s i nc e i t ·'):.:·es c:r i -)e.· :r.o cons ti t uti on<.l 

meLlO ~ o:(' -')roc ec"L'.re fo:::- f.'. sce:: i·.'l :!.~:· . .=, <1·,Lt -~e Lf :-. i::_~ :·Jet>.or.s of corrnet~

tion , .::c~ L"l 1i s res·')ect tot8..l1 y ,"if.::'e.zos L:o:.t ..te ·r c:~~ :..;r l Tr.?.0e Co.:1 Jission Ac. t. It is .; ene ~e.ll ;- con.ce:'.t::C: t · .. e.t t :le 'I':i.'<'"'.e Co:.:c:J.i ss ion Act ·:' oes 

not esta )lis > •):-:·oc er' u,:-e ·-,it>. r'.:!~' (eg :~: ee of exacti tude , s1.1.C~1 as ~l e I: e:.

s t ate Co.:Llerce Co::-u t ssi o:..·l Ac t C

1 oes. : c•:e7er ,. cqu?J.sel fir. -~.s ve:...-_y elR."~ ::.. ['. te 

-oroc cc''.u.:re este_·:)li s-let.'. ·Jv t ' 1e TTgo_e Coo::1::iss:.o:1 Act L1 t~l8 fC~ ct t hat five 

i m-'Jarti a l Cou. 1iss one~:~::' . ·.-r.ere to "u e FJ.:·) .. ~oin e.-~ "J:r L :.e ?resiCl.en t rri ~l L .e 

aCI.v ic e of t::...e Sena t ·e , allcl t~.le t 'c>e Co;:1 ~issio:..1 if. it 'Je lieve0 ariy ·")erso.~ 

1Na.s usLl ..... ~ E'n t.mfa.ir 1e ~10c'l of . co .. :r")e titi o!: L;, corT1er ce or t~1e. t 2. )roceec

ing '70'l'. c~ ·Je i n t :.1e i")U0 l i c in el~es t, ccuJ.c' se:·:'Ve fc:.Jc:tl co::T0 l fl int 0:1. 1e 

T)erson accused se' tin. ~ fort> L1e c~1a1' es. T::.e ca.nl e.int :·.mst cont2.i:1 ?. ~ . -- . notice of t :J.e ~. learin.~· ;g i v i nc; a c"at .e e.::. ..: r. tL1~~ 1e :'}.lace. I'';,e 1erson ., ~ ., J l • ., t t -. - .. .L, . c - . ' l' servec .:.ac·_ c.1e :cl ~ . · o r-t.T)·lea.:c <111•. s .. w--, C.C:'~,"l1se ··--ly lJ~1e o_;-:11.;n.ss 1on s.~ou -::. 

t I • ., ~ • t - -, .J• • - -. • .,. - .L. ., no e:c.·t;.e r a c-ea se 8 .11 2 c e s 1s o:~ r· :· :- . .~es CL:tor.y ·r!OI.S r eoulre(, T"7~llc~:.. :-nus tJ oe 

re :::.uce0. ·co Pri ting . '!:'>~ c·m.ni :;, s i OYl "'P. $ r'ec•i.1iTeO to ·.'Je.

1

:e find.il'l~S Of f c.Ct. 

Jut i t i s t o be re ·:temberc 0. t~lat e~e '~ :i:A P.r.'.O'YCeC. ail t l'liS "Jrocefure SieCifice.lJ. -_;· '.-r i ~lin its own ~J L~Y c>.s n.--j ') r:!. -: :~ t.o i t sP-l'f or t~1e ? l e:~ne te ·;rocedu~:--e. of i n junctii...o?l •"\:-oceec,iY:::;s ~Jefcre t ,.:e Courts. ?~'l.eTe is force to t-1e 

suggestion that elE.~ T"rp.c~e Cor:1:.1i ssiO::l ..,roce~ure "Jl a ce·:i no COl'fl"}Ulsion to 

force Jerienc e to its orcie:~s t.m t il t:~e ~:e -rra.s £',~:. <"CT·")i icatior:. to tl:e Cou ~ts 

to enforce its or0e:"s . In ·?.A , on,-. ~l e ot~1e:c :.1Rno, a novell;3.r<'.ssrjent i:1 

t :1e fo zoi:t of c or:mlinnce u roce edi n.::;s· wc:.s i!l -,logue ( 16). '""ve:n if t:~is atte:~ 

Drocer:l..,.re 1,7-::.s. h9.d it c oul0. ~l8. ce 'Jee:1 c,ecJ. c>.recl. 1Jac1., still .le .vin.:;; e.s ;:ooC:. 

~1 e cori e-nE'.:.:i nc T)TOc 't.n~e, ::-.ssu..::1inc t:·,nt it .ot~_er'· ise ... 1et due "lrocess of 

l aw ... rec:uL~e .teT'). . 

. . . 

·' e 1·:12.in ·nro.cec:twal ideC!. ~o :)e fm.uc; i l1 fl rl :':~ ·rq_A ·wa.s .·t ·a ·l1enr. a ll i~

teres,teo.· ~')~:tr ties . ( 1'7) • lJ:Q.A a.s 11 ;-:. forum 'of C0!.1 trover si• 11 i.·t . vra s ~:... ow lt 

m.1 ~ fun1.ish ·a i:te8ns 11 t .o ·c;e t t :1e trut~ 11 ( 18 ). T>e int el1 tion of the ?resic.ent u2.s to afford a he a:rin7, ( 19). This ':'as ~e lec ted: L1 t:ie atti tuc.~e 

of t :.1e Ad.1:1inistra. tor ( 20) . De spi te t:" i s 1.cre ~:!.ave see':-.1 t~iat :;.ig~1 :ru officia ls C'.i ci not feel ~.1p. t the usua l Llnlicq.ti ons of 0 s t atutory ::earing require :l~n t 11eed b e followec"t. ( 21). Sta tute's -)r ovi J.in,:::; ·_ foT :1enri_ngs ?.re 

cons true0: to mean t:1.:d; there· i s ·a -.;ri vi le:;:;e to i n troCl:_t.1..ce . ~v dence an0. ,....._ 

duty t 'o c_ ed.d ' i n. i:t cc~r ance ~cri t.\ t :1e evirl.ence . ( 2·:). :.l~ Fi se· course if 

t ile e.iig enci es a llowed: it ~va s to 1rovi·Cl.e t:J.c fu J~est noss_i,;le ·~1e.:L~L1:; . 

Courts 'wefe,r suc~1 a ~1ea. r'i n.::; ( 23 ) .:mel it i s t :1e w~10 le ga--.1ut of juciicial 

revie1.cr tl12t e.dininistra tive a ction ·:Jus t p, ce~ 

Contr ov er ~,- no t fact-finc.i r::: <-~ s L1e first sts tec. ·tm.1chstone to <1e.t 

a n EtA :1ee.ring was desi gneci.· t o ·oe 2, ) I n orCl.er tl:..r: t o:1e .: g~ t be :1ec !'G. 

n roc ec'ure J)rovio.e0. l~ a reou.est t o ~Je ·.l.?.cie ·)r ior to ~:e ·:1earinG ,-,,j_ t:1 a 

s t a te;·1ent 2.s to ·oers.on's desire~ i ":t"l testif-rj_:ng , t:lat .. is, t:"1e ·deletion , 

amenct'.1e::.1t , adcl.i ti on to or SU'}'')Ort of El lJroposed 1)rovision ( 25) •. I n il~

ness· to i·?.A it· s~1ould "Je stC~ ed t~.1c: t t.l1ere was a l :1 os·t :~ o ad::.ei·ence to :L:!.e 

rcquireincnt t l1at o:r.e ·de.siring ' to "ue a witne,Ps as~c L1 a vc;.:c1ce to a0ueo.r. 

NRA presidint; office rs freely ex en c~ e '-e .,riviler,e of testifyin-; to e.nj' 

person recuesting. to c?.p-")ear e i ther ii1P.ediat'ely before or c.-ciT ing c:1.. he in:; . 

Ot:Jc :c t >--:1 t ":.e ·-::~ J ic .sta te.nci1 ts U7)0D co·1troversy little E=Uide is 

offerec3 ·Jy -.""?..A ' as to t-:.;.e c:1aractsr its ~1earin:;s '!-JP. re to t ake. ..~earin..:;s 

were ElYnarel1tly no t - even consi c er ec1. · L:1:oorta nt as 11 e. c;ooCI ~)ub lic i ty 

story " ( 26 ). .La ter, X:R.A expressed 9. sJ.igl:tly .:1ore Cl.et.?.iled :~ent of 

933~' 
. 

··- L ' t ' ~ ' ' 1· · ( )'".· ) . n· · t ~ lo :·ccec1 r8 o u u se .· c 'l t'ln ~~ 'YUJ 1c c r· .- -~ s v · <'!. ~. ::cr. :d. :i.·~· ··•!'e ic~ L1::; offi c rs t o s· e;: 11 t -·L. ic.i t ,·:· c r. r. i" :ro.1 t . u o ··"'OnC' .ts "':1~ 

.. , 0 )·J ·n_·· ts of _,,1ecific ·')ro·rir.i r.s (,f t:1e .·o )o.:: ed co<' f or L H' · .:.r 1ose o. 

"u'!. L1 -- '· C l.t t ·tc -~ C' ce s 1 ty, ~c.f i t or ~ i 'lEmt · f sue ~ ·"' ····ov j r 1 0·1s 11 ( ~,... . 

T.1i s s t.:J t e G~l t i ::1 'i ·1. t cn t .C' t .. o 1tro·.r c rsy ~· o·t 1<• ,~ c· ' inn' ~"'ou:- .t . . 

· ·cr'J , <' O<: .n~~ ,-rnr m:.-· nL: c '"' t C .:' t ·· ~t··n ·i ·1.; o.:f i cc :r :n.: t t o ·. •1cn;, '.1' :'ct 

::'-S ·:.:: f'~ :~.l inc . conc~u 1 .·c· ·.· ·L! · L~ ~~- r r ..... JE=' \:"ln~.t r S1l·:>ic c.t t o ~~" r· o ·f 

:cevie·-- 11 •. ? t: r >.I,DS ···c ,: .. 11 .Jo '··:;..o::~ ("' .1"' t-L ru 0j ' controv r. .rry co ,.,.,..,,-,_c1·' eC 

t .. ". t · •r ri L~;_; OJ. f ico. ···c ,,_<' ·)f :1c re ~-1:., 1 ·l oy .i. .~, i ('\c1 ~ e-·' c:-..· ,( . Ce·· t.·' i 1-

l v , C. ;· C'!'. "' ·r l •v:1c·1 r>cti:1 -:; r ,, a nr :- i·~ :·::_- f.-·lc8}~ "'['. :·.:'1 '\C''t/ '·.n\~ 0f tcj_1 

· C' ,i 'i <.~ ::1t nl:'.esti oi e -c ( .:"' ) . ~. · ny n r ."'. i.•'i-: ':·":c' t. ~r ~- -:-; : :ot ··r,. ·: o·' ,.nell 

?. :- sis. A.1 i ':"') o:>.~t .;·.1 t ~ of _i c i :"l.. l _,rs ,

1 ot_, , c<l. n ,w· .., ,;_ :1( s 11 "~ seTi .s 

of t·,-t.c ·le£1. 1~1 ; _. t r;rest e;· ":1 :>..rti e, s o :lC'ti--.•r. ., ·c·~~ ·• it ~: c ort:- i .: !"r'•:JJ.c l e -

g r-> l · ;, s t.t'.t i s t ir. .\1 t: ·. , scY. :~:: i '1es 1tt::. , ·.'J-: ')Ol't r< ')'/ -- ~~ -. t:- i -·1-> e.· ce--)t " e :'lti-

::'le·;,t .:.:-· i' .-i<'~c·'l. t s t :tt 1e:. t ..• i l (:1' ). 

: Oi' t ,., j_. ~ L 1, / e r>'..' P t t: ~f. "".Ti ·.-.. -"' c:· ~- ~ · ) 8 ·:.' :c e .-1Ci.""l t J.·' f m.tnc' • -- ~ • o=:·.. t 1e. ·-,ye -

si ,' i.1 " offic e-:: l.tP·.,__ c ·· lO :'tt f:'.l'l t to 0l.'..c .·~ facts , i+ ~- ;<' S r•'.:d. t e ·· o~~ i)l e t :.e.t 

t :H:- :cec:o r c · ·o·l,_l ( ~)C .,) ?.. . ~ ·: ".s t.c " --) :·t j_ c- ,_:t -l r •::Jo:~ t· t ,r o·.- ~ sio.1. :. is 

:1 _; t ·Jc t r--.1e ue t.o .fl. !" :i..et. -- o:::' n':·· co 1 e vc :1 ·~ J. er. 2. C.vi e·-:- s ··r:-1·e :'_' i i'C:1 f:1.ll 

r ein ·s0 ('l.'.e sti on . 1e. c:·v··. s e-r :1.~; · "' Ve .··c .... ". O i:tf o·.·:·.!r t io··l ::1-: t ':'> t ' o LJ-

~Is t 1·· 1 s -,? st. ··-,rc=tc t. ::..cf' s or t >e ,,. ') :: c:_ i 1.-:; of ·':.> e >rov i s 5. ·ns :l '~,r ··:r".:re <.::Y•ear e d 

t on , o:: t >e ·" .. 10 .~ ~1:- e :cece ~ ."l'J :·_-.lJcic c: . :; ·o:..--w~; : ~· ;, i_ ;rrls , n·1.ive 

c s tc :

1.e ·;;: 1 n .·.1e.s , ':'>·. t:~1""S _.. :r ~ .. : c ':. to v oice o·, _l C' i'J: t~ L ! :·wa rL:. -;f: 

.e:. l:,·. e zs1:!. ~:~ ce l" t t~'.. i:c o")j e -:::ti0i18 ,.,c,·.l;- '0c c onc; i f.e:: e ·· : n·· ::Ju.ttGrs 

11 i_o--Ll=·· m:.t 11 L 1 L Je ~.. on~c t"~:-::~e . 'l'>e ;')J 'e ;:-; ·:L e t -1 :;e t. c o0es -'"" )J.r P.·~- 'i1B S 

i-i__c. .e:1 t i r D-;.1.c e .. P:1 t , t o so ~r:-; f'si. L1~ ofi' i ce::.·8 , ·so es e. Lo t c :n t ;.oV':' rs ~r ..''.xi; a;r 8 ~e "l t . 11:_ r-:n t _r-:.:· e. ·· s ;'. ;::T r: · 18 n ·c . -' 8~· :c i ::·tc. s ·Je re ::- · o: t e ;1 O\.: .• · 

.A[ r: e.1c~t ·J" .:-t<Ji.J Prs of .·ll i::~·.u t·~ ~r •'oc s ·:".. o t .. 1e P~1 L '<.t ~1e ~::; -, li c i n t ere st. Cli.' ev en L w: i ::.c: "Ll.str·, ' s .n ten~ t ··· o·!l1,· s ··nlL se:-' ec~ .• T'tc se f?.c to:::s ' .. co·--•·-; l c c"' · --j_ i. in.:.c t i r;· 0 -'1. t~ ~. e ,::. r t c:· -- :c e::> :~ office r s Sf' '?C~ t o :_-o r~\. ce 

.:1 :'1. '1~~ :~ -8(1UE' e r e c o1.c' s ( 31 ). S_10rt .. e~~ ri: s r\ l or e '7e:c ·:wt t :1s o:,1ly l'eco :;.· s t:~ ;-~ t c ou::n t s cc· .. L'. ::r<.•r e c:o:--> s j_('>·::."e-.' i _,~ _, e·-- '-~~'"\ te . T:te r _.- ' o Sf"·:'V8 to i 1-

l.l.R t e -~ ."' t so:~ ~L ~es _.. 8.1'"\ e-.->. cc.. P::: Cl t i re of.'l ri-ot of one ~. ::n :i .: _~ 

ex.cL ... _c-;j_·-.;e o'!: ·E· :· :;:o cl ··: .. cti o:::. of ~:s c o.· e CP'1 b e T81)roc'ucec' Ol' le s s t- .l c.:"lonr. ·; ··i "' tet' 1)-' '-" e ( ':; ? \ :;:· ---- r o "' " ,"' --_ ,,. ,-·)e -l' o~~ o -t· ·,,e .,.. e·- ,- ·~ es (~)· ) I :". - 1 • • ~- .... ~ "-.J ~ e -. --t..• '- - ...,; C.: •· 1...- -.. . . . 1 -..J - - • .L ,..._, • .L. J. • '. l 

t :1e c .- se of .? :-ze ~--·n .-: ·1oY' o Lnort t L1r"n·: tri r.s ~ea ri n- s ,-,c:.r 8 c.-:.' t e::-1 (•".l.i. t e 

l on:; c o 1')8.:.' <:-. t i vel y ·~·.s: . 

.-~ - ~ . ~ ex--"' :·e s s e c-· c-~ ·.- esiye t o d ,,,·,.re !1 0 ·..; ~1. 1•.:..: t 01, o·-, i·:l io:n e.t ~-e~ ri r- ~s 

') . 1 e :1<.-.17fest :! ::r-J ss ~_ .· o:f c-c~-;.J F· te J. y c' is t Ll_...-U.i !';;_:L .. · ·-Je t v•ree::1 

f-:tc t ;·;,_r' o~ :.:ion 01 ~. -::- -c l. e:'1t. , 1• c: '~ ti :r. or J. r, r,;r ~~ io ··')_ 0f. f c1.c t 

rcv ~·-- tP -- t:·- ~ : u J fil ~ e! ,t of -c --· i.L. C:es L·e . '_F :. e 0 est .-~no rn r:-le:=J.n s of is

~rl. 'o:~:: ; f ee t ro ~1 o· _;j_;1io:n l.. i Fs L1 t ::c: :.··· ..1lcs of c;v i r' enc e ( r:)·.:,n_ ) . I-t 

i s _...·_o-.. t,) tr:;c' i £' s ··:ten.n s 'fl s ~"' Vei ' r r: soTt e -"' to i ::1 ·~-, . So -;;-;_-"C" r nl e t :1o.t 

t:1e re c, -~Je n 0 o·: i :J. io:n t es ti:10n·.- n-~ e o:f -~ o -.. c l ,; to t. ~1e A·'; ::i n:.stTa -

tic . L.steE' ·- , it ··r0.s s u":J 2ec t to ... ,_siJ 1):_! 11 i-: i· _- office;·s ! -::'>.e '\..l.S i..1.<''.l 

Tr ::> c~: €' ·r::·s t. o ,_,_ l lo:: a •·:i t~e ss co. -'- .'~-.- -::..o e -n s .i·1·c.c> e. s ~1e . ..,. i s-.'l.Gt' e~·;-,--; L1 :; 

RO:'.~J. r t [ , ,, \·~· : 't t '··.;:::. t ca·:Je i ll ~:i S >.e:-· j _, ~c ; ~ n ' -'l· • .. c-.1~ 'C 1 r.-o ' "' ~ l c r,..,..,.. ·i -. ~ <' + ·:-o ~ "'U- - . . ). ~ ' --\J J. - ~;,; .L - · ("":i· •• ~. ~ .... , u I.' _. -

::1er.t 0 l' o··:i.:tl i :;n i"T.'·"l..S LP :-::e-. :-t :'~~='. t <>. -o rl ~.,: .. ( i s t ·.--. ste .. cul ··Ji t of 

ti :c y ( '36). · (, ·. 

~:-'. ere E' re ot:le'r a r ---: u:.e nts f 0l~ a. c.iff'e r e i·l t :cu l e i r. E' dd i ti 0::1 to t:l.e 

'D si~ J.it·-r of bu. ~ •J'Y ·l' ,..,s ·.~; .... _-. of' f'J ~e ~ .>-..·"l·n,_· on-'-- t ' · f t , .c '-' • · 'c: -'--· ,... , V ' - L.. 8S l TlOTl y l S 0 e n 
neces s<· rv to 6 eci e i ssnes i :-: c ou::.~ts . 

of tr.:--J'e c-.::1r' L1r.' nst~:-y w~:~e-;~~e f~~ cts ':' :·e ofte~1 '.se s~ or 10~1 e:J:i~ten t i:.1 r..;;-

se?:lce of ~) ion t o -~ ive t.:1e:'< c oloT o::.~ sv·J stc ~1 ce. I f o·'JL1i.G~1 evi:::~e·1ce is 

El d.lis~i -~ e il: courts ... it no-..1lc'. se2 .. _1 t :-:.r .. t it r:~~- ·.:_L' .Je is-:-i~Jle ::::_fo-rtiori 

in ~ci .. .1 i n istrc,t ive l::.~ocee -- ·. s ·-·~ ··.ic > ~.: e ·-v.~ 10se to ·Je . .1u c~ ~ ·.1ore l a :: L1 

L 1ei r re n·ui rer:te n t s a s t o tile ;:-/'_ ·.1i ss i ') i l i t y of evi( e::1ce . It ~~a s Je e~: s J.--:- - Gester: t-lC'.t it i s (.8.nc;erm,_s to onsi ~~ r o·')i:'li. ::m e'.r :~e :t:ce ( ,..7) . :, -_t ·-<-8:: 

01Jini on fur:::.is:.1es t> e :1 ~' clne to t~ ,e t rv.e situ..<:J.tion i:fl. ::1 i:':t"ustr _r it 

inust ·Je .C'.C c e,) t ec'\ i f t :1e:: e i s to ~Je EE17 ,· ent !"l r 0 -::.sis for ct on . 

Arc;:1r1eDt a s t o e,~lr d; GJ o:rl to -J e ·1nt inon t l!.e f c>.cts 2.:10. ~1 e co:1-· 

cl us o~1s to "Je c'.r a,•rn '7 0Ul0. see--.1 to b '3 c-\n .:- ic: to "'JTesir i: g office:cs. Sel -

Cl.o.:1 "!e::·e :!resichng of f i cers so i n t h l?..te l ·r co n~1e cte ~ '" ' i t~1 ru i n"'ustry LlP.t 

E'. ·or'.re stc .1en t of s t .e.t ist icP..l i:~:fo :~ tio ~1 L 1l: sL-.•)le fncts oul0 suffi ce 

to o.fforc a ·wo·1e r b0.s i s fo "2.~ ~e iJ.~ fL1ciL1:.., s . Ar_;u .-.ent of L .e cts te::·"s 

to oL t Jl. o t:1e c r i t icFl.l iss ue s . 7.':.ey •:::oL.·.l (! seE'·:.1 )c. o ~Je <.~'1 enur-.11~7 ~1el·1

f u l 2}J iti o:.l to <'' lJ2.re i n t roO.uctio:,.1 of fP.cts. · e2.·e too , t-1e co.:r:1on -w;-.,c -

tl.c e ·-r.-.s c:... -~V o c 8.. ll- o,-r . c .,... l 'j'u e"'t t··.· o·,, --·· ·i·1 -~· eor cr '~ "' v- Y1 ne r~ r.11 ~1 e r~ is+ 0 .L .1. .!. l .... \...J.. .. .: -·· _ J. lt-- ... _ '!...' _ sr - .J · - - • • - - \J --

tion ·;Je t '''ee n -sta t L1 :. ·facts n::..· :::~ e::..~--n·etj_:n sLnl e f!'.cts L1to co:1 clusio~1s 

of fact i s s o su1Jtle tl:La t . ·;~ W8.v lost " t 0 nost e:3 ic1ing off ice r s . A hec?.r -

i ng i n L~e 11 fue ~') ocess 11 sen se i s usua lly ~lou:..; ht to i nclnJe SJ.ch rec>.so:1-

nole a r c;: u.:1ent of :~e fe.c ts as i s es ire -:-1 -J~'f c: n i~ restec' 'Jc>.r t ;: to 0 0L1t 

out is ')Ositi on ( 08). Th i s i s t ::cue even L1 Ll.c ::: e stri cted "Y)ro c er' u r e o: 

cu sto::1s 'e er:1 L1 c~1 s ( 39). -·'lJ. e re suost ::. 1tic'~ l 1:ro ·1e::c r i n t eyests o1· :!eF 

ouest o~1s of econo::d.c s i l-;nif i c anc e n:rs i:nvo l ve0 it see:.1s i1l y oesil"?.-)1 

to all ovr e. f ull 8.Y6L.l.:1en t of t :1e :f2 cts. I t c: o,:nl e.tes t >e i ::1 te::esteC'. 1.::·.:: t i es 1 

privil ege of 1Je i ng i1ea rd. It also f:Z' .:~ s ~~ l- Jful 0irecti on to t~1e :"a -

sh\. in:; of f icer. 

Arc;1."E.1ent as t o ~1 e l py·r ~l es s r-. . :lo r e f. i ffi cul t ou,est i on . A.c".Jii.:ist rative ct:;: encies i n ".:l c:t~::: g ;"ecisi ons ;ms t ~eeYl C'il eye to t~'le rle cisions of 

courts i n t:!e fi e l J of i t s ac t iv i t i es. P~ lel~e a statute use s such terns 

as 11 f e.i r ')r a ctice , 11 11 lli1fnir c o n eti t ive 'ir-':tc t i ces , 11 ,;,n r, 11 i nt e rstate o_ 

fo re i :.:;;n GOiT.1e rc e 11 i t c.;\:1 be e::--;,e c t e'' ~-!"J. t -~ ~P.ve. ouestions of l aw no .1.l r. D.-

ris e . Ar c unent of counse l u~ )o~1 s~,l.c~:. 0uestt ons lO t.:. ' -)e >.e l ')ful to t >.e 

Ad:1i nist :t2.t ion. It "'01.\ ~.d furt :. 1e r i n(:'ic2.t e t c t:".:. e cmJ.r t s !a t t :1e Ac1 :1i nistra ti on '.72.8 2.'.78.re of the c;<~ l :-ml c: ~: o;1s <'::.1' :1£\c"' fu ~,r con~ de :re~~ t"le::l 

e s:;ecis lly eT e t he A0i~i st c::. tive c!i c ision i:1volver ~1c-n_; es in t~1e e:~is

t L1G st,'J.te of e le l aw. ' T':A for"Ja·'.e le.-;2.1 .?vl"GU.".1e:1 t ( <.1/ )) . It adhe_~ed. nui te 

closely to i t s rule . or 1'!2.s ev i 0ence Ul)On suc~1 l e:;al '10int s soll€ht or 

we lc o·:1ed ( l) • 

Li t t l e cUsaC:van c:{_~ e c n.n iJe see·: :~.--1 o llov;L:g ~gUi:ie ;1 t e. ce~l t t:-..e ti::te 

consu.:1e0 . Positive nee3. fol~ E1T(:"LL::1en t of ~1 e f ac ts is ev i den t. Argu:.1ent 

of 1e 18-"' n oul c1 :r..c~ ica t e to t : ·e cc r::'ts Q cl.e sire to· ·ue a"Jsol utel y f a ir 

e.nd to -")roceeC: U:D on a fully ren.F>oned cou1~se . ~~"""'.A c> ,3e ~'. ;."'.r s U:-:lent U"'JOn 

t he f c.(:ts ~J ut r efu sed t o ~eco~n ize t· .is i n its stated. -- rocec'ure . It ·1ou1c1 

s ee1:1 ac~ n tac;e ous t o :1ave :nacl.e s ta tec'l 'Jroce' :ure en '~ ,:n~·l c ti ced nrocec' u_~e 

a ccorc'.. r e:(SU.HS i Ve reasons ex i S t ecl ,-r:::r E'.J~_:;l'.: 1e l1 t Of .t }l~ l <'l \"T and. i n tro ~UCti on of ,;ertinent eviC:.enc e 10ul l la e o een encou:cageo -. 

S:1ouJ.CJ. tho <:rivile "'e of Cl' OSS- eX<:-.1 i :eF:..t ion :ave ~ ee C:".fforcl.ed. o y ~-:J.A? 

T:1e ste.tec, :i:IRA 1r ce ~ure r efus eC •1a.::cti es suc:1 "":l rivi leg e ( 45) . All :'leccssary uestio ~1 s i t '"8.s t~10 UJ;~1 t coul( 0e ·1ut "Jy tl1e Dresil1_ i nc; officer or :1is 

advise:-s. Cross- eY.[:,,:1ina tion is frenue ~1 tl v sRi d to. oe "'.. ~1 essential of -2. 

f a i r -;;' __ :linistre.tive 1ectri~'"~' (·13 ) . T~-:. is i~ ·;") rooaoly ;:1ore true 1<1ere e1 stc?.-

98TJ 
- CJtL1~; c·'..j_ . . . ('" -ri ' ' . ... ! , : . . . . 1 ' J .. .. • • .c. ·,· 

".:::.·tic .. , C" O.., - .. ~ li.1 LiOrl ~ 

' C E". f' ' ')·· :."1 "" c· 0";.- ~;' ri n a t 101. 

rn :t: .,." ~rbel11l,,fu . )t. c ,·· l· , o COL'..l'c; "' , '' !~:·, ,r ·,.., ,t,) 

:· · '.' 1-e!";>" .Jl €' "le. ;s rJ.' pl· ·e::- •·i!l ; · . , l'e L .. c --)·~c. ~. 5 'i;; , of ·i t>l' 

:1ust c':·c:·ci. e t~ c ct:io.: l i lit ~ i c ·~ w· c i t se ' 'if'S l'<J r f") ·1 ·,u· •csr . .. ··1 

:-- . ,.., · ~. :t: t.iv e .. ,,_.o e·· rc c r os. - e:-:, .. ti ·· . .- t:on 1i ·-..t :)e J.i 1i l.r••' ~o 'lsc· 

··: C' • l c en t c r t of i "' L, e r r• .. t !" e .. i t c c' • C r o •. a - e. ·.r· .. i "'·'"' t J o 1 j "" r• ! 1 i ! ,.. -

t n'. 1-; ~~ 0f :·cn l v " luc i c o· j ,.,· t: >c1· sa.· ..: vi •. i.E' ~c e (· ) • "' t<> n s!' i·, 

sue> ...... · ·:·o·y_•if'te ·•lcccs 's · r"·r:. e c . cr•:-L .:; ·· f 1( co .e i ·. f : ct ," c ontest 

'Jct·"•"" o:: · li. ii t 11 m..1. 1Je~· f "":;,. t i . u--:1 ~ :.. tiCL l: r '.s , oc; ·-.o·,·J ~ ~:oc ~ 

· .. i ; .l·· -:· e- ::-.i :·['-.)le . 

··_e l .t eLl. ·Jro·ol c ::<s -~ E:' c'O'..' .. c' i :.· .n .:. tr 'L cs ~ .. tC:: J (-'.!:i) n::.~· ol1f c~G

t i ?.l ·-: C' 10)·ts. W o.:-fi i·· L -J~.' ~. st!· tc r: t,~:-> t ~)u ...- 1 · , s :10i to ·oc "".1 -

lo·-- c,- . .-: e:' t lc:-. :i.ty :;_ --1 C11 .:. c.· __ -;,·_ C TUJ. t:- o ·:.:.. s t G'

0

• AJ .. !ost ·· ~v:'. C'.' ' 

<f t e:· ·! .:- :L: ~ skte:1c:1t u· c>:. ·· ":·o·1os c.: c o e ") ":."O 'isio;l t.:P 1TC' ·nn ents 

·-: e:-e. ~11oq:- •' t o '1 "' ~ e .'-'.:1 E"'1r: ·el :L ~ . t. ~ V• 1e:1 t to , . c:..·iti i~ --; " i n : ct e ·· ·J: ' 

o·r..,o.'l :.: ::.tr f:·o.:. ~ f loo:..· o:· J~' ; -~ f : ··s. ·· e·J,.ltt. 1 ··r.:-o.s '-:.ot li .. i t e.' tJO ·>l'O-

. o:1e·1ts. So-::~ tL1 e~ ::t. .. r csi ..;- Ll.; ' or :f i ce·· so los t co· t r ol ~ c . e ..,ri:n:s ~~r.o t 

;: cr os:=- - i i :re o1 r- t c.· te.::c;n t s ' e.r ;'\'.::<:" .·1 t s ' ;~:o .., o:: e:1 "' :-- n." o· r•o.ne;.1ts ens··.le ·· ..... __ c.1 .Lle:- Ji it~' ·:>f ·, ::C:)C e~-;. :. 1' 8 t ·:.l:'l" S i n co .. :'. ~ n. c "·,· t 8 :L ·r, .('~ it .~ · 

of (1 7 "'. 1 · o·, h ' su-::-:_. e"'t .ts~ lf 0 "' ·r:_·r:>r' nr;-l .)le . ··:'.e o:tf.ie :.· o:f ·"r Oc 8 · n r c 

of -- :,-_i r l ~·. >t :.ot :1:"'Ve C' ~ e:1ti:· eJ. ·i :;·}.t of -, l c:. c e . P!' "l •·~'l :'> (l.i';:o 

::. l"~L f'i ; CO"c'.l .-· :.a e Ft e · ·c e. :;:- c : ; 'G~ "ll"l :, e o·;--) on e:tt!'; ; .~ ~ c ·e:1 

C' lo· i·1_· ::~; :e - ro·)c·:'l,·mt s . :::··.i s co-:~ ' .. l:·v e ·J -::< l :i. 1i t e -' t 'J i ,· -ri J.D l 

·-. :co--v)s"'ls o:r t o L l.e c oc1e ·"ro·•o!?.: l E'.s .l --·:·,ol e . A.',> ·,ru roce ·-"J. re "!' 8'' i t 

, . ._ . . ::t :.'..:.1co :t::or. f or is vel · :..~ ~ ~ t o _:"l :'. l .,~,.0 ;=~ J. r t.o ~)e ':.sec' • 

.... • lC -'1 .. "' ~ ·~e _ l _,. ~ ..... wc\ ., _ e _ --....; 1 

- V"''_, J.. l ~-J ·,__ e , .,. ,,~; · · - rl· l e' ... ..... 8 'l

·, o _. 

~~ . ., , 

~'.. \o.. ( ~ • .,c-. '·e, u ..!-~ Jt... .'

. ,....

e J· .

. t , 0'1""J 0, ... 

"'P. l _. ' 

_ v s 

t.:1ey ··8r e i:1 i> c t [:ive:'l c- ::·ec +t,:~. J. o··) -·Ortu;;,it::.r r->.l.o:1· ···it·: a c::P.nc e t o s t P.te 

t:lC s· ·Jst:- 1t iv e c: "' o. ~ 0f t ··e i ::- c:· se . I t --oul .:' ··)e 1.mf ...... i r :1o t t o Cl.l1 o··r 

o ~s s • 

. ?.A :~ over ·IL':"' e <'. o:.~ ·::".1. r.; t.::- t r . :c:-:1 t ·s~ " t i t. E'VfT C1 Ct E·· i :'l ~~ e "··.r0 t o 

cor'.c --,r•)' ·os··l:-: 1.r·; or. ovi ."ence ·:o t ·c •"o ·,_,_ce,· ' t. rt >e~ L;, -: . It i s crnite 

T) .' OJ ..... _-jle ~. ;: t Te.l:i. " :J.Ce .. ,.- s ·1l.< •c o · i·-_. . .'to ~· e Ll;- :·l o:· E: Cf'.SG 'l'..")Cn SlY ~. : ev e: . 

>e 11: oY1.e·:1 "" r es e :·" ~ ·J ~.' '"l. f,.- l J.-... :.~e t o ~ .. ", re r · l[·.s i s ~ L 8 z-ec or c' f Ol' ::.ct ;....... o,

-

· 

- -ic +v ""' - - · "',. '·l· I... J;,.., c-u . ;. o.P -- v l ...,r.v ,.., ,-.. ---- t .. 

'"l, v !:

. ··J .-.• .l\r-.J +\J""' · -

,"' .

.!.. , "', J .t c.:.. -=1 C8 ( .-'..

.Cr..) \ J • .. ,.,"'. •e'_1 - . ol.._.. __ • ... l 1ce _ ~ ,_ 

~' . -,_,_. , o:; <. 11 c o!1f i .'c1t i C1. l :'.~ ~:::- 11 ·.ry c-:1 .·: t OT info::. "'J f1. ion f r o::t c;. s e c r e t 

·-- i t:1'? ss e: e i s F' ise : ~ ':> n ·' '-e ~~ r o. 'Jl'O'·Je:::.· .:.cCJ.rint; J,, ,s ·Jee:1 

ac--o··· e · 1· .... {· e·,... es+ ecl -- rt.:. eQ · . .-- !1 , .. 1"\ ·, rl· PI i- ,.., 1 Jo -rt 11 - - .o.J. V - V • JC. . .L. • . • • - - 1;"0 '-" ; _ _ ...~.... .._ _, .L - C .lo - - .,..,r_ n;J..J l C" 'C"".;. _: . r·"'s C , ... ·-.-re J _ -

e~ e' to t~ e :'"' ~.r s~ 1 c o1.1rts L1 t~ .. s f 0 :to't'.S cc.sc of oc l Govel",:. ]e i1 t [I. l' ~ 

v. Ar:'..i c' .·: e_ (<',7) . lC '...::.., ~ .:.~ ... 01.'.SC of Lol·r' s (.' e c L, e6 t'. :."' t :1 e· .~l ,.,ro.s YJ.O 

ri_;:1t t o s ee ~L e in :)ecto::-- 's :..'e':: or t, it n ·e<:-...t e( 9. 1~ .-.1 CRn t e ::c· }. :r. "n:;lis>: 

[.c ..:ti·1i st·:-ative l c;:·; (::/3 ) . .!' ~: e ::.'ec ~-.'l t -. e; or ~ of t:.le Co.:1..1i t.te e or. in is er 's 

Po e:·:-s (-~9 ) s r e co,:n e:'l··e..:· t > ·, t 'G·.1e "lC'..Cti ces of tc ::i ::::~ c onf i ( e·1ti " l z- cy Ol"ts ~) e voi ~ec~ . s ,.,. o-... '.. '~ ceTt::- :..:: l·r sef:.'1 t ::;,e i:::. e:.~ r n l e :' ~ t :.1c o:1c 

to os fol lo·. :_ u.:..1 less ·: e sL 8::c. ~1 s of ·')UJlic "" :) li ~ i:r:t erve :::'l.e6 .• 

T:'l.e ~-: i 7- ec' St c?.tes c2.se s L:rl i cll..t e t::P.t t ."e .lc of t.:e Arl i (., -:e ca s e is :..1ot 

la•7 i:: s C0 .n t:::.· ' ( .:J J) . It C< .. ~ ·.Je re il ' s e e .1 t .L P.i l u r e to i n troL~U e c-. e- "o ~:-t L1 t o t >e ev L ence ·::12-:y -~ ei) ,..,, ·,c..rty L i. no nce o.f :v ·. t 8V- ~ ~ • :"' • :'1 .., t., ., . . .... !- • - ., I + - ~ .1. J.. ., l. l u.c:1ce 1s ce sll"eo. ~,. .e e.c,:-:i.L11 ·l, r a \,lV e ·JO[' :::-·:'.. v :-:1ay Je t .. :.e.v :.. .:e Te·1orv '1"' '1 0 t . l 881'i c "'.re!"' ' 'll )_-y r.".·rp.· rn r' J. ', "' .t.. ·~ 1 . . · e·~ c e ·,., .t.. • , e ~a ·'· 1. e C' ~1· .· t 'lll. c'r - C' .. - J , •·· c . 1.. · - <.'.~ • • t l, ~. L. v 1. , _.._ u .} l. . . ' J .1. IJ "' l. t --• J (1 ~ .... -

l y es .? JJ.is ·, iS f a ct ( 51) . ·:uc:'l e S D .. '8 l i ne of a r _;u;:J.ent "l0l (1.s f o:- -c · .e 

9833 
fc:il·L'.r8 to -") lace all test i rny of --1 t:~e s8s 1 t~ e :t eco:tr· of t>.e :ea· ~ix: 

~). T~ ere i s 1ot o:I"10l'tt.:c..1i t J t o r>..' :c F,..·ec:.fic r:s ~Tr s 5~ ) ~·:.e::1 n:::>tice 

of ~: e ev ~e; e to l;e ~eJ -·· ·c;o!". is }_r_s::i :1'.' · ·3_1\ co··.l0. f'.ve ·1 l e.c en. it-

. se l f ~ t - e c1e?.:r i :-J :: e::,,:\::·" to se c·ne t ··: itller;f8S ;.-..nC. co fi( e~ ti ,. l l' e"1orts 

if it -'.[ - s t c-.tec':_ '. t :it '' ~l h :·~ ot reJ· -~,_~; :'l s· .J.C~1 eviC..ence e::r.cen t, of 

course , < •.e:1 .~ ave )U Jlic olic :ti ~- .. ~-':. o'~: :. e:"' se -'_ec::ee. 

_; o --;or'e r of s~ ib"9oen "". '7~ :; :::;iven ·J:/ ~1e Act . ~~ is e~:1 t t:1a t ??.A -=-rLlSt . 

co nte~1t itself -,it l ~l e ·:rit .. 1ess e s d e sirL1,:; to testify. ':'~ 1. e Fe:3er ?.l ~ra''e 

Co .1iss o~: ( 3'2:) and t :1e T2:ciff co -.ITi.ssion ( '55) ::ave t~ e ···o•7er of sub·;oe::le .• 

As ~~ e Presi dent ::~ ::: ht cc:1.l l -(1.iJOn t~1es '?! c o .. t.Ji ss ions to -t.lS e t~ei r 1Jl'Oce 'llli·es 

( 56 ) ~~ e sl..1b·.;oen<'. ') e:..· 1.7<'.s 8.~J ;rov e0 -)? t~-...e Act e 1 t:wu.g 1 not :;i ven to ~l3.A . 

The cou rts :1-ave Jee n r e l ·u.ct a:--:.t t o _3 ivc ac' 1.1inistre.tive ".J m i es too great 

~0 781' of tl:i s c~12. cter. One P.7 ;rove · -T oc c;c~ u:r c Lwolv es an i sSUc".nce of 

a SU~Y.;o nE1. "o:r 'le n.Ci.ministrn.tive lJocy . If c>e :·Ja:d.y towE' (~ r~:ic:l it is 

ir ecte c~ t ekes n o 1ee ~. t~1e a.c~r:1irlistr .s. tive boC.y ca n a·0 )ly to the courts to 

co :nel co;_t,liP.nce r'it:1 L'.e su :, ·; oe .: ~-'.' ( 57). 'l':1e t}leory i s t 'lE'.t L1e acl:J ~stra tive OOC.y Can not i t seJ.f ;;unis:.: ~lG 11011- COLT;lia nce •:ri t:l its :orocess as 

t :1i s r c' e·1rive an i nc1 i vi ch1.c'J.l of ::.is l Je l.~t y -.7i t~wut a trial. ·_:o .:tore 

tri a l is 11£1.0., hm-rev e r, w:w:..~e o.. co.,_,_::·t ··runishes a -ry e rson :f or :refusal to obey its ;J:ocess . T!1e ~:T eoera.l Trace Co . .i :i ssiOi.l ( 57C> ) n-~: t a·-'):;l y , a?J.<i -,n1oit necessary f a cts, to ~e Atto rney ~en l to institute 1Jroceedinzs to 

co::t·1e l ,s-;-,ea r<mce a n0 tes tL.:10ny. T~ :. e h. t torney- ':".ene:ral lc:. s t >.e 0i scre tion 

to refuse to a ct 5~ ). 

T~1ere we re nu:-:1erou s · oc c <:1 sions in l"'3.A ,.,:~e e t:1e ·oower to sub1Joen2.. 

17i ~1.esses pn ~ r ec ords ,,rould have be s:~1 of consi de ra".J l e va lue. Persons a"1-

:oea::-inc; "'oefore :iE?A were ;fran}: to a~'l unusuc-.. 1 ,:-; ree . 'l1

-'1ere yre re ti::-te s 

when suc:.l fr<:1.nJ..mess would ~lave been ::~. tal. T':-~e n in ;;reference to testifyi n,;; it often 'l.'!ccS t:,ouc;h t )est to sEt;l ~1ot:1 t; , Ol' to f a il to p-;;·;eetr (~Sl). 

In sue>. C(1Ses, es1')ec i a ll:r w~1er e :-':? .. A. wa s inoui1ni::.-, ·· into t~ e :-1an:1.er i n whic:!:; 

code 1•:o visi on s had lJeer. acL'li nistered , t :1e su:T')oenc. oul c~ :-:.rwe been .:=t 

us eful c~ ivic . 

As an 2.1 terna ti ve -~1e 8.ns to t:-1e su1m oenC~ ine; of •:r i tne sses tl1e inves ti-

(;Fl, ti 1 of b ool::s ['.:.1 5 reco::;_-r1 s !:ta y oe Tesorted to in 0n a tterrrot to build a 

factua l b2.sis f o:c e.cti on. TJ.1i s 11o•:er of inve s tit;a t i on is ·consi0.ered lec;i s lati ve ,·r: le:c e ~1 e facts are re·1ort eC:. t o Cong r ess , but vr=:-..ere t.1e facts 

furnis~;_ n. sis for aO.r:1inistrPtive 2.ction ;:1i::;ht not Je so trea ted. 

~~enera l fis:·lin e::pe c.i t ions i~1to t~ e affair s of a strmGer for t~ e 

c'1ance t:12.t so~:1et~ 1in~ c1 iscre0. i t c.: "J l e ":l {:; ~lt s~10vr UlJ 2.re 1111,iforwl ,r condm~ne c~ 

( 60). As Cong ress c a n not lJUni s~J. con cer:nt if its inves ti,;a tio-:1. is not 

le;3 islative ( 61) lilo:ewis e G-enera l i nouis.itorial ~J "7 ers i n t.1e :1ands of 

an a d.ni ni strative "body .s.re severely froT'med U"1 0l1 ( 62). T:1e cou rts ~1:we 

ex·0ressec1 (.;r a ve Cl oubts 11 whet~1e r ( Con::_>:Tess) coul d. deleGa te t~1e "JOi"ler (to 

:~o '"~ rk on t;: ~1e l inquiries) i f it 1;ossess eP. i t - - - 11 ( 63). ile .?.A 

}lac1. :.10 1)0\"Ter to connel :..~a l testi::10l1Ji in 8,Jsence of' e:-..:;ress sta tutory 

~J •·r :r ( 6c) it exerciseo. a n analo; ons ·~ ;m 8l' .i l'l reo.uiri nc: L)F.t certain 

boo~: s ar1o records ·oe k e,)t a.n0 re1Jo:rt s. ua0.e 'to it ( 65) . Suc~1 i nfor!:la tion 

c ouL} -.)e Teoui red as a condi ti on to A.D•;roval , a nd t :le necessity to ':Jeri of'-

ica lly $U1;nl y infor!·:1a t ion was ex-presslJ s2.ncti oned by ~1 e s ta tutor: lan

ua :s e (66) . This d i cl. no t :-:1ea:.1 suc~1 i nfonJation need not ".Je ju .iciousl y 

llan'Ues. : .::1.n;y codes r e coGni z n~ Llis reoui red tha t inforr.1a t ion oe -e1Jt 

confi enti l (67). 
.,.., '(-

N::tA did not req1.1.lre ,.,i tnosses to talc~.. < n oo.t h . nc ... thor dlc.l th 

~1 r~l ust~ent Act altho~ h in the administ ration of that Act 

an o.:lth ·-ras r equi red (68). The oath is not tl ought to no11 have th · 

d i ssuasi ve "T)Orer it one~ did to prevent perjur y . D ·s1:>it t ti , it hn. 

boon StH!,c;e sted that the courts. may r oquiru i t in i. ni~ rativG proce edi1gs.if one _·:trt y demand it ( 69 ). Ad:1inist e ring an oath no oner to 

puni sh pe rjury i s quit e bar ren. }'ost nitnGsses Yrere u su ally f rank in 

t ostifyinr. The i r canC::.or often ap.)roach d tl;le 1>oint of sel f - i n cri.mina ti on. 

Oc casi naJ ly i f a "'oint coul d be gained a ni tn ss might 1· ~r to l eave an 

i mpr essi on not in a cco r dan ce rri th the facts . }!.,or these situat ion s. a 

st a t 1tory r equirement t hat n i tnesseo t e st ify L.mo_r.::r oa t h and a. , st a tutory 

prov L sion f or !-'un i shin :9erjur~.r shou ld h.c'Wo been wel comGd cle.vtces. It ' 

mi ht b e sa i d t h3.t S'\lCh Dr OVi sions WOUld ha.v e defeat eo. t he CO O'O era tivo - - spiti t NRA sought t o creat e . ·o st honest r1 i tn8 s oes mit:> ht, however, have 

pref e r red t his l)ro t e ction frorl t hos e less scrupulous tha t they. 

An h8 ~ quest ion r a i sed i n con11e ct ion ,i,i t h hearings i s t ;1a.t of the 

us e of 1v.ri tten bri efs. Does due p roce ss of l a:w r equ i r e oral h ea ring s? 

When t he ·_probl em has been u~~:o d t he a;,1swe r has u sually b c. en,no (70). 

The p robl em ar se i n t ':7o nn~ s irj. :.mA. A ·pres cUn ~ offi csr de si ring tc;> 

save tioe , el) t he r e cor d f r ee from con t r ov or sy or for ot her reasons, 

oight ask a \7itne ss to :;rut his t e stinon;{ i n t he form of a bri ef (71). 

Just ' That consi de ration r as g iven t he s e briefs can !lOt b e s a.id. It 

:9robably vari ed considerably . \The r e no co si de ~ion •:ras g iven, it was 

like ly that litt l e r.1o r e s accorcled to t he huaning itso:J..f. To ma.1y 

:9r e si .. inc office r s t he r e corp_ nas n ot i 1n-yo rtan t. The cio r:1inant considerat ion l!as What p r ovisions ce rt a,in persons ':;oulcl a gre e to. The 'Pro olem 

of ora l hEaring could arise 1'7he r e it ' .'as sought to ar.1end a code by 

"notice of opportunit;r to b e h 0a r c1 ." ~T B.A h e r e s et up a t e st of 

"lik elihood that a mcb stantial minority or grou,J ':rill object -- -" (72). 

Ano~l.1 r t e st that is sugg( st ed fron cur sul~v y of broad r ovie·;·., i s the 

substantial eff ~t upon property 11hat t he :.o ropo s ed rego.lation night }:j.ave 

had. A nore comprehensive t e st ':!as stat ed by t he Legal Division for the 

guidance of its sta ff (73). It seems to.oore n early a~:p roxim te the 

a t titude the cou rts wou l d J? roba bly adop t. Tho use of t he d evice of 

Ho ~yo ortunit y to b e heard" r e st ed upon the feeling tha t it is an afu.1inistrative i mpossibility to g ive a epai~ate h earinr>; u:_oon e ve ry :pro:9osal 

or to do all acts in "to~ m r.1e e ttng n (74). De sp it e t he s e sound considerations full oral p r e sen tation is u sual\'/ f elt to b e mor e cl early a ' ,- . guarant ee of du e p-roce ss -of la'.7 . If t he subj e ct natt er i s irrmo rt ent 

a h e?-rint; ·.rill b e held~ If t he sub ject matt e r is not so i?O rt nt~ it 

':'!Ol_,_ld seen t hat the r:1.at t er con l Cl . . 1ai t ~"'ltil the next hearing •aou ld be 

held. This dil eEr1a SU.f"' ~: st s t h[\.t t he device :probably shou l d .. have b een 

more limited tn i ts aJ;nlica tion, that is to such uatt ers ,..rithout considerations of policy involved to ',...,h ich all i n t e r e st ed parties cou ld 

r eadily a;gree. 

. ' 

Certain short coming s hav e b e on Cli scove r ed in t l1e h earing s afforded. 

Po ssibl e im·!rovements have been dis cussed. Such a vie·:: of h e2.rings as 

has b een had is de signed to ~1 •:: the formal guar antee s tha t shou ld have 

b een e:;;:t ended to int erested parti e s to have insured that t h ey '.7o t.:~ ld be 

full y ~eard. 

9838 
; 

- 62--

~IAPTER I X 

The basis for t he a~J inis ve de t e r mina tion i s of the utu nst 

i mpo rtanc e. It involves _; Jri:1e.:cilJ' q1.:.e sti o: 1s of .=. dmi s si .bili t y of 

E. vi c ence, we .~2 ht t o be :;i ven evi den c e , t he r e cor(l macte , &nc, the 

de in e. tions which may _:_) rop erly be m-s: c't.e . 

Stuclents of ::<dmi nistrc-.tiv e l pv,- hc-,ve long con t e nt ed t h emsel ve s 

with the :s:enerality t ha t administ r a t ive boC:.ies are n o t l:el G. to the 

t e chnical rul e s of evi c. eEce of t h e c ourt s , thc;.t one of t he p rime 

functions of administration is to b e free d of such L~ ic aps (1) . 

Recently Judg e Stephens ha s macl e; a. CRr efL.,_ l Btudy of t h is problem 

(2). He con cl.u.cted a survey of just i1ow crJ. d_ t o 'Jh c t extent ad..rninistra tive ·bodies apply th r -.1.l es of viC: en ce ( 3) . Al t hm..1.gh t he; P..n swers 

di d not show · any car ef u l a ttsm_!_:; t el"C>' .J.y t o follow t he rules of 

evic";.ence it shovrecl t hc: t t hey we r e oft en use f u l ( 4) . Ac'unini s tr c- tive 

bo di es like C01.1rts t Dke j:.;_c.i.i ci E:• l no ti ce of f c:·c t s. The courts wi 11 

not a~ways uphold fi:nC.in-?; s made on s·,·._ch o. besis (;=;). 

Hules r e stricti nc admissilJility of eviC:.enc e wh ich is C. eserving 

of some coJ.1sici er2 ti on often come in for .- much criticism ( 6) . · The 

remedy lfes not in abandonmen t, but in a. fully c onsitl ered relaxatinn 

(7). There is c ert a i n ly t h e ~· e of A ~e ble t e st bein -:; availabl e 

when evidence is conL· sin.:;l y conflictj_n·s· The ch ief u s e in s 1.ch c ase s 

cou ld be in the ei- ht ,_:; i ven .evi C.enc e . Ho1·:ever, t h e re is c.::;n a.dvan tage 

in h aving the :tl=.le ro\ .conv eni ent a s a :ne ans to r e strict ev c~ ence of a 

highly inf"erior sort.·· 

Admini tr ti ~re bo o.i es J.leve :Jrobabl y ::;iven l i ttl e holl('~h t to the. 

use to be made of rules of evi denGe ·( 8 ). ::-suaJ. l y c;ui t e a meesure nf 

infonnality _prevei'ls r· s to t he c:.: clmi . .3si bi l ity of evi.C'4enc e (9). Little 

help is g iven by the stBt "Ll t es or n ;_ les of ·n ·c-c ti ce of su ch oo(.ies as 

t he Int ersts t e Coumerce r;om:·::i ss i on or t h e . FeC.eral Tr e.c1e CoHlmi s .,ibn 

· · ( 10 ). The latte r Comui s::; i mn u sua lly 2. dmj_ t s evi C: .ence bu t vvi l l list en 

t o objecti ons ccu ring fina.l E:r _;urGSilt on the me r j_ t s of t he C8se (1.1) . 

In fi (~ C::.s where .i..) r obl ems of econonic ef:L'e ct a rise , it i s ce s i r c:ble t o 

a llow 8. c onsi C.·erable il1 8<?sure of free c:Lom t o ·'li t nesses, it -bein:; so 

diffi cu lt to G.etsrmine what c:-re f:-,cts ( 12 ). Su ci1 t estL10ny obably 

c an b e consi C.ere<i P. S ex Jert. The ncmini s t :c a tive boches a r e not free, 

however, t ::J follow wha t eve r rul e s t hey -: e s .Lrp. Decisions of t i1e courts 

refusing to uphol c.l edministl· tive t'.eteriain a tions hr-v e tl1e effect •f 

es t a.bli slling ev:i ti e.ry requi re:i'!8l'l ts ( 13) . 

Hearsay eviG.ence is g eneral l y a&nissible (1 . In John Bene 

& Sons , In.c. v. Fe der£·.1 Trade Comr:1i s si an ( 15) a pe rs on wh ose usv.al 

occupa tinn wa s run11int; a 11 b ea.uty l)r: rlor" t s tifi ec:. a s t o the use of 

"Daxo l 11 and per oxi c·. e . TlJ.ough no t with t h e c o -1 pany e t the time tn 

wh ich he r t estimony r e f e i'r e cl she we s ll ~;· ed. to t e stify. As she 

st a t ed, her lmov•le fl.c e c m11e fr om t he f Dct t hc: t 11 a t '. the tine t h ey 

incor) o r a t ed, t h e who l e c .:;se was e:x:p l e i n e d , and I J.1ave al l t he 

pape rs onc rnin ~ t he c ase. 11 Other eX"'lTI:1l es oi heF-rs ay appe a red. in 

the c rrQrse of the oc in s. ti ony is a &nissib1e said the Court, 

9838 
-· 

11 1' 01 th ,, i,1<. U ·· L US1~'1 Jy ct' Ct!', c~~ir-,ni!ll ec:. Ill'. n i.n th l;Q!lL'lJCt 

of t '1el r C.!'ily Dl'C... : •. ore i :-tJOl'i nt · Ifnirs. 11 It 11 s,101,lt uc r c"ivcd 

1c .... ~::i .er c'. ; ~L.t it '1') lc' 0c 1 'rlJ (.onr 11 ( L:) . Tn : i.!; C'.!~C. th .... 

L 'YU!' 't. it·~ ~ ., .f • 'lt l (' t C i L 1 l. J1 !.i ( 'L?) • If d 1 i v r l ~ .' S ~ 1' i. ~ ' r l ll 

!;i.;L:•i ~o:.ri--ole to 1' Ct.i\·e ~" '!' '•" -,t l n:;L Sulll~ r1ot "_l[ ·l~i,l.· , 11'. 

suoj"ct it. t o t.1c t st;1 .·of crnss- v"'· .. inLJtiun (1 8 ) l ::.' t ·:10 _;nl...tt be 

::mo.:;t·'"lti< 1. N~t.A lh V €£ l'~fu·;e<.: tc sti1m ..... ofl.'e1 c, <. t :·H t·in·rf \)!I t..ne 

'l'Ot.'..!'' it. ··"s ~ rs· . . l')on s b ,; .. tti;lt~0nttstcrlt,rohlcntr; tl·· re 

"'<ittl( SCG!.l .• cci t L1 i)rocet=>LLg c rtuiiO'J ·]'J' in !:'CLeJtin :· '>.lCh tcGtinon 

nltho1.:..-::;h an a c~c:1e -- l 1a tt er i t co .. ll{ ·Jiou;•bl· u .J CCe·•t e(·, 1're Jy. 

T>te 11 bE.st c rj_ len c c 11 r'.lle , li ~·.e ise , ,··o.·Lc~ 1 o t ·::et:. to iJ a lT.le 

t o 0~"' strictl.,l <'),,lied. •:nC01.t.bGcC~1 y , it W£1 f', no t fol'Jo":e!). b;y r~. 

Tl1ere se€'113 little .. :ec>.:;nn "L,/ it ~ o J.c• be' u n. G s su1,st ;)n ti r.lJ ~n erest s 

":7 cr.; i ·lvolv et1 <•nd i t o~:•, lu. ·h, s:l.;·v:l thPt fPib . .tr t o adJ"ere to t~lC' n1 l c :t!i~ t cjtr c~ t,}·c _o::;i ti on of an lr~tcre~te0. )o1·ty. Affida.vi-;;s and 

l e t ters c ould f' lsc oe freely , cc eptect 0,uojc ct t n t he Gr.me li1ai t a ti ons. 

TRA made frt'e use of s11.Ch evi t'.ence. T:·;e ;J c;. ~tice ln '· i)sence of ob.je ction 

(19) seems ~erfe ctl y pro~e . 

I·1 t e res t ecl 11t' r ti e s some time s r ;· i s a i n conrts t h e :f;· ct tktC'l t eviCenc e 

\as i mp rope rly <'0~. i tte 6.. One cour se t o oll PY t J1e ;":Jossibili ~ of such 

ac t ion choll engi ng NRA }je·, rin·~s mi ~h t h , v e been t o hPve .9l l o":ed t he 

t ekin-?: of cYc e_. tions to t he r•u ,lssi ;)i l i t y of vi c~en . TJ1e ~~ r."J,'1J l1 Ien t on 

t hese exce ~J ti ns could heve been he~rd l ?te r by a SlJ ecial boa r d of 

quFtlified. uersons.. l~ s v"ou l c h ·:> v e inclic ,, ted t o t h e courts t hF1 t ~~TRA 

'Ja s 21 cu t e l y a ··C'! r e of t ':e J) l'oblern of <:. vic ence an c: l1act ~o r::. esire t o 

rcj-:.'.( ic e {'-t;yone 'uy acc e} tin~ evi c e;·1 ce t o which p r ope r ob j ec ti on had 

oeen ~en . Ob j e cti on , probebJ.y , \>VEJ.s not tc· ~-:: en i n :!RA ee<.~. in::; s 

be c aYtse of t te gree t inform2ltty t LR t prevai l ed. 

As we sn[l ll se e ."RA oft en a ct ect wi t ho1 ... t ;::".y ;::-·Y1.Jc:>rE'nt factual 

basi s ( 2C) . ~el iF nce wa s frenu~ntl y ~t u~o n oriefs n ev e r or8ted 

i n L :e ::cec or C: , L1formal confeie11CEOS: enC c.:onvers c-. ti ons. Assumi ng that 

t 11e r e ";e!'e few Ccses of bac. fc.it:-1 c-) Ct ion b;)" :re s Jo nsi.b l e offici a.ls t here 

72.S often li ttJ. e evil enc e .:J vaileble fo r a co·d.rt to ce t er 1:1ine t l:le 

::o.equecy of t he:. f c ctl.'..c l b asis or ~1e r ec:so na·ol ene ss of t he e cti on. 

reli r:.1ir..e ~' confer·ences ( 21) r-m-;. r·o~; t- hee in.?; confer e11Ccs ( 2·?.) were a 

r e;L1.ler p2:;,·t of r?.A p r acech::.r·e. It i s r ernc> r kF1b l e ho~;' .<1sny ill-re<'1.sonecl 

ano. ;~l'cJ(.., li tic r:rO •JOSE l S '.'e r e cu.t 0 1

,

1

.t by t hese co:· .. fcre:nce s. Often , 

~ou.;h , t hese conf erence s e rv e& as a bc:sis of omJro~ is e ( 2:) o r 

justifi c e:.tio11 f o r ? r ovi::;i ons ·.-:h i clJ on t .LlE' ii' fa c e :mi ;:1-:t n o t , _))ea r to 

be fully in the ,_Ju.bl i c int e re.:; t. In suc:r1 inst cnces ;;:her e subr: t c:' ntial 

action r est ed D.Jon confe1·ence a. r"eorc should ha 1:e b ee:1 leAp t . Another 

anRlogous p r e.ctic e was t he 11 n:ff t l1e record11 C.isC1.i.ssi ons. These discu ssions often conteinet'i. e:z:t e~:iel;y f reilk and valuable evi c.l ence w~ ich mi ght 

have :?_;o ne f ar to sustain or even ndel~1 n RA de t c rrni ne ti ons. By f a iling 

t o i n clucle t h is rac:;te ri f l in t he r e c o r d it :· n·ob a bl;y lo s t its evi c. en ti a ry v al u e, 

no matter how )e r suasive it mL;ht :il<.We been l.l?)Ol1 the in c~ ivi ual admini str a t or. 

There ~-;tve b een stE,temen ts tha t ad:ninistrative a cti on n ee6 not rest upon 

the evi c.er.ce in tlie r e cord ( 24). .A..YJ.cl an oc casi o:n.a l c a ;~ e may be fo'J.nd in 

fiel d.s other t han t hos e deman0.in:; ~=nmuna ry <-'C ti on i n t he exercise of the 

police ;_)ow er ( 25) . In fi eld.s relat e d to '~RA ( as in t e r s tat e corrm1e rce 

re,:;J.lati on) a s wel l eS others ( 26) it has ·been :~ enerall y hel d the t 

administrative action rrru.s t have a ba.si s in the r e c ord ( 27) . The requ irement is si mpl e. It is intend.ecl to g iv e noti ce t o the parties 8:1.<1 afford 

9838 
. - 70-

a basis U} On vvh ich a co1.ut r evi e':-'in_; the case may a ct (28 ); The case· 

of U' l S. v. Abilene t . Sout hern .!:1.;/ Co~ (29) si;,ov1s tl1e cou rt• s atti tud.e . 

The questi on j_nvolvec: '.ve s t h e 1Jro_Hi e ty of us in~ q;rtc;_i n · an :.1uel reports 

in the hc:nrJ.s of the Int cr3 t e t e Cm! :~rce Cor_Tt'iission r eferred. to . by the 

examiner a t the h~aring e.s fo ll o~~ s, " no do,..J_b t it will oe neccssC::ry to 

r efer to t he annu8.l reports of al l t he cc;_rriers 11 ( 30) . The Comu ission 

cont en c-:..ec: t he t t :.O.is was no tice to t !1e .:_,J ,s.rti e s unc)_er its Rules of 

Pra ctice t :hen in for c e ( p rior t o JJecember 10 , 19 23) . These rule s 

provi cLe·d t ha t co :~ es of all )11a te r·iol o t l' er 2n t h r:·t on fi l e \'1i th t h e 

Comrni s·sion must be offeree::. into t he recor d. f;ia t e ri c: l on file could 

be u se d if spe cifica lly refe rre d t c . After referring to the ~a~t ·: t~at 

these were advers a.r y p ro c eEoin s· in su bs t el1Ce Ir • . Justice Branclei s 

speaking fo,r t he Court sai c1 : 

"The · oh,jection to t he us e of t he d.a te c ont ained 

in the annu a l reports is ·not L >ck of c:-'J_thentici t y or 

untn)_s t -vvo rthi n ess. It i s t ::.1a t t he c e.rriers ·were l e ft 

without notice of t he evid.ence v,rith -vvhich t hey we re, 

in fact, confronted., O S l a ter sc_:)_ osed by t he · finC.i ng 

made. The r equ.ir emen t t h2 t in em_ a.<l:ve r sar y ce ec ing 

specific ref erenc e ~ made, i s ~;-e::,t l t o -- t he su bstantiaJ ri s of _ the partiesi

1 ( 31 ) . 

A l egisl a·t u r e - is .. Do t hei cl t o nn;y- such requ i remen t ., This has caused 

many '-to think that ·ari a.c'Jn i n i s t r;:-1ti v e boo.y , in f a ct _ l e_gi sle ting; should 

n ot be. Th i s ·rn(,;ht n ot b e t he view .. whic4 wilJ. -be followecl by the · courts. 

Courts , . e.t l~e;s nt, 'J1.e·v_e a strong eel int'~ tha t cer ta i n cl_e:fi necl limits to 

administra tive a cti ) n should be establ_ishec~ an d eriforcecl ( 02) . -To i nsure 

against j uc::.i ci al review s'crupD.l ous care shoulc1 be had. to b'l

1

.ild a careful 

r e co rd su_bstanti a tint" 2 J 1 GCti ons en . KrtA .fell far -s!1ort of the 

de sirabl e s t and.arc"c . I n t he l e.t er G.0 ys of its ac.mi n ist:r-e ti on , ·hoNever, 

mo re t hough t wci.s r.:; i ven to t h i s ;ro ble r:1. 

Fin s by e.O.iCtinistra t ive bo (: i e s requ i re a f a ctu a l bosis. The 

courts hav e mac"ce t h i s ia-or e i mport e- nt by t heir. r equirements o'f some 

evi ..:·_ ence ~ s1.1bst an ti a.l evid.enc e ( 33) . Al 10u, h t he re vyas n_o hea.ri ng 

r eqQir ement in t he e t o como el ci i~n i n accordan c e Nith t he · 

evidence ( 34 ) t l;e r e a r e_ stronc; o~;si( ei'E· ti ns fncUc a_ tLng tha t ; l\~ w_ould 

h av e p robably been he lc1 t o su ch a r eq1..1.i remerit ·( 35); The · c:ourts manife st 

an i n ten se int ere st in t he evic:_entic,ry bRsis Df regulations Qy 

administra tive oc es affec ting _:;ro olems of i ndustry ( 36) . A recent 

illu r~ ti . a[Jpear s in 293 U. S. '/)'~·· _(U1 order of t he erstete 

Comme rce -Commissi on u ride r the Bo il er· I ns-) e ction Ac t 1~ eol..i ired tha t ' ~. A 

CE? rt ain equi pment be used. I n di r, ssin. ; t .1.1is orde r 'the court "'aid: 

9838 

11 r:I1

he lJrima ry C1Ues ti on of f e et· ~resen eC:. ·for c-:.eter1:1ina tion 

wes , as th ~ . .-re or of ~le Cm:nni s siori s t ate s, \irhe t her the use · 

of l ocomo tiv es eq_uipp·ed .' tl~ hand reve s.~ ._;, ear, !3,-S · compared 

with po··'ler. rev e:r:-se b ear, causes unn eoe ss cHY p~r l t o life and 

limb . The re .Jo rt c:.i scusses a t some J.'engt h · the all eb ed ad- ~ . ' 

vanta?.;es and eli sc=>dvant a.;ge s of the t wo cl-c:: ·s s es of reverse --_::ear 

'and t he eXJ) ense which the pro )o d. ch ehg e·- wo·u l C.: ·en t ail , and 

conclo.des, ~v i th 1 fj ndin s 1 tha t to a ce rta in· 'ext ent ·the chan ge 

should -be ma.de . Bt1.t whe t her t he use of- any o r al l t yp ·es of 
- 71 -

t' t ( Gill J. () ("/) lTI () t i 'r t 8 1 E:" 1' , t ' J €' 1 • 'i t 

CO.il l: l'E'd 1:Ji v .1 JO \' er r·L VC'l' (; l · r 

lC' l'i l t l i.:c · 1 c~ J.i .1b 1 is lLft 

ll['-:1< ,· ~\rC 'H: .. C !' P .:: 

c; ·~: L s 1 n .. 1cc ,, ,'"'''XX 

•nti r 1 •' tr) i .... ·c:r nee. . 

::;.'~11}> c..r) ilpletc- n •r:e.~1Cl of 

Ll"s r .qt•ir t c, ~n) >crt 

I t L ~ -~ j_ (' I) 1' • c; ') J t i .1. i )\ -

t •11;. C;on· : .;.:Loi.1 1 s 'J l'C e1· 1 

r nclcrs jt v o · r1. .11 ,·~ ) 

Jt is not L1teat8 :. to ~l'>' -... .~ t t ll·.• t tJ'rr·e ;,' "\. ~; t h (). r·cii - nc ·· 

'terel~· \ .. yen evic.~ nee orfer-c:: bJ' :in tc.rc .ted ~) .q:L·tiLs . .r · en:, i.~ •10 

reRs·oe r.rhy tb · ._;oyernme11t sl10\ 1.ld l•o;; i 2w , i,l ;r:to 2n . fintl cvi( m1c:e 

(;;9) . It ... : auld , of CO'l:.rs , ~.c il;t:coc:: lC:(,: i:1to tl1' ' nconL to •.' -

CE'ive tr 2t11ei1t c>:.~ evi C:t3l c e (..:LCI) . ·ro cc:ca;,e t r o:·c. I't;·viC'n t h 1'0 

1 .. ust 'ue re :~ ·o:.1El'ole evi · er:ce. in t hE: :c >c ord to n1 •. t- lr.. t hr :'cminintrrtive L1ch:tv~s . .lo · .l.n.,tc- nee t;) j. l;~ l evic e:1ce ::e . .;" ~J· . c ,EsiC:·ered. 

<- lro_·e r b.:J. ... is fo r ctCtlon (4_1) , •llile e 2;;;re,,r: te rct:ults 11 as 

a " bati t u t e for ty pical e1 i C.ence i c,; Lw c'. ec..~·u: te. 11 ( 42) . 

RA freq 'en tly tr eated t l1e >l~IJ;) ·i e.n o.r securlng CJ. ful l f n.c t ual 

b sis c ave li erl,y·. ( 4:2a) l'he J3roo1~L·l .s 1 • s t1.:C: y ha:; l.u Yl ec~ '}4;on 

t ! is. Tro 1un.:::~~ . it saJ's , 'Nei:e :1 st··,·~1c:i~l [! , l. 11 tbe rarity of 

orderly ~md. cmlvinciN; ~w c-J:·H-~!1 t ; ti on . of f2 'ct·,·hJ. evi (.ence , 11 ~nc'!. 2. 11 t he cas1.1.al ,·.ray ir1 'Nhich L1tricc:. te cocte.. fJrov i s t ons we r e passer ov e r 

,r,itbout rnalysis o r cl2rification. 11 ( l_3') . .3o t i.l :.A ',11h~ tr ti on 

e:~1p oyees ancl. <'-~J~Jl can . (~ ol' ps t:'ere re:3::• o_1~~ bJ.e ror t h i s. Co1·1troversy coultl r-l·'e]s >rcc:lu.ce a f::.ll r ecort o:f f:·cts. IJ:'l· i s was 

especi a ll;y true v . .-hc r e .:;rea t ,mi t y q "J ·,ear ed on t he )2.r t of the memb e rs 

or the applicant ind<-;,stry . ~l s seeJtiS to hav e bden t he si t uo tion 

'7ith the lUJ:1ber ir:. us try ~ i t s co r]. e'(t..4.) . A ·si!,dlDr Y!ea'-.:n ess was 

the s1.·.bj e ct of r efe r e nc e L1 Cte bri.ef . f or the 3c, ·e cllt er Co r p . ( 4t:) . 

The Go v ern,.1en t cello& a '-"'i t ness in t l'te· ri::~ l iJ". the lower co'l.l.:rt v.~ho 

t estifi eo. as t o tl1e ev i l of 11 se ec. ~ve ~': il ::!. 11 • The ,_~r i:cbness in the 

testlmo ny referreri. to ce:r inl: ~ ''/Val~ Cecl no ' COLt J"l lill··, r er>!3ons o r 

facts ag[• inst the pr<'Ctice. q~1en a ~\ U-bs :, ~t .::: l tr c:.c~e )re:.ctice 

requirement i s bPseC:. on such fli.:-:1sy or iJ_ ex:LJres~-;el_ es i1no~1Y it 

ma;, •Je repc:ti l y on clu cec~. t >., t t he· .crJurt-s ·'I O'l~ c.i .... be hesi t ;:':r. t t o a c cep t 

it as a S':.:fr'ici E:'nt ba:;i s. Tl'.:i:> i :> no t ref.e l·reC: .. t o c: a1....~se exum:Jles 

are 1o t avr.·ila.ble in E=--<.A , but t o u~·10w 1).ow c-,st u t e C01.'ll:'}e 1 c e.n ori ng s1.1Ch 

.ve.gknesse s to t he .::·tt enti on of 2 (;ou:;.·t, 

This _;) r o-bl etrt· i s of u ch i m )ort c- nc e t ha t a fe~'1 e:r:annl es a:::· f a ctfi·lC: L .::; ano. the fB.ct·Lal basic :for C:.e ei ;n nA tions Sfl01.lld be ob ·~e ve d. 

( 45e.) T]1e ~\ r ess in ~ en d F-J.l' :J~ 'f'ln :~ Coi··e ( 46 ) r,:cov i C:.e cl for t he 

es t c-obli sh1t1en t of :nininn:un f,e r v i ce c.J •a. :r .~~es ( (,?) . V<·ri o'lJ.S c" i vi sion s 

of the inC:. us try a:•.:o1.Jl i c.d f or 2''>. .rove.l of tJi i1i hi1 :

1

.ro se r v i ce c:1a r <;c 

schecl:.1.l es. These 1e re all c:r0·)rov eci. \'7 i t L sor:: e chan?·es. Tbe C8se ~ ~ 

of t he DoG anc-:.. ~ :lair Division is ilh,stra t i v e . T:t"'.is di v i :::don 

p robab l y p r et:ol1ted t lle b est c o8 t 0.:-· t A, and. askeC. for servic e chal'.Q'e s 

closer to the cos t in c:.ice t ed 'by_ t he :::.s t a t l1Em any o t he r c':.ivi s i on ( 48) , 

Fi ?,Ur es from t en fi r ms of an L J,c.lu::: t ry h[,vin:"; from t •ven t y t o t h irty 

firms were . off c r ed. Of course the characte r of ~e infu1st ry rith 

its s::nall firms j api nG in and o·o.t of b·i .. '.G iness made for t h i s . It wa s 

these small fi nns t ha.t J TO bab l e c oul cl. ·hilv e fur:1 i s2.1ed t he l owes t 

co.i3t s had fi :;u s been ~.:ep t. ( Lz9 ) . So ' it is ::>een no t even II t ypi c a l 11 

eviC:.ence was offered. Six i t erns on t he s chedule a. .)-p r ove.ct ( 50) had 

no basis a t a ll. Fi ~res were not ev en off e r ed s t o t he c o st of 

9838 
- 7;2-

p r oc essi n ·: these it ems. At l eas t six ot~1 er items 9robably had little 

basi s i n t he f i gures snbi·l! i tt eG. ( E: l ) . A ~:..:rther couol ic8 t ion was the 

f e et t hat p r oc e sse s G.i ffe r ( G2) and t y Jes of '-'vork v;::.ry 1 ti C'.ely ( 53) . 

Th i s schedule , like t hose of th e othe r c;_i vi ions ~ be c arr.e the sub j ect 

of f r equent viol at ion ancJ. soon fell into cd suse. 

The sto r y of uni fo r m co s t a.c c oun t in-"; sy:ster:-,s is ~ l so in teres ti ng. 

At hearing s t he r e wa.s usually a b ri ef ref e:re1'-c e r:ac'_e to the desirability of such syst ems,- t hough i t i s doub t ed i f t!1i s wa s a l wa.ys done . 

Plan s were submi tt eel t o t l1e Admini s tre t ion. Some t ir.1es hea.rings wer e 

h e l d upon t h ese r>l an s. An i 1l l.Mi neti n ,7, inst c.nce i s t he heari ng (54) 

f or t he p lan of t he Fire :E:xtingui sher l!I ariufactu r i n,g I ncius try (55) . 

The p l an was submitted ( 56) , but no t e s tin on;;· was offeree)_ t o justify 

it. No que sti on s v11 ere a sJ>:: ed b;y t he r ep r e s entc- tiv es of the Divisi on 

of Re s e9-rch · an d Plru1ning , vrhi ch c1ivi si on vve.s iJ.sua.l ly c·har ged with -t he 

respon sibility of ctppr oving sue[" p l a11s. IJ:he pi a:l'l was l a t e r appr ov e d 

upon this eviden tiary ba sis ( 57 ). 

Fa ct-f i ndin:':; wa s not al ways r el i eC:. UJon. The Admi n i s trati a n 

some time s n l ainlv .a{.mitteft t he .. t a G:l rov al of i m;)o rt an t nrovi si ons was ~ ~ ~. ~ 

bas e d u pon agr eement with in t he r anks of i ndus try ( 58) . The basis of 

ag re emen t be t ·w een l c:.b or and i ndust ry l've.s , probably , t he one most 

commonly r e so rt ecl t o in al l l e.bor· questions ( 59) . Cong r e ss made s ome 

st a.t ements tha t :l t be cons trued as st .snd.arcls f o r t !1e l abo r :p r oblems 

( 60 ). Perhap s, Cong r ess·· t ho,J.C)lt t he t the a g reement of l abor and industry woul d ·.b e adequat e . The wri t 'e r has found no vi .en e on t h is 

p oint. It r emai n s t ha t a£:;r eemen.t was t h e primar'y ba sis. The Res e a r ch 

and Pl ar:. ning Divisi on did stu dy l abor conditions in t he vari ous i ndustri e s. The se s t u0.i e s v e r e some times t he basi s fo r ecl'!lini stra tive 

a cti on. Of t crt t he fa.c ts me r e l y se r vec1 a s em a i c: t o t he Lab or Adv i so r y 

Board an d l abor in c a r ryi ng on t heir bc·rgai ni nr;. 

A mo st u nu sual c a.s e ·is t hat of mach i ne l i mi t e ti on i n the Co tto:1 

Ca rded Yarn I ndus try. An · aoJn i ni s t -r.s ti ve order wc-s issue d, pecu liarl y 

en ou :;h, si gn ed: aut hori t a.ti v el ;y- ·by t h e ij oc"..e Au t ho:ci t y and concurred in 

by .:sov er nme-n t of f icia.ls ( 61). :r e is no t est imony in t he t ranscr i p t 

of hearinc.:; for the Cot ton Text .il e C:~ uc.; try ( 62 ) , no r h a s any r e co r d of 

an y nr~ pen :te nt hoaring been f ound • . Undo"L.btecil ;>7 , s t rong evidenc e was 

submitt ed t o t he Adrn inis tra ti on. ~til l an order of such Jo tant e conomic 

eff e ct t., __ pon -busi ness ent e r p ri ces sho·ctl d hav e been fully justifie d by a 

h e a ring at which a f u ll r e.cor d_. was ma de, w:ti l e affordi ng any o pnosi tion 

an opp ortunity to om ly ·se t fort h its cas e . P erhcps, emerc,en cy 

a cti on may r equi re a t empor ary' restr.e ini w· orc!er. Certainl y, a hearing 

should hav e been held a t the fir st o_;J_port t.mi ty. 

Happi l y , NRA ·.'V as n o t given t o such ac ti on in its 1!0> te r days. 't'uch 

damage had b een do n e by t hen, hovr eve r . Once the imp ression is afield 

tha t . admi n i st rative a cti on i s hurri ed, no t ful l y r easoned a n d. g r ounded 

in t he fa cts bef or e t h e Admi n i s t ra t ion , the publ i c a s well as court s 

st a rt viewing t he a ction nost c ritically. ::!:spe ciall y should this have 

been rememb e red in deal ing with the fie l d t hat c ompri sed NRA 1 s p rO vinc e 

( 63) . Too oft en NRA s eemed t 0 a c ce_pt .indus tries' ju~ 1nen t t hat anyt h ing 

was 11 unfair 11 whi ch was &nnoyinc:, or di sn_tpti v e Qf e st abli she d me s. 

9838 
At the oubljc hear.i..t; fo1· tl :..1e t1·ic 1"· ,.h t <nd Pow r Industry, 

the ~encrvJ. co1.m· el of IT.HA , .Ir . .Jonrl1 lc)'b r , .~tate<. : 

11 I t has n ver b tJA n ·; r· eel as t'll :~;J ro ri te 

obie ,tiou to tilC ,)r c . nt · ti. o" . o "'o G l.J t l ot.e 

truly reDrese 1 tat i. ' of [my incus tr y to prl:;s en t 

evicLe ce concernl nt·· "''C t uc.t l , or "'lle ,e1 \. ' rc1'ction 

in the _Jri v ,q,te or public Ci nc uc t of t l·· e sponsors of 

a cocct:.J---- Th r.oral gn nt.0j ts of ~1. o .... e !' 10.l1 ~ori11 ; 

or J,h)Osing . code may be as blacl.<-:- nr. l11lll1i :ht or 

as white as nov1. ut the _}) ro es, o.- c >C•e makin ··; 

is not to be confused with the O•)Cr ti01 o.l' a clc;ming ancl C.ye ine- estc bli Shntent. II ( 64:) 

Courts in cri :n ~t1 prose cution (tO no t ~llo,:.r evi cl.encc., "''G to t he pc:tst 

C'. c:r?..c t e r of t h e uefenclent , U1 1l ess he .1.Ynts his charac ter i n t o evic1en c e . 

NRA heari ne;s wer e no t criml n a.J. ;rose ut ons , out r ··.t her J. eori n,gs t o ~a n facts 

U}>o n ~ h ich an e conomic )Ol i c;y coul d be d.evise · for n i nclu t r y . To be 

l e.;;ally ·.;ust a i na .> l e t he ;::c n raJ. po1icy and. ct<:'YlClc r <-s for frami ng t he det <'i l s should have exi sted. Tiad t hey e:xi stec1 t '1e vrork of f i lli n3; i n details mi gh t' hav e been so obviously <. <.·: nin tr; ive C' S to avo i d the use of 

t he c i fficu.l t Emalor.,y to le; il")letion. In _perfomt i n ::; thi s fun c t ion of 

~1o y mc:G-:: in6 fo r i nc'.us t ry t h P2·St h i st ory or ·):resen t atti t uc:'.e of an 

i nc:u!" t :cy , a trc;de associ ::> ti on , or an i:r1c~us try ";rm.t.) mi ._.;h t be quit e 

pertinent t o t he i ssu e of ho·:, much '~.r er or whD.t t ype tr c: Cl_e I r "l.c ti c e 

vrovision s shoulc1. be .::; i v en c?!l nc~·ns ry . .Sucl:. vic~.e e a ppears t o hav e 

been v .luabl e in t l1e Caf.e of the _J ro jo c:;ec~ Cot t onseecl Oil Refini ng Code . 

Past ebus e of em o ')en-·.;ric e fi in ~ c_:ystem inchca tecl t he clis JOS i ti on of 

the i nc·.UG try to wan~. re .Jort ecl L form;1 tion r:nG. t he use t o Vih i c'll it 3~ t 

be :mt ( 65) . l~o one vro,_; l c b~·ve ~" i she;l t o clo · e his eyes t o such 

obvi ous f ac t s as t he s_;o~1so rs~-: i of ~.1e Jl'o Josect Co:cn Dry ttillin;g 

I nd.us tr;y b y t he 7hecJ t :-c'l mu !ii l lin :; Go l e A"L"ct uo ri t y t o come lJ.n cu? r t he 

code of t he latt e r ( 66) . ·: i t hout com:.1en t i n _; 'lJ._:)on t he chc-.::ca ct er of 

t ha t co c. e au t ho rity o r i t s c~i:ce cti on it i s E'):_l arent t hc: t its aC::mi ni s t rati on was aJr opos to this problem. 

The Fu.r · .. anufac t in ~ I nC. us t r y Code co:.1 t:'ined a mJ.m.be r of 

r e str ictive trade Dractice arovi s i ons ( 67 ). ~e ti tu~e of ea di n~ 

sp oke smen fo r t he ind.ustry s ste t e(._ a t a publi c heari ng ( 68) i nd.ica t e d 

littl e SYJ11pa t hy f o r t he co nsur.1e r ( 69) . .Sv.cl evi dence of a t t i t u cte shou l d 

h av e o e en quit e r e l ev ant t o rhat 1owe rs of self- c;ove r nmen t shoul d hav e been 

ext en de d. 

lJRA di d t\tt emy t t o es t ablish a fac t ua.l basis i n many i nst anc e s. 

e~e l AO.visers s eemed mas t a~Ta e of t he c.lesirabili t y of su ch a cti on. 

Aclvi sers of ot her boc: r cls o r c.i.i v h: i on s enc-;a ed i n t he eff o rt only when 

t hey oLJposeo. a o~J sal o r k n ew no t 1 ing about it. The se advi sers we re 

often 2.bl e t o dev e l op mai1Y angl es whi ch had litt l e conce rn t o t h e 

presi chng office r or h ad no t b een brou.~~h t t o h i s a tt enti on . In t h is 

a.dvi s ers we r e early anc~ic apped by a r ul e t nat C?.ll que stions haO. to 

b e dire ct e d t h r ough t he p r e si r'.ing offic e r ( 70 ). ? r e si C::.i n;:; offic e rs 

.'iho de sired. t o limit controve r sy of t en r efu sed t o repea t t he questi ons 

o r s o ch an{;: ed ~1 m a s t o nullif y t he ir e f fe ct ( 71) . In l a t e r p r a ctice 

ques ti oning by advis e rs WA.S f r e ely a llowed and did much to dev e l op 

more comp l e te trcms cripts. Th e ad_equ.acy of t h e questi oning d.eyende d 

::;r eatly U)on the indivi du al a dvi s er. l\iany a dvis e rs p r e f erred t o remain 

silent at t h e hearing . Others, hou ever , macl e very substanti a l contribu ti ons 

9838 
·- 74-

toward. c:. eveJ.op in ·; a record. The · l\TRA I1J.le c~es i t e the contrary -J r actice 

Wc S ne:ver chanc;ed 

Another h an t ic2.p J. e.y in t he t heor,Y of t c: ci t B-J:Hoval relied up on 

by many inC.ustry r;roup s • . A ·coC:.e j)rovisi on mi.::;ht ·"Jrovid.e io r stu dy of a 

subject or a proi:JosaJ. t o b.e rn.gc_e in accordance 1

1 i t h cert ain principle 

or certain p robl ems ( 72). r.l'l1ese provisions \iere usually in the form 

of an expressed ri ght to petition. It i s C.oubtec. if t h is conferred 

anything n o t a lr ead;y had. :I n cms try frequen tly ur-.:; ed thDt NRA had 

t a citly a~pr vad a p rovision of the character set f orth in t he charter 

of s tudy. If NRA has no t done ·· t h i s v.rhat was tl!e p1.:rr:oo s e of the p r ovision industry mi: t ask. Frequently NRA woulc1 a cce-Jt the a r gument 

and_ approve . the propqsal without furt he r hec rin o; . The f a ctua l basi's in 

such case s .was usually ,;;rossl y inede qua te for at the hearing t he provisi on woul d be passed off as me rely allo>v i n::; a st11dy t o be made . any 

pe rsons in NRA we re aware of t h i s sub tle means of ob t aining p rov1s1ons 

without subjecti:p.g t hem to such a justific&tion a:s mi gh t be necessary 

if presented :vvithqut t his 1Jr elimina r y step (73). 

Burden of proof is usually thoug::. .. t t o lie on t :hose pe rsons ap:?lying 

f or a cti on to be t aken to sb.ow w:1y wha.t t hey c.esi re s}wul d. be t1 (lne ( 74). 

In NRA p roc edure t he bu rc.en of proof shoul 0_ hav e -rested upon the 

p r oponents ~-; rou s as f ar as t he r e was t o · b e snch a burcten. Alo ost 

wi t hmJ_ t realizin::::· it t he burden was some.tiwes s~1 iftecl. to o;yoonents of ~ ~ .. 

t he ;Jroposed :orovision ( 75) . The a ttitude of :p re s icJin.:; officers toward 

advisers was frequ en tly si mila r. "The i n c'.:nst Q· V"ants th e p rovi sion. 

Vfby shouldn ';t ·it hc:ve it 11 , the aclv i ser vvoul 6. be <:> s . .c ecl in effect? The 

proper procedure vroul C:. have be en to hav e pl a ce d. the buro.en squarely 

upon the p roponents or realizinG tha t t l'1.e bur( en could no t be met 

rovic e for a: t.$mpo r a.ry 11 p eri ocl of expe1·i ment a l OJ_)e ration11 (76). 

ProjJOsa l _s b y t he Acimi n i stra ti on bring ~J the seme .1 roblem. Shoul d 

t he re hav e been a C:ut ;y upon t he AGmini s t ra ti on to p rove tha t its proposal was desira.'ble? Certainl .}' , 'Nhe re t he effe ct was t o nullify provision s g r an t ed incl..us tr;y t b.i s 1.rvoul d seem to :1.av e b een the prop e r p r o ce rure. 

lv.i ere cie t eils woul d n ee: c1 no such treatme:11 t, but _:_J rovi si ons of a sub stantive 

charac t er s1.l.oul cl be es e:;. blishec~ as i n ha.rmony vvit:C the requirements of 

the Act. 

Until t h e op inion i n t he c ase of Panama Refinin ~ C~ pany v. Ryan 

( 77) was wri tt en t l ere ha d neve r been a c l ear st a tement i n our l aw 

concerning the n a ture of an ac1rn inis t:t.·e tive rinc'. inc from t he stan dpo int 

of j_JU-Dlish i ng the basis for acti on. Case s exi -:- te i n dica ting tha.t t he re 

need. be no s-l1ch stE~ emen t ( 78). Such ex:.)r essions were ma de i n c a ses wh e r e 

an evidentinry basis was not be tnt: t oo stroil.::J y requ ire<i. The courts in 

t heir early hist ory we re reluctant t o i n t erfere 1Nitl1 execu tive a cti on (79) . 

Cases t hen cle ci c: ec_-fall into wl1at h as be en callecl t l1e field of narrow 

review. Whe re th E? re ha.ve been st o tutor;y- r eQuirements ( 80) or \There an 

administra tive a:_Jpeal on the r e conl i s to o~ l1c d ( 81) t he c a ses have required. a state1t1ent . of t he basi s of a ction. But in situati ons whe re the 

finc1in{~ vvas the last <'.cl.mini s t~ ti v e one :;,ncl WP s not enjo ined by s t a t u te 

to exp ress its basis th e :t.·e !1ad never been c:my r equi remen t for such expression lmtil J anuary 7 , 1935. In l!,n@'l c>nG. i t i s conf:.ider ed to be a 

p rincil)l e of n a tura l ju stice t h[l.t a p.g rty be in rme cl of the basis for 

an aQninis tra tive a cti on ( 8l a) . 

9838 
Tu P<'ll['Lla C"'~ e ere ted·~ ne ntJ,c of );:1" (L ) . 0!1· )f the 

<,1 trr-:1· ti.vc :•:rouncl .. of ti.' drci :;ion ~:· thrt t· .J. Chl.ivc Ord r 

:: i 11·". t 1 • t c.:tt;) th rj ,~~ .i.1: · 1~r J "", .!. t r:· b'"':JLd. S"id .ir. Chief 

,j . .:; t.i. e,- ,~..,}:i 1; lOl' t:i1 co 1 t : 

11 Tl.r :::' iH rao t: r b jcct i.an t.J t:H. v; -, i1 i t y 

o.:.· t:.(> ro:ti · tion l, L ' LL wn b;> t1tC ;J ·• Clttivf' rc'c · r 

'l:JC.t'r ::>t..ction 9(c;) . T 1! J:JY c ·· th'L' r-dPl' ':'on t· i..:1s 

no l.i Jir . no st· tCJ.t: t -;: t: c -ro lJlc.·; o: . .' t1.!.e 

Pr si :t::nt 1 s actio1 i!. e~1.::~c tl n t'l (' .. J:G ltJil-iJP . 

- - - - If it co .lcl 'ue so~ u ttl!' t fx O'L tJ' P fJnr 

c .~.· .. l'f o~ t..:~ c-._.ct· . t ; n .. ;: c-.!:·ibl e L-:_·e.rc .. c.P 

•lh".. o.~ (r!-''"-'11 • :L p~l·tin,l nr ci r·c:-• .. t. ·t· ,1ces or C')r.-

u· tions '.'1 lc~1 v~t. .L'C' to .;ovt-rn t 1 xu· l se 0f t ile 

.:1::.thnit,y conf rre-('t , ti:t:· )r es2.cil2: t <.;o·,l";.( :1ot ne t 

v'"'li<.J .. ' ·it: .. )11.t :1;' v2 1: ·,. r : ·c; t'J t '1o;c clrc ~ ~, ·P <: s I - "-· 

<..nd. co.1r'i ti on ·1, .A;1,: ::.'i r.cli "'• ~G b,.' ~n :-:-, <':3 t o th8 

e:'-i te11t,;e of the re.:l. i.cea." "'u;-,s i G J ~Li ·1 cti J!l ·Nol"ld. 

bt. ne:cc:::"'sr:' ta s,;~;t in t. :. t ::-ctio:1 , fo:r \'t~ Frwi r;e 

t'te c·,sc 'l.ro~·ll : ti ll -~e G1·. ~ of -.. ~· f'~~ton) c chscretion .?S th . qurLiiic;t:'o .. ! (.£' :nti- .. 2-·i t :;r ·.ro· .• ld be 

in effectuol. 

11 ic pre 1·1ot c

1e ·l in ·i t:-. " ;.t.io:r. ·: ~ic,} ., ·~_'l ro

TJl'i .:ttt'l,)· bel•l:C."L: -· to ~e .;:' YCC1 .t.t ive ')J.'r:JV.i. :1C .::' , i r-, 

::10t t':1e !:110 ir:ct of il..c'_i Ci:-'~ rc ·if ,. , 1~ ·· it t ile v)l'6-

Sl.~.T.pti.Jnf tt ... c'ltn.:: to f"Pc·· t ive ~tio:1, 'J:o J.'e _J8"' t , 

we are co.1 e:t:1e~ , .. i t h. t Lc q_•J.e i~J n of t.:1e dele ;~ tion 

of l e :islativc powe r . I f the- l.t ~bn i "' to be )L•n ~::,.e c 

i r the crime or :;., i~ ; fl l.: _·isl:;- t lve o r r'..er nf e n 

e:x.ec .. ti~l e offic-e r , o r of 8. boE'::.'(' of c o .·tlBsioY<, due 

y>ro c css of ~~: r er1'·1ires t >c- t it ~~--~ Dll c: ~~)Oc: r t :1[, t t he 

0rd.e 1· is Y!ith i n t :e eut ho rity of t he o:fi c.e r , boBrL or 

corru-ni s :: i c:1, :-nd , i f ~o t p·c.t ·; o::ci t ;l c-;.- :)end.s or'. c.ster-

:nln~ tions of ~-~ ct , t ho se rl.et , ~ L1a tio .~ mus t be ·wv' . 11 

( L 3) 

:.:r. J ustice C; r C:.oza , clissen ti nrs , t oo': exc .", tio:1 to H~is !)ortion 

of t ':.s C'h i t2f J 1:Lsti ce 1 :.; o -inion (8-.t) , T!ti s ;.18 1·: ~l e i c; :;o t nece ssi:l rily 

univ e rsal. It ma~' be h!~ t it •;till be li t.l tE-~.. to ·u r01:1d r evi ew fiel d::; 

e1...~. irin -:; c' cice o s t -een i 'i1oo rt::: n t )O lic:i , o r ni1e:ce crir.1i na l penal ti e s 

a r (; involvc.<i ( 35) . 

In ar.. ini 'J ~ ( ar:.) _ anc'..e<1 . . 'J :n oy j;r . Ju·::; ti cc ?r: .. !<0.f·is t h e 

~h eenth ri t L;is montl-1 c -ov e:.iber , 193..:: ) t":..E re i s c?f! i nC:ic -:: tion 

th t the co"J.rt fl83 qlJ.i e t l,y 1;.~1li fi t:d. t~1c sr..>eo. c1 p .,i n t of t he P en.:una 

Ca s e ( 87) . 'I.:1e ~; ::>e invo lvEs a c/c-~.lsn::;E · () :cr~e r f l"~e D6·')artr. .8n t 

of ric lll t u re of t he St<-.t e of c:..~e-:on p r esc:d h~ ·, c ert 0in f r u it a nd 

ve,sE. t cbles c onteine rs 2S th E. s t :.ln J;o_,:_·iL t./ :)e to ·oe 1..1.sed. It v.ras u r ged 

u pon t:t.e c aurt th.s.t no "J resl..1m Jt or.. 12:dsts t i.? t f ::; ''!e r e p r operly 

present to jl.•.s tify t hE:- eG..:1ini:; tr--.tive Ac tion. S:1i cL t he cn' ·.rt : 

9838 
- 7C11 The con tention i s v:i t lJout S'.cpport i n authority 

or reason, and rests upon :< isc nce~~t on . - - - - - -

The question of l exv may, of cou.r s e, a l vu~y s be raised 

whether the l e:; i sl a t u re he<~ povze r to dele.:;ate the 

autho ri t ;;r e:.:.ercisecl. 11 ( 88") 

For this proposition ~1e c ourt ci t ecl. t he Pan e:na a nC.. Schechter ca.ses 

( 89) . The cou rt c ontinued in l rulg'J.age h,~t ~: oeu much to put the law 

upon t hi s subjec t back t o its st&te in 1934 : 

11 Where t he regulat ion i s v1 i t h i :1. t he scope of 

aut hority l ee;al l y del ~8_ te cl , t},e em. t!:? ti n of the 

exist en c e of f a cts j"nsti:::'yin-?: its specific exe rcise 

atta.ches a like t o s t a t utes, to muni cipc:.l or(i:lances, 

an c1 to orders of aomini s tra.t i ve boc· i e s. - - - - - -

Here there is added reason fo :C' ap:tJl yinc; the p re...: 

sumption of v e.J. idi t ;y ; f o r t i:1e r e_;;ulati on nmv challenge d was adopte d after notic e .::mo. ~)ublic hePrins 

a s the stG'tute r eq"Lti 're'd/ ·It i s con t ende(1 t he t the 

order is vo i d be c ause the aCmi ni s t r e.ti v e bo y made no 

special fincling s of f a ct. But the st.st u te cLiC. not require spe ci al incl. s--- -. Compe re Wichi t a Railr oacl and IJi cht Company v. Publi c t ·tiliti es Corrm; i ssi on, 

260 TJ. S. 48, 58- 5.9 ; Eahle r v. Eb;y , 264 U. S. 32, 44 ; 

Southe rn Ry-.- Co. v. Vir ?;i n i .s:, :Jg:j Tj . S. 190 , 193, l 'J6..: 11 

( 90) . 

Er. J ustice Br:.:md.eis -e ithe r i ::;n.ores the second p oint of the 

Penama c e s e or else he c.efinitely overri o.es it, citin:'; 2s he c.oes 

the Wich ita Railroad ~ Li:.c;h t Compan y v. Pub lic ::: tiltties Commission 

( 91), and Mehl er Eby ( g;.:;) for t h e p:coposi tion they ri _:;h tfully 

stand. for t hat a. s t o.t u t o r v reauirernent of n( -: s must be comp lied u ~ -

wi t h . i•/I r. Chief Justic e TTuc.;hes ha.cl oi t ed these c es es as e.ut hori ty 

for the second point in the c: !la c&se d.es -> i te t:_e fact t hat t Ley were 

b ased upon sta t u tory reqn i remsnts n o t 1n ·esent i n t he Pm!ama case. The 

citing of Southern :Ry. Co. v. Vir,r·:L'.ia ( 9 ;3) c;louC.s t he -:ei ght to be 

g iven to Mr. Justice :Sr,:-! nde i s 1 st0 t ene;:1 t Uj_)C:i l t he po int, as this case 

does no t s t anc-1 for tl.te same proposition t h2 t the o the r s cto . I n ·sp irit 

it i s nrnch mor e ri ~i~ than t he others requiring ~s it oes certain 

proc eC:.ura1 safeguards in absence of ;:my sta.t1:_t o iJ.' t_:J rovision. 

It seems t oo early no \'! t o l~: i to ev e1:.1:..at e t he Pa cific Ste.t es Box 

and. Bas\:et Company v. Whit e c ase ( g.:: ). The field s seer1 to be properly 

anal ogons. In the Pan ana cc::s e t h ere i'l8S no a tteu pt to state a factual 

b asis for the exe cu tive orC.er W~ L l e in ~e PPci fi c :Box c a se a hee.ring: 

had been held. W'.o en the r e h..:t.!i b een a he.sri n :; a co 1rt may pre sume that 

the admi nistrative acti on i s ~)re hc ted Ul)On the hec:- ri.ng . Tl1 e situation 

b ecomes mo re difficult for t he ·court whe r e it is not eviderit whethe r the 

administrative ac ti on i $ b ased u p on any f a cts. Of cour s e, c>. ll s1ch 

a,dminist ra t ive ac ti on does not requ ire a hea ring , but if none i s held 

the r equiremen t thet t he basis of tlle a cti on '- ~e n be set forth s eems 

r eas onabl e . Certo.inly , the safest pr a ctice would be t o f u lly state a 

ba sis in flncling:s f o r an;y n.G.tni:nistre ti ve a ction t ken ln a field of 

9838 
- '1';·-

GOCl'll or ' C) o. ic o1Gli :J • ··o t 01 l ir· l t · .. ,·'e n. r•' 'l ;;-in .t judicial 

ttL> 1 .. it i<- ·oof. c. r.u.,ini t.r tiv t-e~f\ 1,i'! e t o s'!O'" t•: t th a) )ro ch 

h~'S beer. VJCll-c ~sit e r cl. Il no t ] '

7"'l]j . ( C''1~~ry "'~f3 a lllGttcr of 

:.t"nnl ju.ticc this J.c;ctiet. '.•JUl C: [(W ... (•l ·ir"·ole . 

:· r:tc.:. ene~1t of :'i. 1.i1 ;'' , .. s 1LU·ll\' !n<'l': c b;; t :.wir for.ne-lity 

( 9G) . .1. L.t L ,. ' re ofte:1 .. c.H.· in tlw l ..,,. 1..1<\3 o1 the stctute or in 

ce1tria ·toe •: Jhr· ses ( ''6) . ~is .) r Gctic ' ~·s not ~)c~.-.1 f £'1 voreD by 

t 1te courts( ·:??) . It ·o1.1.lr Eeem a 'u tte1· 1roctice not to 11'3e 11.,tilted 

ler::\1 '•1r seoL s.J· 11 but rc:tl r to teJ .1 t .... c >tory of the econ l!tic 

situ.:-otion invoJvoc~. ( 98) . ~TRA proctice .~., ,ot ~iC:ec~ by an,> -~ tctodcnt 

of JoJ.ic~ in thi., rc ;21rd. ;lt1c type of fi ··'l i '-G~; to be 1.1r·r:le w&s Dever 

i <.•.icat CL . Th 01 ly stt'teu at VC:\S t 1t't ,er~:;; voul'' be a fim'.ing 

s t .:t c' in ac~1 letter of trerL:>1.1i tt.:1l ( 09) . 

t any of tLe e~rl~ coC:.es v"ere bp se·~ U•10n lllO!'e f\.1.11 finchn ...,·s t h an 

tho e ap:.~ro ved late.c ·;~1 e.:1 t l.e p.~. essnre OCLc.r,Je 111UCh .gre2ter. '.rhese 

earl y coc~es usually cont< il ec~ e stc.::te1nent rom the 1'RA anJ one by the 

PresiC:..ent . Lpter pr : c t ice v:- .. :iec'l. In co·1.e . not rccr ..:irin.; t b e 

Presi c:en t 1 s a ~ rov81 Oi'll;>• .., s te tei 1en t ~J~- t,1e ;-~ ' i 11 be founc .• 

·:rhe first code , th<- t of t h Cotton :'e :tile I nc'.un t ry , '/CJS a c(;oin_.J.:miecl 

by a t··elve :J ,:~e "'t:--te.nent b,)· t~1e '-~.in.i.st:t'r·to :r (h..lC) . The LiJmbe r and 

Timber Prod.ucts It1d. u. ... tr.)' Co• e V! s su·nor .;;c~ '..Jy a sixt ee1: :Jage 

mernoran<.lum of trens:nitt <.tl ( 101). Tl."li.3 lett r ~·res one of the best 

of t he type vrittcn; but '.'hen t J::.e 1,, ..... 1it'u e of t:1e inctus try end t he 

g rea t probleus ·.vith '~1ic:1 t~ e co ··e ,_:E:el t Gl'c consi c:.c r ed t l1i ·s 

rnemoranc~tlJl seems c ro sly lr~.e (}_ua e (l ';?· . Jy the ti.ne t he eL~h th 

Co(._e V RS rec;C1ed the fir~(in _; s h"C· ci.ro ,j'Jed. to J. i '~ le OVGr a. pege 

( 103) . o~.e :·io . 1 3 l~j_c: not ev 11 incluCt.e P fL.C in ~ of fac t exce~J t 

for a bri ef 211<" hast~/ r e :f: el'ence to ~X' 2 riiP·> <-'i.1L~ fine in,~ s in the 

executive orO.e r ( 104) . ~n t .. l~-~ st.::· t e.1ent oi· fin' .in ~s for t he Leather 

InC .. ust r y CoG.e no t one r•o rd is sai0. r-:tbout t he tr ade practice p rovisions (10:=) . Thi s is q_ui t e ~~Ji al of ·,•h;.: t frequently ham)ened. 

·rhese .Li. c-C:.::.q_uate fL1 -:..ings ·:ere Sl.'·t'~--;es teC. to the court in the brief 

f or the Sc~lec:lter :: ·~ ore..t ol1 ( 106) . It wo b.:,bl " :voulc'. have been 

r:esirC'ble for the Fresic"1.ent to l.1e.ve statec. the b9 si s f or h is finc,_ing 

in some thin;; more t han a. ritualistic !na11ne r . The a r gument of t he 

brief thet neither t' e order of the PresiC·.ent no r t i:le letters of tile 

ecl~etary of Agriculture or the .A.ci.m ini s t ra.tor contains any rec1 so nable sho,"Lv; thc; t 11 tr CJ i ,:·h t killin_; 11 was an m1fai r :·ne t :i.lo .. of CO!apeti tion is en ti t l ec~ to ca ref\..1.1 consi erati o: . It must be remembered 

t hc t records we re made nhich in many i nst ances woul G. ':.lave substenti ated t he a ction t ."'1

:::en - or i n effect, t:t1e finC' .. in :?;s ma.d.e t houGh 

not stated. 

:r:inc.sight in t h i s wo-ole J is be tt er ~lE• n fo r esi _z}1 t . FRA 

had little :;ui d.ance in t he cases ',7hen its first findin ~s "le re made . 

PruC.e:nce and an atte!ltivene ss mi_;h t have suggestee. tha t alon.g with 

a full record., a full stater1ent of the oc:sis f or acti on s~1oulcl_ have 

been m8de . Such care coul d he.rci.l y lv·v.e been exJ.Je cted. from early NRA. 

A future aOJilinistrativ e bod.y "'·Ji t :-.. a uirr.i l ar t ask V.'ill be '.r.rise to 

fr a11e its findings alo n~; t l1e st yle of a juch cia1 opi nion, and t o 

be c a r ef1.1.l to have r ee6.y f or the courts a fu lly reasoned and. comp l ete ste t e;nen t of its finc'.in,.-; s O~)e rl y Grounded on r eco rded 

evidence. 

9838 
- ?8-

Anot l1e r pr oblem of fin .i::t s r ested in ~ a cce:__)tance by 

NRA of il1C~in,~'3 mac~ e by ot~1er e:v~ encies . As t:_lis also i r-vo lved t h e 

question of the ~)ro >ri e t y of the C:.ele··:a ti on it ,..:ill be discus s ed in 

a ~~J er dealinc with ~e le ti on (107). 

98 38 
cT· · TJTIR x 

p_ QI3LEI\!S I PUBLIC .. ~TIO , .riO? ICE , AND OTlJ!lli ADI..IJTI ST ... TIVE 

C'i'I O ·s EY IJRA 

I. PlJBLICATION O:B' AD~II H STRATIVE REGUL .. \.TI ONS AriD DBAFTSlvl.Al';SHIP 

ffi1e1 the famo'\.LS le al fiction that ever-J man is ur c sumed to lmon 

t he l 2.w (1 ) ri) ened t h ere was no m ss of a dministrative leg islation 

\.'i th 11hich to cou e . Ev ar y man may "be p r es ent in Parliament by his 

r epresent2.tive, but one n ould h ardly say h e is :9r esent a t t he proceedings (or the case may be action n i t hout p roceeQ.ings) of ev e r y adrai:1i strative board. The mass .of ndninistrg.ti;.e rules ( 2) only mor e acu t ely 

p r esent t he s ame :9roblems t ha.t t l1e English scholar 13 entham so cl earl y 

sau: 1. It is ontra ~r to our morals .to p1.mish a man f or disobedienc e .. to a law of '\7hich he had no notice ( 3) al).d 2 . Publication alone 

is not enough . Public:"L tion may .. only t end _ to bewilder (4) if t he orders 

a r e not ea sily accessible and clearly drarm. · 

The u roblem has been most acute in the United States. Of t en only 

a small :9ercentage of the rulings of an i mportant bureau will b e uublished (5). Ei:ecutive O:i.'ders (since 1 905)- may be found in the Department of Sta te and t he Library of Congr e ss.. This make s t hem far f rom 

acc essible to the public (6). The state of uubli.cation i s' one of 

absolute confusion- (7) in a fi eld where te·l times as much law as 

Congr e ss makes exists '( 8) • 

. NRA only served to complicate the p robl em (9). The gr eat mass of 

industrial legislation resulting from it was brought to the court 1 s 

attention in the Schecht er case (10)". NRA.t s code record section does 

not. even have a record of all the purported administrative action (ll) . 

The most :9ubliciz ed example was not t he resp ons ibility of lTilA out 

the Petroleum Administra tion. In connection vri t h the a rgument b e fore 

the Su:9reme Court in the Panama case (12) it was found that there had 

been [!,n indictment for t he violation of a non-existent provision • 

. Another inte.resting example lay in the National Labor Board 

created August 5, 1933 apparently by a pr ess release (1 3 ). A formal 

order by .t he President ~as not issued ~til more than four months 

later (14). 

The s ane difficulty ~as faced in Engl a nd (15), until the passage 

of the Rules Publi catio~ ]l_ct in 1893 (16 ) . This a ct solved the difficulties of t h e si~uation there. The more important rules ar e fully 

published uhile only a reference is made to the local and less important rules (17). Certain .it is, that some such legislation has 

long bee:n. s a dly needed in the United Sta tes (18). 

The p roblem demanded l~'s best consider a tion. Code Record nas 

an offe:i.~ed solution. Code Record failed. only where Deputies and. othel~s 

wer e negligent or wilfully failed to cooperat e . Confusion was such 

t hat 1TIRA regula tions a nd codes could not have been expected to have 

9838 
- 2'):.... 

always been cl ear. Explicit instrUctions should have been given and 

emphasized that only those documents fil ed with C de Re c rd had any 

ore~ . Effor-ts-- -shoUl d have been· made ·t o disc "urage the numerous 

dra fts of 11 codes 11 v1hich circulated 0ftEm as .genuine. 

Almost as confusing a s the mass of delegated eg~slati n and the 

difficulty cd se-curing access to' it was the variety of administrative 

forms and the diffAring uses t o which each were put. ne d0lving into 

the mysteries of NRA sub-legi.slation must ·ar e stl c- wi th executive 

orders, administrative 0rders·, office orders, ,.,ffice memoranda, an 

office manual, and NRA bull e tins. ·· The us e t o which th0se f rms were 

put varies. It would serve littlo· purpose to point out th~ pracise 

hi story of each.· It must. "be bo·rne in ni"ind that these are f orms · f administrative action. If it s~i d that executive and afuninistrative 

orders were generally i egislative this merely means they affected in.-

dividuals through a class 0r· group. likewise as affecting individuals 

as a matter of direct : intention under · some legislative p,.,wer such "'rders might be adjudicatory~ 6o it is b~ st to say where a di-rect e ffe·ct 

was had upon the interests of indfviduals or classes exe cutive·. and administrative orders were employed. They were also employed to delegate ·powcr and sBt Up ·adininfstrat'ive organization and pr ncedur0 under th~ Act. · · · · · -

The other f r'rms eriumera d were · in the most part for int-ernal use 

within NRA. .Approved by ·the Admirii strat r or his '"l ~ga e they carried 

the f orce of:,an administrativ-e or.der:. Sometime :::> , the.ir eff f'lct 1ip('ln 

code provinions or the ir requirements upon members .of industry wor e 

such that it might be said that the int erests of individuals cr classes 

wero aff~cted • . Indi vid:u~li ze d . acti on was· taken by the various labl"'r 

agencies s e t up ·under ·the · N •. l.'R.A. ·', · tho· Indu·s-trial b.pJ! cal s :B0ard, and 

by the Compliance Divi·sio:ri in ·:Blu.e .Eagle ·removals . The latter : were 

sent out by: telegram. 'Tt Would.' s'eein that ·they" should have had at l east 

the dignity of an administrative order, since the effect on property 

might be no vi tal. General instru.ctions as· t o· procedure may ·be found in 

compliance fi eld 18tter.s. ·· · · 

It is obviou·s that· to one not . e.xperienced· in th~ ·intric'ac"ies of 

NRA administrative forms the mass of orders and the variety of forms 

in which they mi-ght .appear ·could well ·present a hopeless labyrinth. 

No precise ·pr0cedure can be outlined. As in England all .orders of 

general character and importanc·e· ·nhould. b e gener ':\lly· published. Individual orders would not r equire the name distribution, but copies 

should be sent t o all int ereGted parties and k0pt available in specifi ed well-known public depc;. si t or'i es. · ·An effort should be made to 

clansify administra tive act'ion i-n m.:i.ch categorie.s as would indicate 

clearly procedure, powers;' renponsibili ty, -po.l-i.cy, general rules or 

r equirements upon industry, and special or ·i:n·dividual rules andrequirements. It is not hopcrd t o · solv.e· the p'rob1 em here, but merely t o 

suggest the vital necesGtty of giving full th~ught t o it. A r ecent 

fnd~r l statut e has taken a st ep t oward the so luti on of this problem. 

It provi des for· a ~de .' R.e nter ·which will

1

• be anal ogous to the 

English rulon publica t i on system (18a) . 

. . -

I 

9 838 
Draft <>man hi p wa like~"l "' an imrn rt'lnt ur n bl cm . Cl ou dy lanrucl{;e 

wa:> som t i .cs ou gl t by i ndur t r i hopi ne; tn bc tt r th i r no_ i tinn by 

int r pr etati on l a t r . The Legal Divi.ion gav i t R t nff w~rn ing of 

the vit a l nc:t u r of af ~m'l.n h i p ( 19) . In t he l n.t t c-r day:; of N_.:U. a 

study of t he pr obl em waco m:td by a member of t he a~al Divi i nn . It 

i di ffi cul t t l ay a fing r upnn any 0f t he ill" a r i 3.ng f r om thin 

ource . .Amb i guity wn the 1 i....f diffi'cul ty a nd t hi wa r efl ..., t ed 

when qu ."'tions of int er r t a ti n a r :;c ( 20) . If NRA could havP don e 

mor it would hav b en o:r.J.y t o l:ave in r eas d and empha ..-:. zed its 

war ninc;. It mi e;h t also have cha r ,t-d thoR vi ew iv ::; .""~ n nr orne ot l1.er 

agency with the ""UP .r vi "'i n of dra f t sman_,hip . 

II . NOTICE AND F.ARTI I?ATION I N ~BE I NDUSTRIES' ACTI VITIES 

Th e vi:g f r ea s nab l e no ti ce ~ one of t h e f irst r equirements 

of administra tive du e pr oc ss ( 21 ) . · Th~ pr ob l l:)m i ::; oft en viewed a s a 

t chnica l ono since .it _sel dom i s br ou gh t up in ~ c'lse ( 22) . Requir em .nts va:ry. I n " m(; f i a lds ther e nGed be no notice or only the bare st 

k i nd ( 23 ) . I n th . fi el d tha t l~~ dea l t with a full a nd r easonabl e 

no ti ce must b iv n as t o the ma t t er s t o be d~ . The f orm of a 

noti ce must r eaQonably r el a t e t q the a ction t be t aken (24). The time 

gi ven should a llow a :9c'lr son t n be pr es ent a nd t o c some r ea sonab l e 

ef fo r t s t o pr -;par e a case and secur e evidence ( 2.5 ) . What persons ar e 

ent i tled t o not ic ? Mr . Justi c2 Ho l me s ha3 '!JOi nt ed out tha t it i s i mpossi ble t o iv e the full pr ot :: ction c f a 11 wn me e ting" ( 26) . Ye t, 

;vhen substanti a l pr opert y -ri ght s nr e 'e.f fcc t ed every reasonabl e pr ecauti ol shou l d have b~en ta n that any per son a f fec t ed should have r eceived adequate noti .e . I f CJ. per s n i s entitl ed t o r..n individual 

noti ce he i~ al l owed t o mak:.:; G. positive shovring in t he courts tha t he 

r ecci v8d none ( 27 ) . 

Offi ci a l st a t ement s never full y se t f orth t he degr ee of n ti ce 

necessar y . St a t ements we r e mad upon t h e f orm and procedur0 t o b e 

f ollovrecl and est ablish ing an offi cial 'bull e tin boa rd ( 28 ) . Full noti ce 

coul d hardl y b e f ound in pu bli cc.ti on u pon a b"'.ll l e tin board. NRA wa s 

concerned wi th the manner of gi vi ng not i ce , t ha t i s how t o ge t out 

wi de not ice . It di d not concer n i ts elf with the pr ob l em of just v1ha t 

per sons had t o be given noti ce . Thi s i s no criti ci sm of wha t wa s dD.nf9 , 

but r ather a po inting out of th e ach t~ken as dlstinguished from 

the one courts V.F<)uld pr obably use . Ac tuall y , TRA ma de seriou s efforts 

t o widel y di stribut e noti ce . The r egu.la r cou r se wa s·;tA.J- s end . notices t o 

l ab or uni ons, the l ab.-,r -as~ , gov cr!1Tnen t offi ci a l s , the pre ss, tra de 

assc cia t i on ?ublica ti 0ns , St a t e 1TRA offi ces , Re sident Adjust er s and 

Regi onal Dir ector, Fi r~ t Class Post Cffi ces , a speci a l list, plus any 

a ddi t i onal p er sons whom the Deputy Q~in tr t r gugg~s d (29 ). The 

Deputy Administra t or s , usually , tri d t o secur fr om h~ indust:y memb er s vri t h wh orr. they wer e nE)gotia ting a s full a list as possibl e of a ll 

known mcmbero of the industry . Still, in s cm0 i:.ldu " tri es it i a obvious 

that it vrou l d b e i mpos">ibl e t c ev er mak e a. crmpl c t e list of all member s 

( 30) . In such cac0s if ever:v r oaso:::1ab l - ffr· r t wer e made t o notify all 

i nt er ested pa r ties, if t he i ndu stry ro u~ wa s p r oper ly r epr esent a tive , 

and i f a t y-pi cal vi ewpo int ?Ti d '3videnco wer -3 fully pr esent ed f or each 

econumi c int er est the courts mi gl:t consider tha t suffici ent noti ce and 

hearing ( 31) ha d been given. Thi s is only specula ti on as t o what mi gh t 

be. called r easonabl e . 

9838 
- c. 2-

The Legal Division gave some serious thou[ ht to this :'_) roblem. It 

i ssued a very sound guide b-:r J a nua ry of the first ye&r of ~fLtA ( 32). 

There must be f a.ir notice as to t he subj ect mat ter to be heard , and a 

reas onable relation to the subject matter actually a cted u·9on. The other 

the si s of the memorandum was : a. he a ring should be ::tdj ourned to keep open 

the notice as to a ny ·modific a,tion inacle . Althoug11· the writer has found no 

c ases suggesting t he need for this technicality no har m c an be seen in it. 

The importa nt thing would se em to be wnether noti ce -ras given in r egard 

to a ny substa.iltiv.e r ee,ul a tions or provisions to be made. These could be 

changed in form but not in. substance it would seem and the notice wou ld 

still be goof.. Lo.ter the Legal Division sta ted it would accept a notice 

if it h ad b e en public proper.ty fo:c seven days (33) • . This e xpre ssion 

came as the re sult of administrative p ressure a nd ·not sound thought, 

Seven 4ays . as public property might be far from adequate to a llow a manufacturer on the Pa cific Coast t.o gather some bits of evidence togetner 

and arrive ip. Washington in ttme for c: .. hearing. .As to the persons who 

should receive notice the Legal Division c ame to much the same conclusion 

a s the writer ( 34) - there sho·u.ld be re a sonEJ ble no.t'ic·e· in every case 

where it was p r _actica1, and. thC>ot onl y c onvincing reasons should cause 

relaxa tion of the re quirement (35) ·•. The Le gal Div ision's expression 

upon the . statement of the subjec.t ma tte r contained. in th~ notices is 

ambi gu.ous.- It s a;vs t ha t it ne ed not pe mad.8 11 vY itb conrole teness; but it 

is ne c e ssary to s t a t.e it in such m0 !}.1181: as to shOV' '7hf-t subject matter 

is u nder .consideration. 11 ( 36·). It might b~ more clec- r to say that the 

stEJteme nt rm1st be such t ho t one woul d r easonably exue ct the subject 

matter to be treated th t ~2s conside re d (37). 

It would not be e x-oe ct ed to find many objections of f a ilure to receive notice in the transcri:p ts for a nyone e.ttendi ng a meeting must have 

had notice, ~hou h its c har a.cter mi ght not ·be oue sti onable. There must 

have been :inBt a nce3 even though not re coroed . Thc> re a re some instances 

where not i ce was cl a i med to be short or iha<ie au ate . · Such vas t he case in 

one of the 1 $-ter NRA he c..r ings ( 38 ) 1J r.~ere i t w~ s claimed. tha t notice of 

the na ture of tlle subj e ct mc:ctter v.J2.s re ceiv3d on the cl.ay before t he hearing although it he el bee n . k nown for t en d2ys t here wou.l d be a he a ring. One 

cocle, a t lsEJs t, made an. _a tt em :>t to ;:.le fine no tic e 2.s f-. mater of l aw (39) . 

. .As a rule tl1ough , 1-r:RA wa.tt.ers w:.=H·e so ·;i del y d :.scuss" c e nd :publicized 

that the re -vve re pr ob r..bly few c a s es where fai l ure to c e t notice could be 

raised. 

T~e ade Gu a cy of tb.e .. notice &ive n in t11e proc edure 11 notice of o:pportun:i.ty to ·be- lJe.;; rd'' wa s somet i mes op e·n to ouE)s+ ion . There were t wo 

type £ ')f p: :i _:~. +. ed YJ.o -tic c' s 1or this r() ceclu:~e . ·c ne did. not sta. te the substa:r. c e. c.:f' t.:.c Y.~J~)vs al s; tJ:-1 <~ ot ~e r c:id., -:'ibe re a.n~:r su,j n~h-e l.1 nse 1 J l I • • ~ 1 • O t ·• .1 • ' '-h t11 L)and was me' L'::: .L~~ lJI~'G Yva.s :.L~2.~~ --Y ln J.e CJ ,l:::~ .e. :. n C: v .1E0C'\· ! "'ll \"'!.v e .o 

Ins G'.'1Ut c. '1.i:. :·f.:J.YYV. :fe:;1 c-t·L.·.cLJ._g l->1.C:.'.lstr y GoJ.e tho::-c: '•P.s ? ~J.- ~.. :roqa.:!. to i:l:1g e the 

de f:i ~: t.i.01: by 'i. n(': lud.:'Ln$ . wc ... ·J.s .which mi ght 'Or a )_c).l1 Ute sc.:J:;)8 of the code 

co ~ L~er:.:Jil y (4Ci 9. It y;:ras nut I i k ely t h o t ::. ersorls a f fe cted w·ould re ceive 

not i ·: .. :L 11 they d id, ~1e prop osal ·was s o _subt],y worded t hat the intent 

was far from clea r (·n ). All n a ll, t he notice in this procedure should 

have been more clec: r th:m it oft en wa s . The ina de qu a cy of such notices 

a nd t he e a se with Yvhich they could t~ co e inad.e qu c. te r.re a nother a rgument 

agains t the use of t~ e proc edura l device of 11 noti ce of op-p ortunity to be 

he a rd 11 unless gr eatl y limited and. i mpr oved ov e r its form in NR.A. 

9838 
A problem in notice h ·' t. a l s o t.a" u ju iJ ict.io"l 1 'tc;)e ct (42) lie., 

in tl e que s tion: ,_...,e r e me1.1be1. •J.f indust yen :tlcd to notic-e of .:1nd to 

be c.llowed t p rtici"J c. t - in the. ~ re li ~illc. t' Y 1r~ft~nb ol code;;,? The 

Le g.:: l Divis i ) n na co nee ne ' , ·i tL the ruly r~pre sent: ti ve ell· !'a c ter of 

p r oponents ( :1:2 ). t ni ght ·.7ell b e: areued the t v.he re <-• pronose<i code wa s 

a put-u. job c i rned c.t [' pc- rticu.lar firm or cl - :.rldd.~ 'V D. no t invited 

to participate tl1a t the 1)l'on cnent ' 'e:·e no t tr tly r e.,re -; ente tive (44) . 

Proponent ot<:os shuuld ho.v e be~.::n c a reful to. h'-, v e f i en ful l notice to 

ind stry 1ember. , invite. fu l l coo,e r atio 1, e.nd in a l l event"' av oid any 

c:.ppear a nce of unfa r ne. c: . 

III . OTHER £"'0Ri"AL .CTI011JS BY .t:BA 

Int .~: ret e tion p. ovid.e!=; <. n i m ortPn t mecns of a~r mak ng . Profe ssor Grt y t ho:..1gl t it s:> i :nu ortr nt t :nfl t :hi s juri sy:ruoent i a l concep t of 

l aw was tha t of t he decisions of t he co, rt s :i.n t he inC.ividua l cases (45). 

In ea r ly .ttA co '~ au ~10 ritie c:; tssuecl inter·pret e tions in which ~JRA a c ouie cecl (46). Later, .,. r eaL.: ec. L1a t the u :'.."oblem wcs one for a dministra -

tive a ction, and i nstructed ~ga inst s-::.r::1 in · ir.1terpr a t e.t ions (47). Inter-

:Preta tions ere n~ve r reguired b' stated -r.rocedura to .so tlu.·o l: t he 

usu['ll int ernal ch ~nels (other t ha n notice a nd he a rinc) required f or . 

e.mendments or ner.., codes. T!!e Advisory Cm:;.ncil r e cognizj_ng . the i1np orta nce 

of interpretations me.de str,ont:, recqmmend".tions. :.n t his r ega.:rd .(48). The 

Legal Division i~tere sted itself ~ inter~ra tions. Interp reta tions 

it felt shoul u. not be :cetroacti ve if lmfa:irness ·v:oul d r esult (49 ). 1Jhen 

rules reg .:i:'ding interpret a tions became more strict re . ort was h a d to 

"opinions" in a t l east one in~t a. nce with the intent tha t they be used b y 

the industry a s interp ret a t i ons (49a ). 

Presi c~ ing officers sometime-s ~viden::::ed d i srega rd .for tne legisl ative 

na ture of interpreta tions. :It should hav.e b ee n }3A1 s purpo s e to have 

avoided as much inter-:::> ret a ti:on -a:s p,o ssible o:,r lucid dr a ftsma nship , a nd to 

have furnished a basis .for as ma.r:,y 2.ngles of the : problem a s p ossi-ble in 

the discuss ions Pt th~. :public.- he e ri ng . One ins·tanc e is enlightening. An 

interested mer:1ber of ~n. industr y asked the meaning of c: p roposal at the · 

public he ?.ring. The :p~:es d.ing officer a nsv.rered, "Until a co( e is pn:..~oved 

by the President, no one , ca.n g ive you a d~fini t.e interpr e t a tion of a 

::'articul a r sectio~, or 2 ny sect. i on" (50). Th e s t a temen t wa"- probably true 

if a bindinb interpret tion ''ilc...S r.1 ea1~t . Tha.t should not have p recluded 

full dis cussi on a nd a g eneral agreeme nt . as to i ntent . 

An in ere l~g p roblem i n interpreta ti on ¥as p resented by a section 

of t he Bclcin,s Industry Code P-~ ohibi tint; t he g i ving of premiums or coupons 

by membe r s (51). This section wc:J.s e xtended hy inte r pretati on several 

times to i n::::lude su'tj ~~t rno t ter not cu ssed a t . the l1earing , but 1 og ic e.ll,,.r comi ng r i t 1in the word:, and intent of the p rovision (52) . La.ter 

(53) ) i t "7L S ) rO}!Osed to ex t e nd the -::revis ion t o- lJrohib i t a wholesa le 

bake r loaning breed . . r acks t.o its custol:'.ers be a r j_ng the v10rding 11 we re- . 

com..rnend ( name . ) crec:.d. 11 The tr &.nscri t of hea.~inE; ( 54 ) contained 

no testimony showi ng the: t sue}. use of the p rovi.:,ion w::. s ever contem:9l a ted . 

In f a ct the t e stimony throughout look eu. to remiums giv en to u l t i me te 

consumers (55) whil e a. l a ter :provision of t~1e same code indic a ted tha t the 

"dist ribution of a rticles COillr.1onl y used for F~ d.ve ti in " shou l d not be 

banned a s "commercial bribery" (56). The :9ropo s ed inter lret ti n \vas 

9838 
s top·:;) ed by t he B.ev ie'.7 Div i s io n . LE.. ter ( 5_7 ) , it -;rp ~ up cgai n wi t h t he 

onl y additiona l sup::port of 8. qode_ p rovis_ion against subterfuge ( 58). 

This prop o sal was fi nally v.,-i t hci. r a.wn: (59.) . 

Interpret a tions ·we r e some times u s e d to enl ~ e. code 1 s jur i s d iction. This was in effect p. nendme t. Nai vely it ·was t hought t hat by 

using interpreta tion t he ju icti l ou e stion o f' rep re s entation once 

passed upon could be i gnor ed. · Such wa s t he c a se in t he. S teel Ca stings 

Industry (60). The Co de Authority first sought to 8.ct by commercial 

resolution (61). La ter, NRA sou<_J)1t to i ssu e an inte r p r eta tion e ven 

broader tha n tha t of the industry 1 s (6 ). Ju.ri ~d iq n we s hotly con -

te sted. Many firms under oth er code s contended there wa s no proper repre senta tion upon which to b e.se such a prop o sal . (6 3 ) . The .S chechter 

decision •CUt the ma tter short SO it 'l"!ill never be k nown how the matter 

would have been decided (64). 

Amendment's more ·o·bviou sly ar e leg i sl a tion ( 65). The same n roce du re 

wa s resorted to for them ·as· fo r p rop osed codes ex cep t the 11 notice o f 

opp ortunity to be he e.rd11 p roce dure wc.s more fre ou e ntl y u s ed in the c a se 

of amendments·. This e xcep tion .cre e.t ecl the grea te st . ci.ifficul t y p rocedurally. The inade quacy of this procedur.e both a s noti ce (66 ) and a s 

he a ring (67) h2.s been d iscussed . The l)rocedure i mploy ing f avorable a ction 

b y the a dministra tion was usua lly r e sorted t o before t he advice of the 

Advisory Boa rds wa s· s ought (63 ). This put the a dmi nistration in t he 

position of giving a t e.cit ap:JrOva l without full consideration b y i t -s 

own ma chinery. 

Administra tion amendmen t s i~ e a t r oublesome TJroblern . NitA agencies 

desiring to propose amendme n t s were long kep t in the da rk a s to procedure. 

When the Deputy Administra tor desired to amend the code full notice wa s 

not a lways given to the industry. The Adv i s ory Council ma de some e x-

.cellent recommenda tions upon this (6 9) . It a lso sugge ste d t hat any a dministra tion propo-sal shoulc1 be ma de only a t a publi c .,he a ring ( 70) . Thi s 

would ·se em desirable e xcep t ::! e:-chap s in ma tte r s of d~t l where the need 

for the provision wa.s urgent. Fublic he 2r inG '172'?> ·- d es.irable p rocedure. . . ·~ 

Exempt ions and excerlti ons 1 i k e'ivi se involv e th. the ieg i sl a ti ve e..nd 

adjudica tory p roce s .=: e s . S..ometi'rpe s the e ffect of e xemp tion s was so bro ad 

the t the opera tion of a n entire code was del ayed , or aga i n the .su-.srension 

might apply only to· a particu l a r p rovision of 0. particul a r cl a ss. Exceptions were designed to R~ y to sp ecific ca se s of individua ls. Although 

applying -o classes or indiv i du a l s they e r e a na log ous to p rivate b i ll 

leg isl a tion in reg c: r d to numbe rs a ffecte d. The y p rov i de a h i ghly ·desirable me a ns of a llevi a ting t he ha r sh eff e ct of g ene r a l p olicy if properly controll e d b y the st2.tute (71 ). The Leg l Di v i s ion f el t t hat 

publi c he a ring s e s a b a sis f or su ch a ction was highly d e sirable (72) al-

-though they we r e sel dom held unle ss the prob lem involved was most i mportant. NRA officia lly s t e t ecl t he ne e d f or e . . find i nb of fac t up on which t o 

b e s e such s.c t ion ( 73) . :re s1) ite t h is de!J"Ll.ties d i d no t a l ways fur nish a dvis ers a ny f ac tua l b2.s i s up-on ic h to t ( 74 ) .. 

The v alue of e xempt ion s a nd excepti on_s i s ~ icc: t ed b y t heir use b y 

t he I ndu s tria l AppeP.l s Boa r d (75 ). These de v ices ·serv ed to mitigate 

ha r sh rul es c: nd a llow for an evolu tiona ry process of be comi ng e.ble t o 

9838 
comol y .. with code re uiremcmt . The pro e r u _,C' o i'1es · devic es vr> 

not. <: l v;rDy und0rstoo 'l , ;> nc: so·netirne t 8mn t :1e r r- m: e to us ") t hem 

to erfo~· m the t a l r of amennments ( 7G) . 

The ov rn~ent hvs ee~ . llo 1ed to st~~ a ction t~~en th~t N " S 

conti nui nb a nd clid not , once !0\nd or c•ll , vest r i e;ht ( 77) . lEA used 

the procedu_e of st<y . It hr d t·,'Vo as1.ects : 1 . A temp or a ry relea se 

?nd 2 . the force of nn wnenrl..ent cut tin!; out -; code p rovision (78) . 

In e ither ce:se "here ve ted interest~ 1Ji ere to be dv rs ely affected n 

full fr..ctua1 b P..si s for a ction . ho 1ld h.;ve exi sted . I f no intere st s 

he'd yet ve, t c:d t!1e r> ct i on would in effec t "Je nee;a tivo , ~·ncl such a full 

basis :v ould not be required though it '."'onl u be desirc.'..bl . . 

IV. SPEEDY DET:iilll.:I -N:e IOrJS 

The notion of a 11 speed · tr i a l 11 i used in the sense of a criminal 

pro secution (79) . There ,._,eJ.·e inst. C' nc r~ s in N"ttA of purposeful de l ays 

tha t e ffect ed su ntial ri ·l:ltr . F:com our '"' tudy (Gn ), it would seem 

if the delays '.;> ere in a ctin,_, u:oon neY. :~r- er , ::1o nC:amus 1f!ould not lie 

to force considerat i on . ~-7h P.re t:1.e1e ·-,ere de l:"ws j_n :9 e r f orming formal 

a ction follov: i ng the !nel-ing of dec i sions m'"'ndnmus rr t:J~t.l ie, })resuming 

tha t t he courts d i d not exenr._, t f3.A u Jo n the groun' s it .vc: s an agent of 

the Preside1t. Dil c:> torv ina ction do e no t meet t he courts' a:o:9rov a l. 

Cases c a n be envisaged whe r e the courts ,,vould <Ct i n p l 2ce of the Administration (81) or f orce it to e ct. 

V. VIOLATIONS BY NRA OF IT~ 0'1li ??.OCEDU~ 

Courts un iformly co nde:~m the viol ti on by a n e..gency of -9ro ceclure 

set U:;_) b y a n a:lmi ni s tr a.tive c._gency fo r its own gu idance (82). The Shipbuilding c. nd Shiprepc- iring Industr y Co de (83) b y cmendment p rovided for 

a n indus t ry committee compo .ed of members from the industry a nd others 

to be ap-'Jointed by the Pr~si c: e:::1t. (84 ). This comm ittee issued "Rules a nd 

Regulations for the Administrr t ion of the Co de of Fa ir Corr~peti tion and 

Trad.e Pra ctice for t.b.e Shipbu.ild.i nc"; a11d Shi l;r eJlHiring Industry in the 

United States " (85). The se rul es medea numbe r of sub stantive additions to the code (86). The chc..rter of t he comm i ttee gave it no authority to make leg i sl a tion ( 8 '7) . It ve onl y authority to recommend 

prov1s1ons. NRA never a::rr roved t hese r o.les. So it mi gl.1t be argued 

both tha t l\TRA did not v iol : t e its own p rocedur e a nd tha t the p rocedure 

was quite usuc:l. The v ioli:l tion , l1o~,-1 ever , l ay in g iv ing effect to these 

rules by silent acquiescence . The rules s.o id Ap·~~ rov d a nd Effective, 

October 2 , 193311 (88 ). The;." '·'"ere s i gned 11 a:p ~) roved 11 by ""!illiam n:. Dav is, 

as ~at ion l Recovery Adminis tra tion Repre s entative and by three othe r 

members appointed by the Co!.;mi ttee by the President. }8A k new all these 

f a cts yet for a cons i de r able -.!eriod it llo ,:~ed. ~1e inciu s try to operate 

under the s e provisions e..s i f ti.1ey 'l:e:re o·_,proved ·a~r e 1e President. Certainly, some of the ac tions in com:?li ance wi L'1 the " rules" were in viol ation of the Anti-Trust l aws e.s no proper a ction hc;_d been t aken under 

the Act to suspent t hem. ~P.A e ithe r viol a t ec its own procedure or kn

ingl y c. llow the same effect to be secur e d by othe rs. 

9838 
- 56- . 

.· NRA procedure c a lled for a dvi.sen: to wri t€ r eports u p on the mme 

clr.s1.ft s of code s unle ss the re 11ere no mate11

i a l char_ges in the c.r aft in 

t he individual adviser's ha n,ls and t hat transmitted by the De:9uty (89) . 

Discretion was g i v en to the D~_put y to de termi ne if the c hanges ·.?ere 

~:· ri l. This p roceG.ure we.s :not a l ways follo :ved ,· or rather the re are 

e xamples of abuse of discretion by Deputies. One c a s e involves the deletion of the or ~ ·" secretly" out of an orig inc.l "se cret r ebate" provision (90). ·Deputies .were k nown to e.sk tha t ·repo rts be riel a.yed iri 

the meantime s ending the code through for approve.l (91). Othe r ex: .. rnples 

there were of NR.A viol a ting its own procedure which shall be reviewed 

(92). 1ffiA should have exer~ised relentless care and issued · other exp licit instructions gainst such a ction. 

'I 

9838 
- .7-

PROBLELS r~ S"u:=v··T.AYI'IVE !- _., P~OCESS CF LA'! A~ .A.Di ·r I STRAJ.'IO:i 

I. REASO~ AJ-:LEl'~SS 

The "due u r ocess of la\7 11 concc .Jt ilrs E:'vo~·ed t11n ;rea~·G.:. interest 

in r e cent ye2.rs ':7hon the cou:rts have ePTDlo"ed. it to tc~;t substa:.tive 

cmestio:J.s. T 1e :or ocedural a s,•ects h·:we b een c~·.rarfeG. . Th.:.s c .. oes nut 

!Tloan that tl.e/ c an · e disroga ded. Th b'lrde n of this rtud~r has been to 

s ho·.-r just tl e op:9osi te . :But , it is in tho as~oect of a r·ea.'1S o:r \7hich 

the courts h ve t est ocl tl.e ,,ro·-) iet..,- o:Z socic.l :"~nd econo.1iC le islntion , 

both by the Stc.>. tes a1i.d the fe ciC'ral r;ovorm.Je-·nt , th"" t the "due :oro ce s s 11 

concep t has beco::-.1e. ·J -~:rrtl :·l 3' ·:n J\111 ., The ·orO')riet;r of this use of the 

cone pt is not a ouGstion :fo1· cunsi 'ioration he r e . i:c:n:·· st;udonts and 

l anyers have \/ri t ten vi orousJ~ upon ·both sio.es of th8 issue . Eere , i t 

is only to be reco'=""ni zecl t hat t 10 courts still iJEW e::w1·cise such revieu 

'7hether it be couc 1ecl in due -~~ rece ss of l an te rninolo {-;~r , in the s ense of 

p o11ers g r anted, or o.ny 'o ~1e r .i2n[J,1J.ett;e . The judge s have oeen a ccuse d. of 

substituting their juci0nent for 'that of the legisl a tor. This st o.tement 

ma.y not be p recise . P erhaps , t:'le viens o . t he judt;e s coillcicle u i t h the 

tra ditions. of society and its judg,men t u~1i 1 t !"e jud;es j_ n tend to appl y . 

Pro~') rty ru~c. vest ed inte r ests loom l e..r c:;e <"~s ·:::'. favo:· ed ~);:::·t of our 

system (1) . Th ~r p rovide a n C0 10r.1ic sanction \!l:ich ·,·re i :.):.s heav il r u.;?on 

the courts . There a re g r ave conside r !?.t ions of p olicy 2-gainst too u re.s.tl y disturbing settled rel tio s (2). 

. The evidence indic ates t l1at -;RA ·oroblens '.7ould. ha ve ·orovided a rich 

field for employment of the subste,ntive "du e p rocess" co 1ce . Labor 

regul at ions nd. trade. :practices a re inextricabl y tied up F i th the n ost 

vi te.l "'9 ropert;;,• i n te:te sts. T~1e y are subjects of fre~uent uses o: the 

"due process" co:1cep t . T}le C[',se of \Tillar1ette VC'.lley Lu..lJlber Cou"0 any v . 

·. atzel-: ( 3) shons t he t :y-pe of :oroblen T7~1 h coul 0. have been ex-9ected to 

a rise. The \"illanette \'alle~· Lur.1'oer Compcmy , at . t :.1e tin e o-f t i1e a:op rova l 

of the Lumber Code ( 4) , hc:td.. been ouer n tint; f9r about ten ;:.re2.rs; the 

·. est·oort L1unbe r Compe.ny for anout ei -hteen ~:ec rs . These nills had f or 

s ome . tir_;~e ~e rat d. U3)0:1 e. d.o'-l.bl e s h ift basis. Le ss t he.n sevent:r o: the 

severi h1..mdred odcl mills in the cl_ ivision h:->,d ever o·."l ere.te:l.. UDOn this 

basis. A c onside rably fepe r mmber. ~re :re so ope:ca ting in 1933 ( 5) . The se 

tno nill's invol vod. a·o·oe ;'red to h,·--we develo·oec1 t he tno shi ft o·oe r e. tion to - - 1.. • .... 

such a.n eff ici ent J)Oint the.t the ~r com:oe t ed. ·:ith Ca11ad i (U1. n;i.lls f or the 

China trr.de , .:-m unusua l t h ing for Am.erican n ills. Lumber sentiment on 

the Pa cific Co a st d id not favor the d.ouble- sh ift ;·1 ills. P ...... '1 order ~m s 

made under t he provisions of the Lumb e r Co de ( 6) nh ich ·ha~ t e effect 

of cutting the oper a tions of si agle s h ift 11 c1.~ s b~r t11ent ~r five ·9e rcen t . 

f"l.nd double sh ift ·ol an ts b ·r mo:-e tha:r:. sixt·• ··Je rcen t f ran t~1e hour s o·o era te·o. ~ ..J r - -

under the President ' s = er.1~o lo ynent eeEJent ~ The se :-> r e the bC'.sic f a c t s. 

The situation uas furthe r c orrrplic:-.ted · s1.1.Ch ;::;__llet:;,!',tions a s; the rel z- tion 

betneen u roduction r:.nd s 2.le of lumb e r 1.roon nrli ch tile orde:r no.s based .... ,~ s 

uest io n~ , ::9 rice not being fully· con~i o.e re ; th,'),t ho stile busine ss 

int erests doElina ted b1e code activit3r t h r ough pror,1inent •')ositions '7ith the 

Co de Authority or its comr:1 i ttees whi ch put t4l ~u h the orC:.er and. he ~:ud 

the a:?pe al; t he.t obsol ete , i nope r a tive , i neffi c ient raills ,_.,ere c iven the 

same o_uota a s efficiently ~9e tinb n ilJ.s , 1.7i th the cor:sec:uent ne':.r li:.:e 

given the fa r ner; that substantial contra cts invo l vins the ""illaoe tte n i l l 

9838 
t:. 8-

existed; that C0!!1pe ti tors hy ::>pl ing f or tine for u...noue:r.:;.ted nills '7ere 

able to oper::>..te their mills on 2. Dore th8.2-! single shift. ·.ri thout assuminG to '7eig};l the 111er i ts of these alleg<: tions the~r nre each of a nost 

vi t a l l1C'.ture, containing c>.s the r do eleJ:~ents of u.nfn irness 211d unreason0b leness. District Judge I.Ic!iar:• refused. the content ions of the 

Willamette Conpany CJ.fter trro ap:peals to the adi:linistrative agencies h8.d 

failed. The op inion . of Judge UcHar~· eD:phasized thn.t 111-Tot all inequalities 

are reg.:-.rded in laTI a s 2.rbi trary and eli scri!Jina tor~r , "out such onl~r ?-S 

are ba sed. on unjust Pnd. inadequate cletermining p rincip les. n The- op inion 

continues rrith a c r1.ref1.:tl revie':'T of t h e :9roblems of_the inc.ustr;i (7). It 

. concludes that the regl,_l a tion "does not, in the judgl!lent of the court, 

a rbitra rilzr d.iscrinin;::de against an:' :1ill unit" (8). Perha~o s, the court 

did not see "confiscation" (9). The t h inl:; rrhich i s to be ernphasi zed is 

the willingness of the judg e in this situation to judge the arbitrary 

and discrininatory cha racter of the deternining rinci~Jles. The ind~­

cation is strong .thc'.t had the judg e co21cluded ·c1ifferentl] as to the 

char2.cter of these basic ::? rinci:,9les, c>.n Lijunction uould have issued. 

Judge l.iclJary, though u:-pholdinr; the 'acL·.1inistration, Wt'.s appl ring the test 

of .substantive "clue IJrocess of lc>xr " (10). 

The 

p rop,e rt3r 

affectation of ~9 riv te con tra cts by FRA 2.c tion brh1g s uu the 

question in another vite..l forrJ. Tl1e Act _rJ8.de n o -:~r ovisio n 

directl~r covering the p roblen of ttforrr<:!.rd " contra c ts - contra c.ts made 

with delivery to be had at a future d <:>.te or 6.<.tes. Some of the early 

codes ( 11) contained st<".tements urg :i:ng t he ad.justment of forr'Tard contracts. The major in:roort r;.nce of t h e YJroblem '.Vas g iven it r the President's 

Reem lo rment Agreement, As ac'l1 ihistra tive leg islation and a s contre.cts 

with the President the p roblera p re sents d iffe rences. The r.1ain con-

.sideration of inter.ference rTi th existL1g contracts is t he sar:.1e frorJ both 

angles. As fir·st ·ore sen ted the p roblem arose .fron the Presitient' s early 

stc>.temen t upon lf.RA·-urging adjust~en t of "for',72.rc1". contrarts ( 1 2) . The 

statement was included in _ the PTesic:tent's ?.een:olo;;:nent Abre eneiJ.t (13) .· 

This seemed to furnish a ':'TholesEtle excus e for ··!ersons to relieve themselves of onerous contracts, a...11c1 t o t olce ndve.>'ltage of the r2.pid rice 

increases g oing on in the ear1y c.a;;•s of ~~ ~. T'.70 ouestions a rise. D~d 

this contract have any influenc e u~ron a buyer 1:.rho c3.i c. not sign the 

Pres'ident's :?.eenp loyment Agr ee:::1en t? ~e -:.e a:1srrer 1.:ou ld seeo to be 11 • 

Secondly , what effect if any cli d. su ch contr acts hC'.Ye u:9on signe rs in a 

buyer-seller relation? There are t ':'..-o :~nron.ches t o t}lis C'_uest ion. 1. 

Can beneficiaries. suf? to enforce provision s of a contr2.ct to \7hi ch they 

are not a ~9arty? 2. -:."'.S ~he contract a c rm.::p contract nade in consideration of the oth8rs -rri t l u:ro!:ti ses :runnL1g to and. froiJ the other 

signers? Unless there uas relief up on one of t~1ese o ases there rmuld 

seer1 n o recover~r for failure to adjust contrc.:.cts o:.~ .1o defe;.1se for a 

breach of a forua rd co tract. As to ~on-si ers P1d to 11 others if a 

contract could. not be ST)elled. out there rrould seera t o be no defense for 

breach of a foruard contra ct. ~he defe~se of i r1:9ossibility is not 

:90pular with the courts ( 14 ); and , .. _ .. £\ TS ( 15) , strikes ( 16) , C'nd embarc;oes 

( 17) have been held to offer no e~~cuse. ·The c ode =orovisions cov e~ing adjustment of fornarcl contracts c.ttem})tinc; to cover ~: ?e sons not agreeing t o 

the chunge of t he contra ct r a ises the due p rocess of l aTI ~~est io . Here 

the courts rrould have to C.e cic1e if the ·orovision ue.s unreasonable and 

confiscatory. 

9838 
..... 

Code i)rovi ('! i ons rer·ul...,tint; 11 snJ.cs 11 .: E"~" o.fton .1;--~e ,·:it.h the a~rr1c.• . .n 

intent <:-..tt, chcc to the.'1 of c:~. "co-ntr D.ct to sell " (1 " • T1tJ ··noble 1 Jrir.nr il ~- \fas one i::1 l ct.,P l nJ.;e1~01etC1.tl on . Suc:1 1J·:ovisio s h. ve :t.n inort .~.nt effect nhen interu:r:et d in the tl jct le, aJ. sense 0 t:1e rrord 

" sele ". The effec t np:r have -eon to -~~ 1·e void . J.J. contro.rts to sell t'l.t ,. 

a f i :-:ed n rice , L. th<-'.t -.,r ice cUd not coincide ni th the price 0uoted ,.-r:1en 

deliver:• \7._\ s I:l.~de o convt~rs ion had in the strict lec;al sense ( 19). The 

Legal :Uivision reco, "r!ized the o~ si'Jil)tic('! 01.' tle sltuntion ( 20). It , 

vcr..- reasonably , su<':,~ested th~'.. t the 1Jr ,)Visio~1 bo inte:,;>retcd accordinr; 

to the settled ru.les of int er-_p r et:--t ion. I . '~he resul t j ne,; ii1ter-·! retation 

D.S -u:nife stl:' unjust n exe:rotion to thJSo in1Jroperl•r c:f<'e ct.ecl rms 

S'l'l(!:· es ted in the in teriru period bm. or e d 1 c.l.lTlendncm t to renedy t he 

situa tion cou ld ue h[l.d. I f s 1.ch a ·-,rocedure .'e.~e aot follorred clue u roc ess of lau c:no t ion<· froM both the su1)strl.l1tlve ::.nd. I>rocec.h.::.ral angles 

r1ould P.rise . Ir.ap r o1! er in:c erp:: eta.tion of a .n,o·v ision r1hich the transcript of her~ri!"!t:; sho•.ts <i i d not inte:1c1_ 1.ihftt i t '.7::.~ inte:-lJ:rcted to nean , 

rroulcl ·oresent a Jrocedural ·-.:roblem. Tl-.c 1mfnirness ancl rensonab ss 

of tile subst~1ce of " 1, t'~;lJ .2 tion n.:L?c c tin:_; t1·Le f-c:.ture contract ) rice of 

co ntr~ cts to sell, ci the r execntoo. bero1·e tl e ·· )~)l~ ove'v l of the code or 

not , ':":o-t_,_l d offe r t he cou rts r;. c::ue stio:-1 of "due -,:;roce s 311 i il its broadest 

sense. 

Co tract ~ h:-.'tC lo:1g hn.c\. a tts e.credY c:12 r n.ctP.1" i:1 our ;_a'l."r. On the 

othe1, sio.e of the l ed.c;.:.. r is t he }Jractica J :;:1e c essi r of sor~et me s Llte:tferint; -:ri th contr rtctu:--J. rolcti onshi -) S. rm trr~ ct s c c-.. n n ot be used to 

:9 re•.rent lef; isle..t ive c~1.;.n£; es :.~r.;)e,. onabJ y ne ces ' (;"~1) . The ·0rocess is 

-p.ceeninentl:r one of -Dc? J.an nD ·~· these ~ro L{tel·estn ( 22). The Su:rJren e 

Court i.1:::.s sho\Tr.. '\ st r o:1c fee lin{~ fo r tbe c.Jl ctit~r o£ i nc{ ividval . c9:1tra cts 

( 23) . The clu~ '?roc e ss of l a'.7 co ncept in t .l:ese fielc.ls has beP n G:>..lJ ress ed 

in such r.otable cr s es .::ts All?e''er v . IJ~ uisia...'1a ( 34) , A<ia ir v . U.S. ( 25) , 

and Coppc: .. {;e v . KC\l"..sas ( 26) . At ·present t he n'} a;.~e i ndicnt ions th<-. t the 

doctrii.1e 1 s strengt h :-1a~ r be ,,7anin[; ( 27) . .Af;ain the .Le.::al Di-v-ision clea rly 

recocn ized. t he 1J::"Obler:1 an.d of .1.'e r ec1 & st...- tene~1t u·':lon it to its :11eooers ( 28) . 

An int e restinG ca se to be co:.1siclereC. is :: p:hl<·.~:C:. v . -=-.usse11 Cn.l" [; Sno·• 

PloP. Co:T08....'1Y ( 29) . .k:ich helc. t~l n, t t~w o·~;-C:i:'8S~ r-:clo. the Presic:ent nay 

::9:co"9erl y fix t he na~ L'!UJ'1 -.) r ice o ·. co B:l , i :f.' the return is just com-pensation 

rri t h in the nean.L1g O.:. the J' ft~ .liJ1KlcL·t·:>n t , T:h8ro t :: e ~oul~~?O so of the 

statute ( the Leve r Ac t) '.'!as to f i x a f r'.ir <)rice ·~e t o;1e 1.1iC1 enough to 

enco,u·Rg e the econonic ::..~ orces of su·.)iJ J. ~- ~.nd deJ!l~~nd . rm.A ~J rice control 

took tn".l OU"'Osi te tas::: the stabi.lizr tio :~;, of ;1i n ir:rw:1 -o rice s. The reason- - ~ - . 

ableness of such c:-.ctio;1 \'!hen adve rsel .. , 2-f'fcc tlnt; o~1trc:::. ct s '.-roulo. s eeru to 

be ~ua :/ a. ~o roblen t i1e.t the conTts ':.ro-.LJ.(~. ··J: esune t o C:.ecic:le . 

I I . A PEOBLEI I Il T Ani: L~I ST?.AT::: 0 I 

So far i n ti.1i s ·x·;:":~ er t:ne a--J•Jro a c:l h2 s 1Jocn r·.'J.al:'t ica} J. ~r d~ vided into i ndi vidua l 2.dra inistrati ve l cL':T T) i.~obl ons . A case of ~ .. O.nin i strc-.tion in 

a ction uc..:y serve to po int t he -~ robleDs , sho~"J ng h ot' ths:- c.ro se. The .. t 

the uc. nner of c-.dr:1 ini co tr.::--.tion bo::.·o a -"W'.iT:/ rel,--, tion to t he l ecali ~r of the 

Act rre s earl r :ceco b~'- i zecl •Jubl cl~· b~· the General Counse l . He said: 

98:.38 

11 Co:·1sti tutiQ w.l rii.:;hts r.re !10 t · il~vad d ~r :9roclrmations, or 

st::>.te:oent s of ~Ju.blic :9ol icy, or eve:1 b~r r.;r alJ.t s or ~:t ordinar r 

p oncr to neet e~: tr oro.inP.r ;y needs. ·"e: ,.. 2.r e inv2.cl.ed. onl r o:r the 

e~·ercise of f orce t o t 2ke fl on a 1an a l i bert=· or a ·) r0:9ert r right 
- 9J- . 

of which he ma:r not be lawfull~r d.eprived. Let me say norr end 

emphaticall . t hat the 1Jational :?..ecovery AdmL1istrc-.tio:1 expects 

to o">Jerate so fa.r outside the bounda ries of constitutional uo11er 

that judicial det e r mination, even of bordering cases, ~:ill not 

be necessary ." ( 30) 

The ad.ministrat ion o:!: the Ice Industr,..r Code ( 31) fu:rnishes an excellent subject for review· (32). The code contained certain :orovisions 

(to be more fully o.iscussed) of a ouestionable cha racter. The De·0uty 

Admin istra tor (30) answered the obJections to these p rovisions not b:• 

any positive finding of f a ct or statement of hou he felt these revisions 

Hould oe administered. Ratner he sought to avoid the burden of the 

official res onsib~e for the findings. He chose to rel r upon a sp e cial 

memorandum by the Legal Adviser (34) statin6 that t he prop osals were not 

objectionable (35). 

Article XI uroviding for a certificate of 11:public necessi t . and 

convenience 11 to be issued before any new or additional ice p roducing or 

storag e facilities be installed provided the main v roblem ih adninistration. 

Almost as soon as the code was approved applica.tio~s for such certificates 

came in to the lifRA. For more t lla.n five months ( 36) the De:?uty acted 

informall:r ·in . these matters. He did not consult ui th sor.1e of his interested advisers. He did J;lOt ·in any ITa r advise them of his activities 

(37). His action upon the applications rras not L.1. conformit~r uith lrrt.A 

procedure, sp arse as it was. All the applications ~ere anyrovec or 

clenied by letter. · There is no record of disa:o·orovals or 8:ourova.ls for 

this ~)e riod at the Code R~cord. Sect ion ( 38) , ;_;r rrere hef'.ri;g s had uuon 

any of these application~. 

The Code Au thori t~r :proceeded to create certain loc&. .t aclnini s trat ive 

agencies under a uoner to esta.blish "Local Con:mi ttees of Arbi tr£' .. tion and 

App ea l" (~39), nith authority r·rto interpret and mal<:~ a'.:_Jnlication of the 

code subject to the Administrator's. a·oproval" (40). ~To :Tecord exists 

of the Afu.1inistrator formally approvin~ any of the interpretat ions or 

rulings issued by these "committees." These actions ~7ere talmn ui th the 

knoTiledge of the Deput :r Yrho clid not raise a voice against \7ha-t \.'as done. 

The De~u y early adopted the p rocedure of turning the 8~p licat ions for 

certificates over t.o the "Commit tees" through the Code Aut~1ority, or inforning the applicants to apply to the "Co;;mi ttees." There is no official 

I!ecord of tho number of such a)plications readil · available ( 41). The 

Code Authority issued a bulletin prop osing to establish the urocedure for 

handling applications (42). These cor:1mittees we re cor1posed of industry 

members, often prosp ective or then com}Jeti tors of the :9i'J lica.nt~ They 

were instructed to r.1aJ:e investigations and to ..;i ve tl1e a·oplicant a 

·hearing . The committee Rfter a hear inc m2.de its reconmendation. ~~['h is 

nas forwarded to the 3.eg ional Adviser of the CocLe Authori r uho uould 

add hi::; r:econmenda tion. Next ·the a ccm:mlation c?~":le to t~1e Code Authority 

vrhich added its recommendation end fornc.:cded it \lith the rest to the 

Deputy. 

The Deputy revieTied the terial on each case . He then wrote to 

the Code Authority authorizing it to g rant or den: the a}?plicatio·le 

9838 
There is no re ore:. o .. ~ tllf' !111'!'111 ~"' r of <l.r"\Jlir. ;- ti0'1 :> '. !ld c~1 ·~ rr: l1[ ndlcd 

!30 freol·?. T.te Code ...... c o cl :Jivisi•)r" .oi :. ·1.) :·e r l) rd , l ···. t ~ron otL.c·.· sources 

t~.{~ nunbcr C'U1 , e :Jlr c c. C'. t "'.1'0 1r ... d t~ O .mi.ldrcCI. ( ~ • P:..·j or to · D.f, 93~ 

the actio;. of tho De, ut ~~ Pst ..... b2.1.shil. · .~r tlon:rin. · 11 'J :, .ic ur "1 0rl1[1.l 

n··r:~etin ; ['I'er's 11 ( :. ·.s mb10\r' . 

\Ti tl1. t:13 rcci .~nC' t ion or t \ c :Do· 1 t·- ~,_,.,d th0 <' :Y·JO intnl""ll t of a nou one 

(.t:.::5 ) Cl 11 od _or 'ctJ·c •lrOCCL."t" lf: !=> <' ·r co ~:ilir:ed. . rrhc nc·r DO"•)lt·.,· c alled 

in r-11 hi"' [' iYise r s .o ~iscuss •):.. )C C, CLt!o •. it.Ll rl.n . ·r: .e j'eG"..llt ' T. :..; tl e 

initi::.tio:1 o .. tic or ctice o· '1oldi .. t · "0;1forenccs 'lith "'.dvi.Jers to cor.-

sider 2J.l :.. 'J le:~s c: ,· :i:·ir: .:; .- u-.i)1ist:·r-tive ~· cti on ~• rj·tic1.~la r tnc 

C:l'·"?lic:--tiOl·.S i or 1 e•.· or i:1c ·c:~.::; c~. ca:·Jo..c i t ;v. The :Jc,.., ut r fe-lt tlnt 

1ma .... ,ini tJ of t he ed·:iscrs mtltl [;O :· ·:.:;: to cLlTG ··rocc ·~. J. d8fects. '!:i.s 

traini . · "C..S <1Ct such tl:at be · uoul d . .l. ee l the :nec G. for o. full record nn.d 

the e;i vi ·~ of ·)roc er: l.l'[\.1 s<.. et,ut: rd~ to into::: c st ~d. ·:cu ties. Still , there 

r:ere no fo r rml J.·e cor ~ s •::a c.e of ct ioL , < tl10 Co:lc Authori t~r 0.eni ed or 

grant ed e:r:>1llic;:-- tions U "' 0!1 t~1o J .-:-- , ,_t,-r l r; F.dvice . SQ:le fo rt r ["..'lJ":>li~ ions 

;ere so llr>nc.lod. ( 46) . ·-

T..:.e f irst offi cinl qttentior-. . i-vc ~ ~:: s . rrc'lor: ' ·.::.s in JUl1e , 1934 

( 47) . Until t h is ti: e t:1e D'Y--,':.i c s ·.:r: J.' •J ~:re r to fo!'l.J tiw i r orm ·)rocedure ~u-oject to clue ··•rocess :t0c ...t ~:. ·e~ 19!lt ·· : ol ;rJ·,ich t.Le·· Fere ·J rO"u (' bl~r 

not c>..":"'are 0..~- c e:-t ain . ;e;10:rc:2. ~-:.:.'.A :i:er;·.·.ii.· .. ~,e"lts snc h a s the use of Code 

?.ecord to c ive acti oE :·.n official co.st . :::J~- ....,_o.: .n ,., tivc Ordel' a rocedure .:c:.s ·wovided: 

( ct) A-cr;J1ications s>c:,lt be .l cc . v i ~h tr.c c-:. ·Y.•ro Jri e: te Co·mi ttee 

of Ar bi t:r2t io?. ~..21d Ao··•eaJ. s. 

(b) The Conru ittee st.o'.

1.lcl :1olC.. a he · .:: Llr· on tho R::?plic.?..tion. 

(c) :J'o l_ lo•.•in.:; the :1e c:-ring , the o.:.._,)lic:·.t io·-:. , ·~ a:.l S9l~i ot of 

he ·,ring an.d Te cor:uend.2.tion :'):· ~e con :itteo s.1oul d be ser> t 

to the ?.eri o.1al Ad~.ris ~:r- o:;· tl e Cor"'..e .\1:t'~ ri ··~ · 

( ci) The ?.eci o11C..l Ac> .. is ~' ' s:.1o·.llf'. ··" l'e" ·~:i. t Li.e file , :; t~1 r '.:i th 

lJ.is reco~11 e;tC2.tio11 , -:o t~1e Code A1~t~1or .t . 

( e) T:1e Cocle A1.:..t l.1ori t~,r sho• c~. c:.:1.c>J:·z e ti1e file , "Jr ocu:re an;r 

ad.C.i tionnl L1for no.t·i o:1 i t o e l i 0ved ecessr- -c r . .......:1G. <)re s ent the 

c:1t ire fiJ. e to the Ac1J:li:-t:1.st:t.: tio.-~ ~·; t.h its re co:o::1erLdation. 

(f) 'l1ne Ac"lll1 i ::.i s t r a tor should. co21 ;i(ler the a~o , c-..nc3. issue 

2.D"•J:.:'O·):ri ate inst!"'J.c tior.s -to the CoC:.e ).utho rit;,· .:>S to ;/n2.t 

1~ul o. be clone . ( <W) 

This ·.Jrocedur e Tias in. effect t '..ll o:f l stc:.te:r.u;;nt of nhS!.t ·,:as t!:en 

the y ractice oD i t ti:n.t; nentio;:1 O:J~ t ::.? c o!lfe nonc o o::.: c.Ci.v ise rs. As <"" result of t :.1e official sta:-::9 :-:; ive .. . t:1c 1:roccd.ure 2 ::eelinc; t hat ro·.Jorts of 

r..dvisors 1.:ouJ. cl be 6.esirabl e --;r err '-.1:n . ~:1e -Jr nct:. ce o:L su:;ni ttinr; su ch 

:..~e '?o rts :.r.s st~ :..~te i ontenpora:l80'l sl r ,:·i th the e str-:.b }.ishr.lent of t he -~) ro

cedure . ':lr!O i:!ont11s L·t.e:c h~ ··r 2.c t i ce .of a :forE!e.l d..:>cket , incl u·:hng such 

re1Jorts , I.'E's st bli s~ ed. L:. c-~e sm:~e ·:1o:1t il t he f irs·s f orma l order 1roon 

an a:'?plicr-.t i on -:.ras u:rlc (.,_::g ) . 'l'he ro c~o e us eel in Au ~n st ' .. as ollt ~~ued 

for two uo:..~e n ::mths 1.~t l Octo".)e:r , lS . 

9838 
- 93-

A-op lici"' tions for the establishment of "b2,sic or norr:12,l :-J ...... _r!::eting 

C'.:..~eas :-- 50 ) ::ore. still ha:1dlec1 b'' t he llcon fe:;.~e e of ad.v isers'1 :ieth od. 

Admi nistrative o:;.~cler s ue re i ssuec1_ i r.. thirty-one cas es ( 51) ...... nd no c:.c tion 

.-ras t al: en ir.. six. 

Tlle g reat authority e;i ve:n to locul comni t tees of inte rested_ ·oersons 

co:used o. serious -,;roblen in fe.ct-g:::.t he rLv;. I'2.cts '::' e:;.~e UlJ~:;.~ essed, 

others Disinte r ?reted, 0cl still others ;~1isre~:;.~esentect ( 52). Con eti tors 

of 2. successful a-rnlicantcoulcl not be exo ectec:L to ho.ve t :1e i Elpart ial 

jucUcia l :1ind (53). One i n st -::.nce serv ed~. to i nJress t i1 is u·qm1-· the Ad.."Jini str tio ~l . An ~o)p lic 2.. tion nr .. s n::.de in Septen"u e r, 1904 to "build 2.n ice ~""l t 

in Portlct.Yld. , Ore-gon. The local coqni t t ee ::.·e coEnended t hr-,t the 2.)plication 

be denied sing t h is upon tl1e so-ca llecl ''f:-tcts" th2.t there ~-:'a s Et daily 

"D roduct:i ve ca}Ja.ci t zr of s i x-hund.red tons, <'- d.:dl•r co sur_T~ tio :.<.l of less than 

three-huncl:;.· ec1 tons, Jl~ices nere fai.r Ct.nd :rea sonable, there -r;e_· e no 

ono olies or El.gre ements u~ on ::·)rice.s· 02-~ )r oduction, and a ne:r ~~ lGt.L""lt ·-:·ould 

Jre.ctic lly ,_-nreck the e::istinc ··Jlants fin2..n cially . I nte:.-ested ) Ublic 

u inded p ersons sb_o'.7ec1 , on the contrar , th2.t t he re ex isted_ an op er2.ting 

:roducti ve a~:?a ci r of onl~r three llunclrec1 t ':7en t~,r -ei gh t tons; :qrices Tiere 

as nmch as double tha t in m.sw.'l ' other -)l n ces; one cor.:lpc.ny donin ..... tec1 the 

r- l~e , controllinc; t n o h1.mdred fift:r-tl!o tons ro o.uc ti ve ca·qaci t•r; 

evidence of ,1ono:!oly e:;-:isted; 2J.1c:. t hat the ice :)::toclucers of ortl .nct 

'.-:ere il1 excellent financial ~J osi tion. ' ' ' 

·a i th the trr'.nsfer of the Co de to still a third De i 1;, Octo, er 

the e:;re o..test chaiJ.ges took ~9 lace. The :Jroce0.ure noTI b e ce:1e one c;onduc ted 

D2r the g overnment, c;ivin::; clue con sid.,.erf'.tion to t he in us :;.· r De1oers, 

1e r than on.e conductpcl n:1cl don i n2.te 0.. ~r the ind.ustr;r ;·1eob ers. iJ:ne 

.DeJYL1 t y O:Utlinec1 2. r8.ther lenc; th · ·orOC'3C1ure ':Jh ich is S uc.ted in the forn 

of nineteen ~o oints (54). Tht? ess ~ntials of the ~o roced.ure are: appliCe,tions we~.' e ·to be sent to the :Je··)Ut:r Ad::.lin istrato:r for f irst a ction in- -- '-' 

steac:. of t h e J,.ocal comnittee. ri'he Cocle .ttnthorit z• :1e :::t c-;r:_ve certa i n advice and ~nformat.io n to the :Ue-Juty. ~J i t l1 t h is o.s e.. ba sis it 1:1 i ght be 

unnecess a r y to hol c1 a he o..rine; L1 ':rhich ca se the Advisor:• :Jo~ :;.~ds ':7ere 

consul ted. If a b,et'.ring l!a s necess 2. r one no1.,_l c. be conducted b~· the 

~· ield Assistant De1)1.1ty _· dr:~ini?tl' tor o.ssisted. b:• t11e "Local Coi!ln i ttee of 

Arbitration c-tnd Ap~o l." ::~ comnenc1a tions . fro1.:1 t he ComJ.ittee to t he 

Cocl e Authori r -r e:;.~e n e):t n ..--..de. The De· mt~r then Jre:p o. re l a dig e st on ea ch 

case ~rh ich he dtstributed to his acivisers. Leetinc-;s of the Advisers uere 

helcl .and recommendations '.'e::ce mac .. e inc1i vi <iuall~r ~.r each _.:,.ctviser i n 

memo r andum form. 1

rhe Cod e Authori t~r again cor.:es i nt o the ] icture being 

:1.1 oti ieo~ ~· the DeDu,ty Adn i n istra tor of :1is ci .. ecision f ort:=-eight h ours 

~o rio:;.~ to it be inc orficiall2r issued. If the Code Autho :;.~ i t :r Tias ~J~9 osed 

to the decision n ncle b:" the :Ue·:mt:r Adi1inistrC'.to r. one ;re el: 112.s a lloned i n 

1:hich it nigh t file briefs q:;.~ :::.1al::e :9 erson<;.l ~~ne c. o. .. i"l.ce . Th en the ord er 

'.7as fina lly issued, t he Deputy Ac1.ni :;-;.istra to r notif iecl both the Code 

Authori t 3r P.nd. t he ap·9licant. 

There rrere about one hund.recl old a?p licf',tions u ·'?o:·1 ha..'Yld. I t uas 

felt the.t sp eedv con sicler<.tion 1:i'2.S r.10re needed the:u:. the _ull consideration 

c_; i ven r t he . ~J ce du e outlined. These '::e re h~ lled upo::1 the ba si,s of 

f .::> c ts Gn t he r ed r a c:ue s t ionna ire drafted b·r the :O i vision of :1esec:.rc ... 1 

211d Plan:1ing . 

9038 
The cha n_:;e 01 the CO'l. trol 0 .. ·n·oceclurc .Lroll t1le 'l;l)l( r; 01 inclus trv 

to those of t: e 0 0V'rn:wnt did ·~ot 10.?-l t!1[t 11 d.ne l') ''Oc r:'C"'S 11 flJU1 6 .. be 

autourticc.ll:· su ··"J.ieo.. As h."f> ~)( JI1 s~ n t:10 ·ovC'":"ldO('lit oftc1, .l<iled to 

·Jrovice ··Jr or-er -oi' cecluro . }: · l'l , fail erl. to disclos8 :1.,n., i. : ortCl!t 

:.>nd ·ital rr.ct.,. Loco.L situ['.t io·1s ··e·c s1c' th., t it·· s ·.l1ost i1-

·oossible for ,'\ cell t rulizecl [' e .. tv d::..~c;:>ve:..· tlle :..·ee l J.O Ci..'.l cone i tions. - . ~ 

Sonetines sucll. f"' .~ chii. ,' ; :u:I.'Ol'T 't.t ion ·. ·u· ur.cov e rod th·'.t ,; e .. vn doubts 

a.., to t:1e <.'..<ie l, lc.."....::~r of the ±·e.ct- .. in:1in6 ·'-· :coce .. s · 'e:::-e en,_;enr' erod ( 55) . 

Difficult~· il establis :v: -~ rocedn e 111a·· be r~tt ri butod in ··>r rt to 

the '1i :;hl:r technical nn.turQ o":' t~te )rob l e·1 :'.A so1.~h t to C'1.d~1 nister . 

-r~ .. e c ertific?te. or 11..:.' }.i.e necL-ssit·r 2n co enience L.1 1e~l.i2.te r sugs:;ests 

a utility cor:ni ss io"l , 1.7i ~1 v::tlua t ion e~ :;-- erts , e 1r·inC'ers O/ severnl k i nds , 

r:--Ld cttorno~rs ·,::·.i t ici u:.,tLJ" i..F'C) oth side"' . :Dill seekine to de."'.l ·.ri th 

a "' l~ce inclustr_r co··erin.::; the c.1 t ire count1·;;r \ .'C' S l10t 0.G :.rcll equiuped a? 

~1 e ordine.. utili t ;y co ~r.1issio . Through C> ccident lO:~e t l ~n design 

several nttorneys =-11.C:. scve:cal -.··e:,:sons Tii t~ 1 utili t :r e:::-).c rience ':re re u sed. 

To in te:).li entl ~" cle t0rnine t'_e i ssues ··)resent er. 8. ·;l r·nned course 

Do..s. ne cossc r 3r. In .lr.rch , l9::3 b this fac t n r.s sur;ce sted to the .AC::.I1 i :".istrc.tion (56). Certa i n :;:'e1.cto1· :(l.ich sh oul ct ~e ccms id e::.~ ed ''!el.'e ··Joiated 

out~ The re r.1ust be d.eterni nec".. \Thethe r sufficient faciJ.i tie s exist in 

t e ··"'< rticular locality . The fo:!..lo· :inc cr-1est io:.:..s <..re :!.:1vohred.. 

1, Hon shall o..vc:lil e.ble ca·)aci t y 1.Je measurer.? 

2 . Ho Duc·1 i r.roort:;.nce sho11.1Q. · t~ 2. c .. 1 to avc il c::.b e stor.::.ge 

facilities in J..ea surinc cEn<?Nc i t y? 

3 . Hor; :-1an': re c:. sonc:bl r 2.T'.tici7r .t ed · otenti2.l denr.nd be e stim!'l.t ed? 

4 . Eon r.mch consid.e r c:.tion should be r_; iven to the ~1 oc.l ti-re 

Ca:':)aci ~ of ·)l r.n ts i n locnJ.i ties surrounding t he one U...'l.d.er 

c onsider ation? ( 57) 

The ne:;:t ste·o is to such .nc.jor .- robl en. s [' S n o:10uoli es <".!1d.. 

Mono·oolistic ~._-:> ctices , ·;rice , ser ice c-~11.d obs les ce :~ ce ( '-8) . If it 

is fe l t t h<:".t ~1en ca::_:Jac i t;-/ is d e 3ir ab l e the p robler1 of riho shoul d. furnish . .... . . t d ( r::::g ) ...., . 11 """Q , d ,. ']_ " . t t.. ~ . h . . lLo 1s .)l'esen e . , ..... . .c' l na =·, .,.:.A .tl8 r . .:',l eo. , 1n 1~ e c.:1.se OI ·c .. ls -ln-

<iustr:~ to c- ~9 t t~-e u su2l 1e J.;er.1 of. )ubl~c D.t i l i t J regul. tion thour;ht 

:~ ecess 17 to sc..fe c.,ual~cl t h e ·m1lic i n r e turn fo r '.rl ich u o--re rs of a ··:rt.'..blic 

gnur f'..n t eed. 11ono,.-po l _; ;;ue ed. ( 60). i'Tu\. h r'.o put the. ca :::-t be fore. the 

_orse . It t Len -~d f or; otten the horse . 

L2.ter ne:.wrur..da ( 61 ) sugcest ecl tha t i:i:r9o.Yt.:mt :wovisions· of t he 

Ice Code ':':'e r e not .::- r 01.mc.ed in a ·;:c·o·Je r i nter--'lret C" t i on of the und isnuted 

e conoEl ic facts , b·t .ere , :r·2t'1er, b a sed. o;1 t~le ::.~etical c.ssur:mtions and 

f a lle cious a rcument . 

If such alieg2.t ions '.":e re r.:::.d.e to the court ,- it ~ an ~ conv i n cing cas e 

to b<J.c...-:: then u:': t r . .;reat en~ot :- tion r:oulcl b.e ~() ::'.. ced u.~J ~.,. the courts to 

ul r consicler t he f a cts L1de en l. entl . Asicle f ro:.1 the ~mbs a"1 tive p roblem tne fore --,[' rt of tl1is study ill ustrat es .the r1any c::.iffi cul ties thut 

.!"!.rise from an a tteP.r?t t o establish 2.n ac1eo1:2.ate ··Jrocccl.ure. 1'he im.1edi a te 

~o~cob lern , and that is ~1 e one usuall·· ~) res~inc; u·0on the C' ~in istr tor 

9838 
- 94-

untrained in the n r oblems of 1;rocecl.ure, is not Tia~r s the one mlst 

needful of a ttention . The ea se of s h iftins t he bur d.en t o t h e Cod e 

Authority d id not ne an f a irne ss nor ~7as it desic necl to ~~ le c? se j u d icial 

re ouirements. r_rhe 0ro~o l~iety of cl elegation to t l1e Code Aut hol'i ~r a nd 

its agen.oies as 2.part fron procedure is t"1e subject of l e:'.ter considyration (62). 

III. LiALFEASAHCE (63) 

An c?.c3.ministra tion ha s a res ~; onsibili r to t h e pu"blic r<.n.d to t h ose 

ni th nhom it has cUrect dec:1lings fo~c t h e lwnest;7 , sl:ill a:.1d the nee ligence of its e,geJ;Lts and those -to Tihom it entru.sts p oD'er (64). In its 

ea rly days NRA had little check over the 8.ctivities of its Code 

Authorities ( 65). This rras 1?F1r tly clue to haste in coL,Pleting 8l1 organization c.>.nd the lJrevC".lence of t he industry self-g overnment l10tion, 

with its corollary that li:'lA should c1iscourage the appearance of control 

over code authori t i?s• The f1:~ll va lue tha t could ha ve b een had fro11 

the.clevice ·of administration members upon code auth orit ies nas never 

fully realized (~6). Su 9ervision of c;de authority c?.ctivity rTa s demanded. by the vast JOTie ~: s of g overnment redelegated to t he cod.e 

authorities (67). Tha t NRA recognized the need for such a check is incHea ted by .the creation of the office of Code Ac1ministrc:.tion Director 

( 68) and the issuance of orders to emplo~rees to be a lert for abuses of 

p 0'7er (69). 

A cannon form of abuse l 1:1y in code e,uthori t y i n terp ret a tions of 

code p rovisions T7ithout N?.A ~; provaJ. (70). The anowalous y osition o~ 

code authorities gave to these "inter:;>reta tionsll the force of laTI in 

the ninds of nost members. Illustrative are a series of code authority 

ruling s for the California Sf.'.rdine Processing Industry ( 71). These 

rulings attempt to do such things c-.s establish TI<.rehousing a nd other 

charges (72), g ive the code authority a control over the figuring of 

cost for contracts (73), set up a formula to deternine dep recia tion in 

figuring cost (74), and p revent publicity being g iven to p rice lists 

(75). There nas no basis in the code or approved cost-2.ccounting sy stem 

for the action 2.ttemp tec1 : these ruling s (76). 

:?..esponsible J:TRA officia ls n ere sometimes connect ecl :7ith such 

activity. Usually interested officials knen i7hat a ction ha d been t nJ.;;:en 

b;,r the code authority. It was their :0c:.rticuiar res1;onsibili t y to know. 

l:norrledg e a nd quiet ac0uiescence or disinterest in nha t the code autn.ori ty 

did rri thout actual knorTledg e are both op en to severe critic ism. Even 

P1ore ouest ionable r:o..s the <>.ction of officials :~ Ur::? ort n~ to ap}Jrove 

ruling s or lending sc?.nction r their ·9resence a t t he tin e of action to 

the authorities r a ctivities uhen regular lffiA :::> rocedure '\72..S not follon ed. 

Ruling s ere L1[1.d.e ni thout authority , nhen the Aciwi n is tr tor d never 

delegated the p orrer to maJce such ruling s, or Dhere u rocedure called for 

c onsul tat ion of 2.dvisers .:md publice.tion t lrrou::;h Code ::-'.ecord. The i1all 

Pap er Code ( 77) rovides that t he "fa ilure to llr'..L1 t a in an c:clequate 

diff erential in selling p rices to t he ':".'holes c?.l e r o..nd retP..iler 11 . is an 

unfa i r ' method of cor:roet i tion ( 78). In July , 1934 the xe cu~i ve Con-

;·1i t tee of t he Hall Pap er i.Ianufa cturers a nd. W1olesa le Cod es n et. Tr:o 

lT?.A officials u ere u resent (79). As a result of t h is conf e rence a ruling 

UG. S 11.?.de Up on the question of an ll :,de qu a te (tif feren tia lll to be 11 binding 

9838 
upon the Indurtr~- and to be obse rved by all rna 1uf'1ctur .rs 11 (80) . I t 

''<:'..s not l..lLlt iJ. nir!e Tll On ths a~ r tha t :·JiA ectc.cl 1.1., on this rulin -; . It 

then cl se ~1p roved it ( 81 ). The sf\m indu try issu ed l ther ruling s upon 

import 2nt nw ttE' rs un ·e r simile r cond ition s. 8~~ . 

Otl,e::..· g r nve exces8e s of pome r Oo...;currcd. Tr e Pape r Napkin Indus cry 

assume(i to act a r. an i nde-:_1en dent su1Jdivi'""'ion of the Pepe r and Pul p Indust -

ry ( 83 ) [J..lthough it had n evel' been '" i \ren u divi siona.l code b;r t h e lTRA 

( 84) . 

Tb.e Shipbuilclins and. Sh ,~ epairin ; I ndustry ( 85 ) feeling that an 

eme:i.':_;c~1 y lc.bor sit;. ·at ion ::- ~. d in t he f a ll of 1933 allo\"'Ted. membe:i.~s of 

the indust::..·y to' di~reg rd the mo.xhmm h our p rovl'""lOns of the code ( 86). 

:rhe De mt;y f o r· tl e industry was p r · sen t a t me etings of the Code Au thority 

and kneu that such action vrras t aken (87). The industry neve r requested 

Q.Il exeiT•)tion or amendment to e llo,, thi r. p ractice, end it was not until 

Janua17 1935 that the Adm inistrc tion evinced cm;y int e rest in these open 

violation s of the Co ~e ( 88 ). 

The 1-.ien ' s Clotn ing Indu<·try ( 89 ) purpo t ed to i ssue 11 approved interpretc.t ion s 11 a llowing individual excep tions and class exemp tion s from code 

p rovisions 90 )~ 

A :_) revision against [1,c ce:rt ing !'eturn o.f ·,··orn c-J n d Tiashed garment s ( 91) 

in the Unde :;::gr-.rrnent and Ne-':rJ. i t:·ee Code ( 92 ) re..s made the basis for the 

establishn ent by the Code .A:0. thol~ity of' a bureau to pass upon the n::- ec1 

for adjustraen t under the Code or gannen ts returne d ( 93). Similarly, the 

fact the.t ne:nbers of the Corse t and Bra ssiere Indu s try (94) were not to 

accep t jlayments of account '~trhere exc ess d i s counts we re taken b e came the 

basis fo:i.1 [n optione.l pl an ,~he by t h e Cocie Aut hori t ;y- 1.:ent into the c ollection busine ss (~ ). The p rop ri e ty of a trade ass ociation is not a 

qu est ion he re. The probl em ·-·a s tha t of an unauthorize d a.ssurnption of 

p ower by a code authority of d 1ich the NRA. had. f ull law vrledg e ( 9 6). 

NRA Tie,s res!Jonsi ble fo r :;:Jart i l /3,CJIJ ini str0.t ion of p ricing provisions. ' In a i1UIJbe:;:· o:t' indu stries s·L<.ch ·.;rovision ::; we re no t u sed. except to har£',ss 

members th'ou..;;ht' to be flou t o:::· linen ( S? ). Co e r c i on r code authorities 

to ~:ee~) ~~ l.~ices up was a ll t oo comr:1on ( 98 ). 11 Sut;gest i on s" e.s to pl.~i ce , 

thmJ.{~h not of as seriouE a chc.,racter ,.,,ere no t usually contempl a.ted by the 

cocle l~ov i 'sions in con·1e ct i on with ,.,h ich they ,-,ere mad.e ( 99 ). All such 

actions -.-,fl re t he co d.e aut.h or i ty ct e c3. i~1 .xcess of its p o'.i':'ers, since 

they ·::el.·e not protected_ b;y any _p ort i on o f the Ac t or a. code made ~pursuant 

the reto , the code authority a ctin-: in excess of iJcs pO'."'ers, we r e in violation of the An t i-Trust Acts. As FRJ,~ :n a d the r e sponsibility for rnc:tldng 

codes . s"JD£ pendL'lG these l a';'s and. f or the crea.t i on of c ocie authorities it 

should. not have i dl y a llO\'ed sucL a c t ivi t i es to pass unchell eng ed. '] his 

was the a t t itude exp r essed by memb e r s of the Senate 1',ine..n ce Cornrr:i ttee in 

its h eaJ..'ing s up on NRA. (100 ) • Price f i x i ng a.11C. price control v"l'ere often 

a ccomp lishe d by 11 rul ing s 11 c:md schedule s i Esu ed by cod.e authorities in 

add.i t i on to the 11 suf:ge stionsfl an<1 coerc ion . rhis , 'as particula rly t:i.'Ue 

of 'che cod.cs in the 2~ ph ic a rts g roun (101) • .b. Divis ion Administrator 

even sou;;ht t o i ssue as offi c ial a fi Price Deterrlination Schedule" base d. 

upon the ~):tice list s ··•hich h a d been procla i meC... to the g raphic arts industry 0~: ) by i t B co d.e aut ho rity as 'binding (1 03 ). 

9838 
- 96-

Proyi sions st a t ed i n g ene r al l angua ge c apabl e of numerous interqret a tion s s e r ved a s clubs t o be held ove r t he heads of eak or un i forme d 

i nd.ustry menb ers who could n ot afford to ha ve t .roubl e by challeng i ng the 

co de authority (104 ). · 

Officia ls of NRA in a ddition to t he si t u a ti on a lready p oi n t ed out 

d i d. n o t o.l1ays f ·Lllly live up to t he r esp onsibilit ies of their p osi tions. 

On e ajo :;.~ :p r obl em bring i ng up thi s p oi:r -'.; was t he syst em of '' sel e c tive 

justice " use d by NrtA in ros tin ~ v iol a tors (105) . The u sual hea:;.;~ 

of j u stice is tha t ' '7'h en vio ~:. ions . a re b rough t t o t he a t tention of ::. 

re sp onsibl e administra tion they will. b e p ro s e cuted. No si ngl e off i c i [l 

or ·~~ l' U}J of officials can b.e held to be rem i ss f or t h i s. I'hi s nas 2~3..~ 

p olicy for '~.rhich the A6minist r a tion a.s a wh ole was re sp onsibl e . 

NRA officials knevr of a t hre a t tn:::tde by p erson s associat e d wi th ~ 

cocLe aut.hori ty to push old cTi mina.l char .g;es aga i n st the execut ive s e cret al~ of s rival code author ity unl e s s he r esi gned h i s p osit ion ( 106) . 

The exe cutive secretary r efused. t o re s i gri . • He ."'as a r:te st ed, but t h e 

cha r ges V?ere ·dropped a s the f a cts ino.ica t ed the r e h a d been no r eal cri me 

CO!i1L1 itted. lJRA never took any ac t i on t o p r e ven t such p erson s, a s t h o s e 

making the threats, from serviw; up on a c ode au t ho r i ty. 

· The mo st honestly conc e ive<i a c tions el e not always t he most l e g '-'l • 

The Consume rs' Advis ory Board f ee r e6. the de cl a r ation of emergencie s <:>n ~ 

the result ing price-fixing . It, the r efore , conse \ t e d to alloV' on3 of i ts 

a <tvisers t o g o. to Cincinnati a s ;.;. r ep r esen t a tive of t he Deput y Admi n i stra to r s in charg e of the Bak ing Co de (107) and en te r into neg ot i ations 

with loca l bak ers there lead ing to a g reements by t ho s e bakers wi th ee.C!l 

other est ablishing certa,in minimum p rices (lOB) , 

Such a s-r e ements were made and follo wed fo r. a conside r able p eri od .• 

The r e rra s no basis ·in the c ode f or such action ' ... h i ch P a'? of t h e ;y~ e no t 

favo r e d. by the Anti-Trust Lav:s. 

The e:,:amples observed ind ica t e ins tanc es of ma lfe asance. Rea son s 

may b e off ered why th~y oc cu r r ed. Still, a dministra tion should earnestl y 

· l a bo r to avoid malfeB.sance upon the p a rt of its office rs and delegates. 

As t h e Ac t g ::c ew to its clo se serious effo r t s were made in t h is d i r ect i on . 

If t he p .roblem he"d been fully conside r ed a t an ea.rli e r date , p e rhap s , 

even more could ha ve be en d one to ·orevent ma l - a dministration. 

9830 
- . 7-

CP API''ER XII 

CC.J 1PLIAFCE .A ~ E~"FCJ2':CEI :E r~ 

~CTIVITI S 

ThA u r CPdure 1.1.s=H:l in this fiP l d ~' .- nr; '"'l<"'r~ ~uhjClr.t tr r.LPnl,R thAn 

that in tl o co dP- m ld n ror e>s. . Th~"rofor,.,. , it is 11oro d1.fficult to 

g i VP ;:m acrurP tP dPsrri,Jt.io.l . C l'tr: ::.n in.h"'r<=>r:t 1 imi t<' t ions rhouJ d be> 

obse>rvPd . ThP. r.l8S "' o ndmini str :>tiv8 l~ l tion 'IV< \ S sn trP l"'ndous that 

,-;: ~ c-,-, · it contPinod. r ""CI 1.re>'11Rnts '"'hich 'f'!!PrP. hi.zh e r tl1"n the> common 

u r ccticP P-n o r cem .n t reps r:.ruirod (l), :::?. • . '_. c ~lsci<"'usJ.y strovP. to 

r"iSP both tr, dP ·o rar.ti<~o ~nd J b 0 1; nnrticn l. arly the> lP.ttor, s t andards. 

JihR t r oJTlondous aMount 0f onf0 rc 1"ln.t Pnd ed,,c~tio'1al act ivity nP.cessa.r y 

to make t hP. structure> er e>ct iv"' c<n bP. [llJDroc i Rt"'d. As thR 'Jatriotis'TI 

of thP. initi 1 dri ·o t;<' '"' ,_,r,y t 0 c: 1Tl0rP. ~r r;t iC l viE\,..':.w int, Pnd enforcP.ment O<'\CF1r1El t h P. nPP.d, d i +'fi cul tv dP.Ye>l01J80 in thR.t t h e> incroC'l sing 

a r my of insu e>ctors did. n0t k<=><"n ·)p CP. r.ri th t he> d.emC' nds ri'}Eld.A unon it. A 

comul i ancP. d i vi!:: i on '"<' s f irs t 0 r grmi zPd nvPr six lTlonth . Pftor lT ..,_ .• A. 

"Wf'lS initietRd. Non-corn)J.iPn ce> hao b~r the n brnken domn T'lan;v code>s ( ? ). 

Even aftP-r t hP. Corrro lie ncP. Divis ior.. cmnP. it J ong occuo i ""d an i rrmo tPnt 

ucsition (3) . 

Much of N.R.A. t s uu ruoso could hav~ bP"'n P.cco r-:D 1 ishCl d ,.,i thout the 

torrific CO JTil') lie.n cR -,_rob lP.m. It '''<'S tho inCl:ustriP.s or trr>O.PS CO ITIDO S"'d 

almost P.nt iro ly o:f srn<"'ll units th<' t "0 rP.sP.n tPd sur;h te>r:··i b Je> rocorCl s of 

n n-com·')li;:mc P. . es to rnp 1cR H lJUb lic .j okR 0f H. R. A. co o.e> ro ol.-iire>ri'}Pnts (4) . 

It T'<T8S in t hP. rotP.il tr:>dP. , t he> :rotn il f<"'o cl a nd g ro oe> r y t :n.,de, th9 rP.sta.urPnt businP ss, :-1 utomotivP. ·_m.rts C'lnd e(1uium~"mt r~hl. i1 tra.de P. no. t h e> 

bP.k~r' industry t }1at g r e>flt masses of violat ions a ro sP. through i gnorr-mce , 

r ofusP l to bP. r hards Js :r:"'E?lll ting fro!"l unre:-1.s onablR code> u rovisil)ns, 

or dP. sire> to e:ain Pdventr- £'9 S t h rnuR:h Labor or tr~~d e> n r p r.tic P.s t o offs~t 

a c .::> nt~ ,e: e>s of- bP-tt or or _.,ani zAd co "'ti tors ( 5) . S1tua t ion ,...,hPrP. no in-

~rs ~te> comrne>r ce> could bP. f ound Plso 'Jrqse>nt e> d bpffline; Droble>ms to 

co mol nc~ offic8r s (6). HP.r~ th8Y me>re> usually contP-nt to }At PP-11 

en UlSh alo!lP. .-

' The inndequacv of the> staff num8rir.P.lJ y np..s vi F~ J. ~T o mat tAr what 

t hP. tre inin Or 8bili ty Of ind ividual S tr1ring to S<3CUT9 COr1Dlianco ma.S, 

thAr"'l "T8rP. !lOt the> physicP.l lllLT":lb9!' S to C0 -") 8 rnith thP. major Viola.tion s, 

1 ot a lono thP myripil nf "IAt t.y "n~s . Ino.us trio,s c e.n b9 charg"'\d mi th a 

g r opt cl~.,o: re> o of r os)0nsib ility . Either f Ri ling to undorst<=~nr. t hq nat""J.rP. 

of 1 ...,"7 e.nd C'ld nistr~tinn nr -i n t he> ir g r e>o(l_ to strr->ipht-ja ck"?.t industri3l u r Pr.ticq countlPss si1J~r and l.me>nfor c P. nb le> 1-:lrovis ions "TA r e> mad.e 

l e ''T• Cu r re>cPnt P.XD"'ri <:> nce> wi th national ··; rl)h i b it ion sh 0u1 d ha.ve> f u rnishe>o. a narnin . It nrps hP.od.o(l_ by fon . As a r~ sult th"' viole tiC' n s we>r8 

so n1.1!:1e>:rous thP t the> foclRra.l eli strict P..tt('rn--=ws F\.nd t ho DP.partrnP.nt of 

Justice would have> bo n smanued by 1-J . R.A. n rosecutions a lonE'! had ev"'lry 

violBtion boon tP k9n to court (?). 

o,-m Law cr"'Pt"'s nPw u robl 8ms of int"'r-0 r "'\ t Pt iC'r. . It is doubtful if 

anyo n"' concqivod tho vPst numbqr of C1U"'stions this nc,-r lpw moulo. eng"'lndor. As fi qJ. d r1e>n could. not issue> i n te> r'Jrotpt i<"' ns the mhol 8 ·o roce>ss 

of 8nforc ement r Pn into Pn administr:o.t i >r"" "b ot t lP. nP.ck in that such r:1att "" rs had to cl<=!Pr bG.cl':: through t ho "1rsh ingto n off icq (8) . LikP.'•is q fiAld 

ffiPn we rq f pr from fully eauiuDP. d -rr i th mat e>r i al rolating to the> 1?'"7 thP.•r 

9838 
- 98-

'"~ere to enforce. It '~as quite fr~ qu~nt th2 t fi~lo. m~n did not evAn have 

CODi~ s of co de s th~Cly we rP. to h e l n administP.r. Th8 n roblPm of the field 

acljustAr a.nd his su-o~ riors in th~ fi~ld ,...as diffi~ul t enou.sh Aven ha.d h e 

b~en g bren all th~ a.ssistencA desira-ol e in th~ form of int ernrAt Fl.ti()ns, 

co •J i~s of cod~s At~. (g). The sA m~n 'had· to b oth find fHcts and a~:mly the 

law to thosA fants ~ 

The first a0tivity had to do '"lith P ,R.A. 8nforc~mont • . AgPn,cies 

kno vrrn a.s 11 L0ca.l N.:S..A. ComDliance Bo a rds" 'q)'e rq ~m lo yed (10). Here the 

anp ro a ch was one 0f du~ E1 t ing Armloy~rs to 1 iVA uu to the agreAment ( 11) . 

T·h-is means mF.l.s short-lived and "7Fl s soon rqDJ.a.c e d. by the Co rrro l ianc ~ Division. 

Th~ . charter for Code Comnl iancA is found in 11 11anual for thA Ac.justme·nt of Comula.ints 11 (12). ThA rAst of tha t titlA rARCl.s 11 by State Directors i 11-d Code Authori tiAs 11 • It oDpea.rs the.t adjus tm~n t '7f1.S to b A s~cured ·not a1one bJr government of ic~rs but b ;.r Cod ~ Authori t i As . In p~t , 

this wa s th~ clea rJ.~r stFltAd lJO lic'r of thA Aclrll inistrFtt ion ( 13) . 

It is TJtTell rocogn.i zed. t hr, t P0.1'1ini st:c.! ~ t i vo ~d ud. :. t icn req_uirs a 

mu~h high~r stRnCI.A.rd of •')rOcAdUTF\J d:;J.P. Dror.ess of la,.,. than adrrlinistrati ve legisla tion ( J.4). NP.A, b>r its v ery · ~hem~~ ff!c8CI th~ diffi~ul t 

n:robl8m of enforcing law mar3.8 b>r F.t. najori t v· will of t ~ ind ::.stry nDon 

a dissenting minority (15). If ~e sRme lam had b~on ma~~ b,r· stFltUtA 

ther~ mould have lik~"'is~ bAAn this majority-minority su li t, 'l)ut the 

feAling T)TObPbly mould not hR V~ b"" '""n Fl S intAnso h11.d. Con£;rAss n? s sAd 

thq l P.'I'IT as in CBS~ . wher~ 8. . grOUD Of C0rril')e t i tors n18.de tho J.A,-. b>r --:>Ati-

' tion t0 NRA. 

As ha;:o. b~An r~ ePted ly :.w in ted out~ the N • I • R.A. 1 s DrOcAdural 

scheme was entirely UR'"'• Its Anforc"!ment roc~o urR "Tas no P.XCeDtion. 

ThA only crimAs d~fined b>r th~ Act '"'ArR violations of a dministra tive 

action - Code <Jrovisions and rules 8.no. r og;,_la.tions u rou P.rly 0 roscribRd 

by the President (16). o method s of ~nforcemRnt ~er~ Drovided: (1) 

the rAgulA.r ')rocessP.s of th8 F"ldera.l Tr d~ Commission, a.nd ( 2) direct 

'P roceedings bv fe·dP.ra l di'strict E>.ttorneys (1.7). NRA s~t UD elaborate 

urocedur~s, but for P consider~blA ~o rio d of ti ~ ~adP. littl8 effort 

to usA th~ methods of P.nforcement u roiridAc3. in the Act ( 18) . NRA ur8- · J. 

s~ntAd the ~Jnusuc:tl SlJP.ct acle of an attem11 t to enforce deleg?ted l"!P:islation by m~ditation, concilia tion, arbitrC" tion B.ncl OJ ac tic ll r a.ll othP.r 

wa.ys thean thosA suec i.fied in the Act (19 ). ThPre \'flas creptod a vast 

sy st<:=lrn of 11 com lia~ce 11 r,trith no l:l ~cifir. stPtutor·y bPsis th8 t long re-

:olac8Cl. thP. n~' mforcern8nt 11 Methocls 0f tho Ar. t (20). 11 E'1forc~T11ont 11 T'Tfl S 

not h a d ag?.inst F111 kno"rn viol8.tors of tho Act. Instead :or~ssure, 

thrP.fl ts, Dr0mises, and Fl jOl~="r~r wora t he COP.1m0n TTl~ans . Only in thP. oxtraorCI.in8r;'l C8 se was r ""sort had to P.nforcP"1P.nt, so tha t the rstem 

could be rightf11ll;r c.o:'!.llP.d onA of 11 s e1Act ive justic811 , ( ?1): ActuPl 8nd. 

-oossible meth0ds of 11 comDlir-tncP. 11 u rosent thP.msalvP.s i n bomildAring array. NRA codP. s woro frO"'l O'l A Fl.ST)P.r.t liCAUS 0 s g rPn tad bv tho Pro siCI.ent 

(or b y NRA). As such, thP.y could havo b ean susuonded or rP.vok~d for 

u rOpPT CRUSP. ( 8? ). Vne 111eth0d -rrhi r.h COUJ d have 0 on uso (l_ to ~Oerco 

ob 8CI.iPnCA from lJP.rsons or firms b~nefi tinf! f ro 111 t he codes w0uld have 

been t0 have suspended th8 code of t he industr y . The m~8knF>ss was that 

this would not securP. cor•r0li8n co fr\ITTJ -,)orsons or firms n0t intore st8d 

in thA code and not assPnting to it, nor r~u ~ it qven SR~UrP conformity 

9838 
from int st d mP.mb F> r s 0f t. hA i nr ust.r .v e1 n0 a~ ~'>l"l Prs ' m l "'s' tho br.l l ;mr.A 

of b ' .nAfi ts to thP. incl1s r v C'Ut ""'i }1'·· d t h"' u . dPn (' +' th"' n rt i0n O"'si r od . 

f simil?cr ~h rt=l~t. o '"'<"' tho "ithc.' r~ -, Fl l o f h~ 11 b l uf"J ; f" l "' 11 • G•m or nl 

JohnSOn Vf8 o iffibU~'>d ""ith thA i QACl Of ffi? ci , t hP. 11 1U~ f' C" ll th ~ ~ Tffih 0l 

of a g rAf\ t MOr['l c:tu:::>?d'"' f0 r , o t to r co!ld i ti0 ns in in ustr r r l f1b or, "'0 

th t its ,. i thd:cp.-qn wou ln ·o J.. C"' a n u nb :'1 r" ' 1 :. s t i f"TTJP UY1 0n a n ro n"' lo in?~ 

th<=l right to d is'Jl?v it. This mi rht ha ~" r.ir ~nm1r <=l nt "'d s omP. of thP AP"£1 1 

diff icu lty 0f DOT'TArs (,...,3) . L;=t tAr, it , ... FI s"'nn thC't 0i ir.ul ~s o a 

morP. t ochnir.pl but just p s s Ar ious na turP could ht=1 r o C'"l "' 0ut of this 

mPthod . Aft<=lr e llomin USA r indu stry, ha t ho F!OV"'rnm<=lnt ? DrC'torta blP. 

intoro st in thn "lA r : , and i it di d , wf1 s i t on"' t could b o CPDrir.iC'US1~ exprcis<=l ? From t ho TTJOrt=l l RSn <=lct t h8 ,,othC' cl s~PTTJP. d to P.njo. "'Rrlv 

succ~ss , but ,hAn thA SFIT'r'l 0 11 l u o P. .P-:1 <=! 11 'FI~ ,.ithcJra ·-rn for n Atty trt"de 

prA.ctice infrt=lctions in vrhich th~ 1)Ublic s cwr nr h u.ma n<=l CAUS<=l , it lost 

much of its si nific?nc<=l. Thnn too, FIS t ho forvor of tr"' crusR dP. n('r8 

off, ':Fin~ con sum<=lrs cl id not c .'"' rof ully inq'.lirn rrhPth"'r th~ ch"'PU <=l r of 

liko articles was mRdP. [' nd sold. undAr th<=l 11 bluA ~Pglo 11 • This discussion, 

also , aupli es to thP. USC! of NP.A l a.bels for 11 com·n ~ i ancP. 11 uurDOS"'S. 

t1ore uract i cc>l , but quit~ 2 s unusual wa s 11 cor.1 lianc~ 11 by boy~ott . 

He r q th~ ov rnm~nt r~fuso(l tC' lot ~ontr?r.ts to lonr bi cl 0~rs nho had not 

signP.d a. cprtifiC<"'t "' of com,,liFtncP. (?4). Th~ Comp trollAr C·P.nA r a l 1 s dAcision uuon this me thod m8r"' nAv""r con iv~ . ( 25). De. J.'t G this· i t ·.·.,,Ylll d 

hav"l only bP."'n Aff Activo a gPi nst indu.striP.s and inc.Uviclua1 comDAni"1s "ThO 

moul0. hav"' soriousl" fo 1 t th<=l lo.ss of OV C!rnm~ n t busi nP. s s . Th8 VO'l }UC! of 

this CO'lOl i ancP. form vrill Drob < b ly nAvor b~ 1-:nor:n ( ? 5a) . 

As has boon sugg ost"ld th~:;:-"l ' 'FIS C.!'l jolory , ~duc f' tion, uorsuasi on, 

throat<=lning, and r.ruch l oud talk a nd blust~T , d~s it"' th8 fact that it 

'ITas Y:no'r'!n that th8 courts d id not look ':"" i t h fF1vor u·0on soTTJe of thes"l 

m<=lthods ( 26). 

There C'TAr<=l efforts r>t 11 comu l i a nce 11 thP.t a.lmost amnunt"1o to a n atteffiDt by WRA. to lift i tsoJ:f by its ')ootstrFJDS. Provisions wP. r<=l p la.c8d 

in codes that CodP. Authoriti~s might su8 to collP.ct d8linouP.nt a ss"lssl"l"'nts (27). This was d.P. lP.gPtC!d l8 islF1t on rri thcut thP 11 c18l8gA.tP.d11 • 

H~rP. rras an attemut to AnforcP. sub-legislt=l.tinn r oth~r and not euthorizAd sub-lAgislation, unless thA P.nfC'rr.~m<=lnt methods of thP. Act mqrC! not 

in t"lnded to be ex~lusi V"'. Ano th~r such moans us~o. wer"1 t hP. co dP. '0 rovisions allowing liC1u i d.atod dernag o egr~"'111Ants ov ino.ustry Tl1~ Tilb"'rs . DP.sDitP. 

an o·0inion by th<=l Attornev-G~nA:r l condPTY"Jning 8 . simile.:r ·orar.tic"1 b;r th8 

FAd~rC'll Alcoho 1 Control Admini stretion e s unC1:u.thcri?.: ecl by h~ Ar.t ( 28) , 

NRA n c ti "ll;r P.TTJDlov~cl this mo.thod unt il th"' suring of 1935. 

" Comoli FtncA 11 , und0ubtP.dl r, cen 'J o ntt:::- i bu t"1d i 1 u a.rt to th~ i!lao.equac of th<=l 11 P.nforc8m"1nt 11 TTJ~a ns n rovid8d bv thA Act. ThA FP.d~ra l TrP.de . 

Co mmi ssi on "PS n0t ropdy to d"l r.l Fl r~ eny ~OCP. v ioJa.tion an"unfair m~thod 

of comD"1ti tion" "l'i t hin the J11P.aning of tho. FC!dC!r-3.1 Tr an.P. Co mm ission Ac t 

( ?9) . Ev"1n had it boon ,.,.illing, -it is doubtful i f it ''ITC'Uld_ h av"1 a.fforded 

a succ8ssful TTJC!thod (30). A s-o"lcial aclministrRt i ve c0urt mi gh t havP. b"1"1ll 

a h"llDful enfor~o.mant ? f'"lncv (31), but t hA ~X')o rionc~ of th"' sho rt-liv8d 

comm"1rC<=l court shculd not b~ f orgott en ( 3?) . 

At 8rrro t s of th~ AclministrRtion to a.llorr indivi duals to su~, or of 

98 38 
- l t1Gindividua ls to sue, and in fAr.t 'llJ.ch co rrml an c~" a.ctirit:y i.£;!10rAd. 2 

strong line of CFlS"S Psteblishod undo r th9 a.nti-trust lavrs (3~) to thP. 

effP.c t tha t only th~ r~rn ediA s 7J rnvided ~n t h A Act mi ght be US Ad ( 34) . 

Not only did such 8Ctiv itios i F:;nnro this 1in_P. of casPs, but it aonarently norAd the a~ A principlA sta tod by th~ courts in rP.fArencA t o the 

NRA ( 35) • Tho SA s ·o rAvAnt ed DAr sons fro r11 suing to ~"nforce thA 

sta tuto; they d.i d so 0n the announcAd. ·orinci0 lA th::> t nrtlY thA rArnodios 

of the Act wero a vn ilC'b lA, 

Finally thA P.mpha si s mFts shifted_ to Anforcement ( 36) • This d id 

not immed.iate l y 1 ift 8.11 cloud from NRA activit iA s in this fiAld. Although it ha s beAn considAl~od l aw thB.t CongrA ss metv makA th8 violption 

of an a.dministrc? tivA rogu_l a t..io n a penal offl=l nS"'l (37), th8 uso of d iscr"'tion in th"l · sAJ.P.ctiv~ annlication of Anf orcAmAnt "~S still quostionable (38) as "'l'e·r o thP. continuol~ uso 0f M8t.hods not authorized by thA 

statute. A snecified aid to "'lnforcAmP.n~ - t h P. rAauirorn ont of rAno rts 

and keAping of F.V ~ounts- nP.s "'lStC? b lishoo_ by thA Ac t ( 39) , but as has 

bP.<=>n suggP.st"'ld its US8 should hav"'l b"'l"'ln Mado sparin{d y Anr mi th an ~re 

to thA decisions of thP. c0urts (40). 

Complaints originatod fro m snurcos outsio_q nf NRA (41). ThAy r>"ere 

usually teleDhon d in or sAnt in th"'l form 0f R lettor bv so~P. into rP t~d 

pArson. This pArson mi ght bA an Am-JloyeP. mho fA~ t that he hAd bean 

wrongAd, an interostP.d_ n orson o."'lsirin.o; to secure justicA :f'or Pn A~Dlo ;r

ee, a comuAtitor, or evon a ~P.d ler. NPA it ~lf mad8 no qf:f'orts to sP.-

curA co:r1u laints 'until in its final staP.'as it inau gurP tA d. d rivos 0f 11 mass 

comnliance" wherob v pn industry '•as sAlect"'ld 8.nd insDAc tors wP.ro a s si gnAd 

to ca.rAfully check the comY)li a ncA in thet uarticulpr industry. Com-

·ola.ints might n.lso come from code Fl.uthori t v a f" "'l nts rrh0 bar. bo!:>n unn.bl8 

to ao just tho COffiDl a int bV tho ·'')rOC8SS0 S ithin tho C00.0 PUtho rity . 

Roughly, comulaints mi ght bA clividP.d as 75;6 concArnin.e: lAbor n r0•isions 

a nd_ thA rAma.inde:r conc<>rning tr!l rP. nrar.t ir.o Y'Jr0vi sions. In thP. case of 

industries having no trP.dP. Dr?..cticP._ corr>')l a ints COT'Jr:J.i tteos, corrr')laints 1'78r8 rC\fP.r:r"'ld to th"'l Ad.T'linistrPti0n dir"'lctlv . In a<3.o.ition, if thA co rn-

'_9 lainant or thA rAS1JOndE=mt fAl t th~ matt~r woul0. not rAceiv"'l Droner 

attAntion at 'the hands of th~ cod"'l authority , he coul cl c:> '~"'"'Fl'.7 S dAmand 

that off icArs of th~ ComoliancP. Division handl"'l thA mattAr. · 

AftAr thA comnl a ints caMP. in th8y werP. r"'ldUcAd to a suAcific form 

as a mattP.r of a dministra tive convAniP.ncP., ThAy wA rP. thAn analyzed to 

determine 111That -o rovision of a DarticulAT codA hac. ·oAan violat"ld. If 

. ther"'l we re no substpncP. to t h8 com"'lla.int, P.i thP.r s a mat t Ar of l aw 

or evidencP.. or if it mq ro obviously a 11 crank11 comoJ.aint, it mi ght be 

rejected. If it 'I"Te rA not Anonymous it moulcl urobably b e r"'lturned to 

thA . s·Ander ".''ri th the AXDlana t irn of thA rAe> son it hFld bRAn so tr<=>ated. A 

comp l a int tht=1t ''ITA.s accep tAd wa,s next ulac8d. up on thA docket. This 

meant tha t some forma l d islJo si tion had to bP. ~adA of such c a.sos. TherA 

we re ma ny CCl.sAs placP.:d uuon the docket in mh ich no formal a ction 'I"Tfl S 

eve r t aken. This mi ght r Asul t from thA fpc t that thA corml a ints involved difficult quP.stions of int"'lrpreta tirn whi ch had nevP.r bAon sAt-

. tlP.d. Ther .. A "rrer ~=> a. numb Ar of nstC'In C~ S r•herP. thes~ SUS1J AndAd CClS0 S became so old a nd such a burden lll')On AfficiP.n t adr'lini strP t i0n the.t the. 

werP. wi ped off the o.od-:At in T'!hO l P.sP.lP. lots. 

Aftor thP. comu l a int '"l'PS turned ovor to t h"'l '1r ouor official, 8i thAr 

9838 
. 

J. -

hA F~bo r comnlaints o iic~r or tho tTrc1P. nr~r ic.~ r.o ml~ints offic"'r , 

it r•o s :-ssign•c1 to c-m '"lt just ... ... ~. his NljU to ~ "'. C'l 'l 0 S "' " i.mon t:""~nt 

in t h-=- schP.m0 • of COT1'11 iancP boc t' US~ hr:> r"'1)ro s on t o(1 th'"l first cont,, ct 

of go ornmP.nt nith thP inoivi URl . 'l ho ?Clju.Jto- '"' ~"'"\ J d S"'llC [' lr:>tt or 

to tho rF;Js-ryondP.nt, stP in t.h,.,. ch.'""~r f' "' '-'1-)ir.h liF~ d. ~n mc'""t.d r.. a r o.inst him 

ano t'sking hin to C"ns,-· hf'tlv"r thP. c.h['rf"P •va ... tru~ or not, < n-1. to 

st('lto, i f t:ru.P., T"ha.t hafl bopn don"' to rPctif r thn violn.ti n , end. if not 

tru~, t Str>tP hi v c ·•siOn nf th~ f"'r~t ' • A C(Yn y 0 t hn r.o(lo involv~ d. 

Pncl. an o ::ola n tion n f tho '!r:>Rning o. en.1r -;-> F~rticulr':r n r0vision in olvod 

miE;ht b~ .,...,nt ?lonf' .-r;i.th this ]Pttor. At t.hr:> SC'I J11.1!l tbl 0 tho CC'l~]Fiin nt 

.,..,..,S notifir:>c1. that Fln invosti PtioP '"'<'S 1 °i1'1,f' Iil .r:> e1 n0. tll;' t, h<=l mnu1t1 bP 

in ormr:> o"!' its r~sults. If no r ul r "'"S ho('l:-0 :frnM this lr:>ttor, tno 

othor lP.ttors ,-.P.r<=l seont, thP ] C'lst On" infOJ'J11.i ng- thP. 81") C'nO~nt t hFit thP. 

coiTOle.in t "0Uld. b" r ·"fo:rr-=- to tho iA t innFI 1 nr Rop;ionFIJ Co!'!T'-,lianc~ :JirP.ctor. 

Af 8r thA adjustA_ h" . P.n t <=l rr:>(1 into np t·oti? tinns 'I'Ti th th~ r qs'l"')C'lndP.nt , hr:> had to detr:> rT"J.i nA to h i s C',"n sa.tisfP~c io n ,..,hr:> th r thr:> o had. br:>on 

a violation of t 1q od.~ • . I'L.on, :m1"'ss t hr:> _ r:>su ondP.nt would irunr:>diatr:>ly 

agrP.o tO a SPt"t;J.o;"lr:>nt, it "~S Dr:>C0 SSP;"'f tO t_1r tO 'Q0 rS1.l<3cl.8 hiT'l tO S0 ttJ.r:> . 

Horq it CIS CIUito nAtUrPl :fnr t,ho r . justor to c-dvr·~,.;~ C"'rtc in a rgumr:>nts 

as to thr:> dP.sirab iJ.ity nf so.t t J omr:>nt O.P.S") i tr:> thP ff' r.t thrlt h"'l nTF'S undAr 

a duty to ad.visP. th8 TPSDond."'lnt of his r i -:;l1t to e ·r:ro8fl l. It 'l'f7:-·s dosirabJ.q to sAttl"'l thosq "lDny C8S'-1S v.rhic_l ar s~ a.s 0 c'1rly as· ·,ossi 1.lr:> , and 

to do this thA a.cl.justo r mi ght sug.~ r:> t t·1Pt :r;:~' int.,. such a ·o roblr:>m aris"'l 

and romain unsottl"'lo ,..,.ould cost o ro.s· )0 1.d~nt loss of businr:>ss or 

prr:>stigr:> in his comrrrunit,r. Br:> might :futt"'lr sugpa s t thP ,..,1 ~_,. of th"'l 

Blue Ee.glA econnmict:1 l ly <'nd n oint out- thr:> co stliness 0f ~nurt i)roc"'ldurA. 

Thes"'l arguments 'l'f7era 8 11 matto . s 0f infor:'Tla.l nP gotif•.ti0n . Thr:> adjustors 

in the main conc"'liV"'lO. their functinn 8S one of o.dUCi' tion . In tho. labor 

quAstions th~ usual · rA.quir 0 P1Pnt ''IT?..s thAt J,TIOnetP:rv p.cl.justrnents bA madP. 

and a ce:rtificD.to. of co ':lnlianco b~" siF:nod., '"l1 ilr:> in t r E·0 r:> n r a cti0.r:> inlations tho. usu;:l rr:> o,, irr:>Mr:>nt .-.ps thr>t Fl. r, qrtificp.to f future compliance b"'l signed. Ho'<"7evr:>r, A i th~r in J.abor or trade . ··)rar.tice violations, 

tho. viole.t i on mFl s fro uo.ntl r r~" r:> tod 0r '"'~'- of tC'o od.icus P charc:v~tP.r, 

th"'l adjustr:>r and his imTTP.o.iato S"J. ;; o:c~iC'rs f'ht rofu.s"'l. to sP.ttlP. th"'l matter in thr:> ne~ indicPt"'ld. 

In casP. a sP.t t1AJ11.~"nt '"8 s nC' t :r"' r.h"'c1, th"'l nP.~t st"'lD n~ s to r o.fqr thr:> 

T"la ttor to tho Na tion0J Corrroli anco. Dirr:>~tor, o:r i:!1 iato::.· d.qys , eftor en 

Affort t ovrard doco.nt.,...n.lizFltion T';J('l.S T"ladP. , to tho 3.of:ional Co rrr0 l i a ncP. Dirr:>ctor . This >)orson c1. "'lcidr:>ci th"'l coursr:> of p ctinn to bo tc=>]':~"l1 . H8 T'light 

decide that litigPtion shou lo ro.s1.1.lt. This might bo. h?.ci es 21. rr:>sult of 

thr:> 'NIBA o r some Stato s=mab lin,c; statut8. Th<?. Dir P.ctor might dP.cidr:> thA.t 

it •as a u rou o.r casr:> to br:> rof qrrod. to th"'l Fo.d~r~l Trado ComT'1ission. 

This 'l')ro c edur"'l r.ras usco onl~r in a vory f a'-. instenco s . AnC'th -:. r course 

of action l'!Tas -prr:>sant"'ld in thr:> rr:>"'lC'VRl of tho :Blu"'l 'S~.o.:lo . In tho CFI.se 

Of C"'lrtain sorviC"'l r?~"'! S it ,<?S nnt noco ~rry fnr tho. 2og iC'l n.P l C' r 

Nationel Di rr:>ctor to '"1:1 0 thA O."'lr.i ~"n , but this 1.)()'"' 0 :' '' '<"S 0.0 lP.gRtr:>o. 

to thr:> St?t"'l DirPctor. 

Throughout this -ry roc~duro. ro.s·)ondr:>nt np s no t ifio.o. of his ht to 

auuoal . Be1ancr:>Cl. ageinst h is nust b o ~C'nsi Cl.o:r o.d tho . iffi~ul tio.s 

thBt such a ·orocP.cluro nffo :rod. Asic.r:> fro T'l thr:> s ? .. r.tinns Pnd r rossure 

9838 
pr8ssur8 which mtgh t bP. lac~ cl u·:Jon r P.sn0!.d."mt s i n thP. 8? rl:r s t 8.trP. of 

the complianc8 or invo s t g~ to r Dro cP. Cl:t;J.r~, .his •J ro ~rty rights a.s such 

we r~ not aff~cted until litigP.tion ,:.rPs r.or'lr'1P.nco.cL i n tho. c0urt. There 

must b~ e;x:c~pt8d, honP.ve r , the · ·o J.~m of tho. re TTi ov l of tho. Blue EaglP.. 

'WhAthP.r . such a r~n0va1 dADri vo. fl. a n i nd. i vicluaJ. 0f ··JrOlJo.rty will bP. considered shortly. Sine~? the r o.s·u0ndo.nt haCI to b o. br0ught into court bt:?-

fore a fin8 or Dt:?nalty coul d bP.' legC1 lly assessP. d. aP.P inst hi'11, he had an 

onuortunity in most inst.!'l nCPS to ist:?' f:l ll quA stions of sub stance and. 

roc~d.ure ,,mhich he thought irrro 0 rtent to h is CRS 0 • It rrru.st b"" considerP.d.·, 

howevo.r, tha.t .:the USI"r ·of SC1.nCtiO!lS in P.C!.rlier stagP.s rri thout th~ authori ~y of la, r:rFJ.s .. on en to sorious o:uo.stion. a.nd rni ght actually urojud.icP. 

rlghts an~ intP.ro.sts cf a rosnondent. 

As th8 ' casP.s rP.st in thP.i:r d.iso r ga nizP. cl. stPt"',. it is P. :Y: trP.m<=>ly dif- · 

ficul t to 1JrP.dir.t T'Th?..t •irocP.dure l duP. ·,J:rbcess may r~auirP. to mo rro "f ~ In 

11 narrow j,~ P. ViP.w 11 fi ~ld.s, 1)Fl.I't i~ a::.~ J. . t RXCl.t i 0n, a heari nf.: C'l.ny time beforo. thP. f ina.l collect i0n o f t b.P. t 8:x:,' or even · af ~:r _ tha.t i f it h? s b~"'n 

paid in othP.r ano. sl')o.cified m~8ns of ')rOtC!st, is consido.rP.tl suffi ciAnt 

due DrOCP.SSe (42) . . By analc·gy , ~ncl it must b;,. ro.m8r~iQ~ rP.d thAt th~ ro. is 

a pOOr COJillJarativA bas·.is bP.tnP. n tax collo.ct\on a nd. businP.SS regulation, 

it- might b~ s8.id .. thPt due D:-coce·ss· is at is !:' ~" J. b~.r t h o.. hAP:ring hA C!. in thP. 

court or befo~~ . thA FP.a ~ral Trad.o. Comn iss i on sa.tt sfi P.d duo. Droco.ss r t:? -

quirement s~ . : This . . is P. ~8'Dting tho TP.T'lOVCl.l Qf . tho. 11 blue P.~gle 11 ' wh ich 

if its use T-l78.s tro.PtP.o. P s a · ;Jro-9 P.rty right, dAmanqo.d full notict:? and. 

O-pDortunity to stat"'! P cps o. ·::1.s ''"e :t.l as oth<01r safP.guards th"" 8ourts n ight 

feo.l fcdrness "'7ould. cl P.ma.nd .(43) . 

But due ~o roco.ss of lam cen T1P.<"n much mo :rP. th8n oHro. 

It can mean fairness 8.nd good. adrninistrr->tive l) r.a c t icA. 

havo. felt that justicA dAmande d. a mor"" clos"" control by 

uro. ana. htgho.r stRnda.:rds of f a. irnP.ss thP.y haye not bP.~n 

ro c~clur l fo r ms. 

When thP. courts 

thP.m of DrOc"1dr"'!luctant to act. 

InvP.stigation to find viola tions ,-:rould SP. 0 El a lJrOD<?.r aclministrl'lt ive 

function. N.R~A. a.ctivitv mp.s l1P.VP.r fo r th~t D'llrDC"SP., r.rith a fo,n O.YCADtions, but '111Ta s mP.inJ.y cl.irP.ctP.cl R.t ironing out d if:ficul t.io.s and a g re"1 to 

sunport the codAs. It nt::.V"'l~ o. co gn z~ cl tha.t ~n s "0 itP. of natriotism, 

vrhich must n8C.P.ssaril~r bP. sho rt-:1ivAd., thP.r~ . V;J"OU_J.c-:. be thosP. 'I'JhO T'10uld 

violat8 codP.s (44). Assuminf-: thP.·t such "'18cli atir.n Pnd education a8tivities '"8rP. not lP. ga.ll: r objo.cti0nP.b1o. , tho. ~rs tP.rn of 11 sAlectiv o justicP-.

11 

tha t was dt:?velo•-,8d SA0 ID"1 d highl'r ouo.stionabJ.; (45) . It r.ra s not do.signAO. 

to crP.ato. juclicia.l trust in tht:? r1 ini strP ti.rn · of . P .A. This situation· 

could hav"" bP.o.n link8<1· '"i th h~ vA .iou s t~r.-JP.S 'c)f d.u;ro.ss rasorto.cl to b, 

l'T.R.A. off icials and ust:?d t o stri k o. clo't1tT11. the ~ajor functions of 11 conmli-· 

ancP. 11 • 

.· 

.· 

9838 
al:V 0 V 0 t' 0 I . ~ :FElL C:::O SE~.' C: 

I T -~ 1 

8£86 

- l 

c· "AFT.lli' XI I I 

A number of t ... w p JWG.1. s :,r:tA s ou c;;l1t to exerc i se a r P. s:oecifically 

enw er.-..t ed in t he Act (1 ). I t st a rts off wi t h a declaration of poli cy , 

whi ch is not a 90\7er , but 1 ~h t be called a. limi t a t ion , in the form of 

standards , u _)on ~ e · ow rs b J'."l"l.nte.:l (2 ). T~ e Su.1.)reme .:;ourt r efused to 

consider ~:. is as ;;.. :n 'oper st andard. or limit t icn U) on t he exercis e of 

deleGat ed )owe r ( 3 ). ~rex t ~1 e Act l)r ov i 1es for 1e crea t ion of a dministra tive ugen cies by t he ? resiJent (·n. AlthouGh th i s vo.s a novel 

p ractice it does not seem t o b e a s objecti onabl e as wany fo rrns of 

deL~ga d )ower. T~lis i s true d e sp it e t he fact .?l. t some St.:1t e courts 

~a e challenged ~1 e val1di t y of a dele,;at ion of l)OW er t o an executi ve 

t o create an office ( 5 ). Ti e :yr evailing vi e1.1 i s ro ;~ y con tra r y t o 

thi s , as J.e Cl.encmds of administ ration mo.J r ca s ona'ul y re<[Uire t he 

del egation of su.c~l power. T:1.i s is no abdic.s.tion a.s suc:1, t hou.g:1 it 

rnny be t:1e i nstrumen t t h r ou gh w~1ic 1 sub stantive :_)owe r s are abdica t ed. 

The power s t c approve codes of fai r com~)e ti on (6 ), a g r eements 

(7 ), and t o i mpose licenses (8 ) or limited c od e Q of l ab or p rovisions 

(9 ) were th e r eal :neat of t:.1e delegation, sta ndards aside . The effect 

of exemy ting from the operations of t he ro1 ti-trust laws was corolla ry 

but of utmo st pr a ctical ii:npo rtance. As i ncidenta l t o e1 ese p owers, 

t r:o rne t :.1ods of p r oc edur e we r e specifi ed . T>lese were t he dual enforc ement pr ocedur e of a p:,?lying to t h e federal district courts or 1e 

1!'edaral Trade Ccmmi ssion (10) and t he inv est igatory :;;>ro c edure of th e 

Tariff Co nrni ssion ( ll). Th e ?re sident wa s g iven t he furt~ er poY!ers 

t o dele€;ate aut~ ori ty t o the ad..'1linistra tion of t he Agricultural Adjust men t Act (1 2) , to p r ohibit tran spo rta tion in i n t e r st a te and f or e i gn 

c om.merce certain pe trol eum products (1 3 ) and to ini ti'.l. te p r oceeding s 

before t:1e Interst a te Comnerc e Co .nrnission l eadi ng to t he r egul a tion 

of r a te s for t he trans)ortation of pe trol eum p roducts (14). T"he 

?resident was g iven t he s:;>ecific power t o r e quire re)o rts to b e made 

and a ccounts ke•)t, as conditions to h i s p~J oval of p ropo sed codes (1 5 ). 

In addition t ne Act atterny ted to set u:p c e rtain standards for 

~1e Actnini stra t i cn (16 ) and t he industri es (17) and others t hat 

~.1t b e called negative st anda rds i n ~ o.t it was mandatory tha t 

~:.ese ~:.. in s be found no t to exist before e c ou ld b e a yrO":? er 

ap~r ov al given t o a c ode (18). 

In addition t o t hese powe r s s)ecifi c a lly t?;r an terl OLle r sourc es 

of :)ewers exi f-! t ed . Cert a in n1ino r ~ew ers a r e incid ental t o and. a 

normal pal~t of t::e iila i n s rant of Jow er s (19 ). These a r e necessar y 

to efficient ad.m1nistra tion. o t:uer powers ma y be Ln)l i ed . I n the 

administr a tive field as in the munici:;_Jal field, tne L·n) l ication must 

come af ter a c1eleb::t tion by t he leg islature (20). Th i s weakens the 

9838 

po~ i ticn of a cl::ti.J: oJ i1 1Jli ·d ~10'.'.'e ' wi t h U 8 c yurts. S cl~ i m)l i.cntions it i. t..SU~ l1 • s·'i' In'l..' b~:: Id~ "'- .ry , JfC tti..tl , r in.Jis.)cn ..,;·blc , 

n .t •::1('1'81 "j' cnnven.i. 'nt . St ·t 'ent. of < :u i ;irat i.Vl ' .lr~v1 r~.~f" 81 t / 

t11ink in terms of on~ t ~ i u t ion l l:·w. They c c ome u· ed to t ·w brond 

use of it;plied ·•o .,rers 1:1ade by G'1' cf Jl ...,t.ive ,, , :r tal l, lli:. co1le.'l.;uc t; , 

end succe~sor justice!" i1 l.n).ilrt i n; u .) t>c fe era 1QVter . 3ut ru L. 

in liecl >ewers <' r e not t v b~; c c.nfllsctl ~·ttl im)liecl )ow rc; cla1m ~d to 

E xi ~- t aft ur a del~.::ba.tllJn b f onbrvss. 171 1 ;.~e vJou:J.cl sceJn t J b~::: llO!e 

clo-=>v'l..y d.naJ.og') s to t he dole..;·~ted 1eris ati'Jn found in municiJ')al lnw . 

,-o co-.... ., ~J'le .. c.jvc ::~n"'l,·s <" or t 1,c ·"o\ .. ')1'' F.A c l r i tlCd ::1.c i l i oLi. • • .1. J. •> • • C. ' .-..,; oJ - • ' 

or· · .. cic'.ert::-o.J.. ir :lCco«sa ;.· to -:..: ir stu( . • (: l) So·, c fm•r o:f those m::1.;:l 

:->:·o::.'i '.:ebl .. be Mo._t:.onud . In J·.crpr·JtLtirll js no ccs n?i'~ \O inc icc:. t o t ' o 

mo"'.:·ti~ ~-· t ho Ac'· ::i.n :..st:;:o.t i i. n .. 'olt si:culC be i vCi: t}:o Act ::>n.' co cl.os m::.clo 

L.·:.:e~m<..".ol . I t is so o «0~1ti:oJ. t o D-l·J :ist1 ·2 o;.1 thPt it coulC' oo s" c~. 

to b<J i·.t·::.s)GT'£lolc e-ncl. so :"l.n irT-;li ocl. ") OvJOl' . !Tot s o cleo1 nrc p o\.o r s to 

r:1e~-:o :"~.:: L:si [ nif' OLe. to :·cmo c it :-.s e. ~)l..1.nj_"Th~ont v:hC'l, 'thOl" onfOl'CvDOllt n oc>:1c -:>-.~.·c al:rea{;>· s:1oc~i'icc, ir. ·~he Ace , ;.1o r e r e tl n other ve.r i m .... s 

::.?A c:.:.~."o:·c r1on t e.c~_. iy i ti c s r·i t.:o1.d, ":'~·u. f: sti --. 1 (.82) . T11n rrq1..:ir~nont of 

co "1tr i'Ju. ~- c":c. ~ ... 1-:o_ mC~ ::i ; o.i "'>S"SC1 "'1lts ::J;c.:~ · 8. l: 1· ")roolo .. (::;;:;,) . 

-Jl· .. ; ., .. ;=~· c' ..p- l·rl·.., . ..., r.) lo'· OS ,., , ,., ,. J.··~ · ro l.t lr:~~ ·J. o· ~ ,...cor··,;-.., ~ t'1G·"" Sor> ·1"' "· ... - •-,_, -•·- · - -- • ._-, 1.:_ .f "" · •· _r_ • 'b !:_, - -• V " V! ~ ~ ._ _j _, 1 1 • _ , ,; 

i·1ci::on t ::'.l a.i:::' l. nqr~ost:t. 0naole . Tin ('...,n1~LS'-".'~:lc . 0f' Co ,'.o Ac.\'iCJri t.r members , 

!10' '8Vt) l', is not sucl f'. clc8.:' ·"or·e :· . As t ' _:; · . .- ~:o le Coc' o .At.i to:i.~ i t~r :problor.: 

rests · >)Oi. dou tf1..:l :cot ·1 c~ , t his 'C'" ti ol'.. \ oul·' seem to l'CYol vo 11pon t he 

docisio:t1 of ·~ho Co C.o n·~llO:~i 'Gy ~E·oblon: . As lor< .. :-.s COL1.C l· th::~ri ti c s 

ac·~ed e.s o· .. ro r:1ne:1t e.;._ :1cic , :o. co~· c:::o l o f --:orsoni'le l =/0'.1.10. so .~m e s s ential. 

Af-nc"·i· ~- ~c: l·vl'a.'" !=> l co t,,_.., t eo (':1 .. ) ·" " ·! t'"'r> ro '' l···cTVle·"l t o f' t l""n c ""'rae --'-' l- - •:::, .L.. '-'-"· · ~- ., I..J .. • •• l. ·~ ~ r'-- J. · u l- ~ '-- J- -

ticcs co:1t:.:ary to t pcci l'ic l'ocr irci .c::.ts or t.110 .Act y;o"t-:.1(. seem to mve 

littlJ oe.si~ in C A~.t . SQ: .c r, . t~:.e l.lO'.'G _;_ 'T"l J:'k·. ~'. t oi' ·cl1ese ) roblems 

~ill ~e considered below . 

Aft er the ;J fl.ssfl o of 1-1. I . _-... . A. e. nw.1b e r oi' writers ox, .rosscd. ~1e 

fo e lLl:... tr..at it vrou ~ be hol e~ consti tutione.l (25). ~ntJ. r .::J.lled. i n the 

clo ) ths of ~co nomic eli "'2.s to1· it se ::1ed ou t one sho rt s te:p l et;o..ll y fo r 

tl18 cm..'.:.·t to u~)ho lc'.. i'~e Let . -::m1 r:ri te:.. s · c1~ s so naive c>.s to foo l 

ti1:~t it P£' S COl".Stitu tioile.l i :n t1·Le t.1en st2t.: of tl1e c2.s c s . Pc.e.thor 

t11::::j· -~e l t i t h-:'.6. -ueen S .J c~1 e.ftecl t~-..?.. t the cot'.rt b,; c. ::1e re f orv•c>.r . 

c.tc~) cou::.c' ·u.phol<i it. l'~:eso vi e-.;.rs t: en , in r:1o s t cc>.scs , v·c 1·e exi>rossi ons 

O.L !.O)O o:..~ (csire. T1 e illo;::; ice.l .. )art o :.C' the s i t u::t ti on le.y i:1 t ho 

fact t r.a t ii' t!1is n e11 a:,enc;y ir.proveC.. e conomic circtunstP.n8ef,, the conc~i tio21s ;)ressL:. ·_, i'or ths u:p holc'.ii1£, o::L tJ.1e Act ,_.-o,J.lC'. no lancer be so 

stro:.1~ly ~) rescr:.t . 

!'?.A sl:oulc1. '1::- ve early :-:.12.c'.e 2. Cf' reful an::.l ysi s of t: o. cons ti tutio:nl c'.oc L·L1e s ·cm d.c :~l i:'lg L:.c Act . ~1 is tuc.~7 r.-oulc1 l1evo 2.ffora.ed 

B. ,.,0:0.'8 ii': tcllic·o:.lt oasis ·u.~) Ol~ \. n i cJ.l to :lroceeG_ , -·>rCSDJniY'.[, tffi t 1T?.A 

clesi rGCI. tle Ac t to be u-:)ho l cl . P:..~imc amon;· these c'..octrinc s was t he . ~) 

qu.Jstio;._ of i ·1 ters t a to corw!mr,::e . Po ·re:ts of ~1e fec.er2.l govcrnrne11 t 

u.nc c::.~ t he Conune rcc cla ".G e (26 ) c.l~c cJ.osel re le. tcci i n l~c cases to 

the 11 6.t: .. e ~~:toce sc- of l f'.Yv 11 co :.~co::- t ( 27). Ti1e a·9-::;roach t o t:w TLlcstion 

is fc>.c i li tc>. te.:: if tl"J.e co· ·.rt ' s c:·. t -':. i tuie :'.. s : .:eu t hl m::.no .• 

'l'~:e Conncrcc p o':.ror VJO.s the !Tlf? jol~ ·'Jo rti o::.l o-f.' :tiT F.A ' s consti tu9t' 38 
- 10 6-

tioYlal fmmC:.a ti on (28 ). A curso ry L;lan ce at some of tile leading commerce c2.s e s rrill a fford a basis u:p on rT11icl.1 to f orm e. ··ene r e.l view 

of the com:-:1e rce concept. I n Gi-bbons v. OF,c1.en (29) t !;.e at er:~ot of 

t he court v!as to broac1en co!PJnerce from c artel', sa.le, D.Ed traC:.e to 

i n clu(_e t1·e.nsporte tion. S2.i d t he court, 11 The cou.nse ~ for t ile appellee •:·ou lc:_ limit it to h t:t.yint:, O l' sellin.; o ·: mo1·e int e rchang e of 

" · t · - t " · .._ J 1 corrunoc t · t · , · .._ · " ( ,...o ) l lGS, anr. co no ao.nll u cnE·. l com:._orel enc._s n B.Vl\ aulon o • 

And e.l thm1[,h :0urely loca l t1·ansactions v:e re .wt e. :ce ~· nized :9art 

o f L1t e::.,s t e.te corrunerce, the Q.icta oi the court i ncli ce.ted a willingn e ss t o juc\g;e this q11.esti on i n t erms o f conve:..1ience a.nL ne cessity 

( 31). This open-mindec.ness to neec~ s p la.cecl upon ov arn .. rnen t cl1ara.ct e rized this early court. I n f..icCulloch v. i2.ry and , Chief Justice 

I,'ars:b..all s tron€;ly condemned. a rule of construc tion t r.tE. t 0.id not ta :e 

in to co n sidG:i.'a tion. chant;i:1g ancJ .. im1nec.Ua t e ci rcums te.n ces c'.ifferL1g 

from those nt the tirre of the fm.md..ing of t he Constitution ( 02). 

As a r e sult t }J.e concelJ t of corrunerce wa.s far more bro£> c~ for the fe o.-

eral g overnment of the early nineteenth century t hE·.n it is, consi :3.er--

ing the economic facts, for the t:,overnment of the t\r.rentieth centlJ .. ry. 

:Before }) roce s ding , it is ,_. ,ell to re··)eat Chi e f J1..1.stice ~arsha ll s 

famous c:.efin i tion of commerce: 

11Corru-nerce is inte rcourse ; one of its mo st 

ordinary ing reclients is traffic. It i s inconcei vable t:h.--3. t the power to e.uthorize this traffic y:hen 

g iven in t he most cor:rpi,ehensive t er!Ils , v.rith t he 

intent tha t its eff icacy be comp lete, shoulc~ cease 

a t the n oin.t Yihen its cor_,_ tinu.B.nce is i nc'.isp enscble 

to its va lue.n ( 33) 

Later cou:cts have not bee:,1 so Tea.dy to justify :cegulations 

of interst e.te commerce (34:) i :n_ tJ.1e libht of existing facts (35). 

Today it is in the field o f tr2.:i1s·oorta.ti'on that the interstate 

commerce conce t is mo st secure. This, indeed, is an unusuc"l 

si tuat:L on f rom that existing e.t the tir:~e of Gibbons v. Of:;C..en (36) 

Fo dera.l ra.ilroad regule.tion is f irmly e sta blished (37). · The co11..rts 

he.ve seen t ile n e c e ssity for e 1

1 system ac1equate to t he needs of t he 

co1:mtry 11 ( 38). The cases do no t sto}J at p ositive regul Htion, but 

extent to f ree ing transp orta tion from loce.l restraints. (39) Nor 

cloes tra11S:90:ttation stop vd th r a ilroads, but rathe1"' it estends 

to t e leg re.:p h lines (40), pipe line s (41) smcl. othe r trD.. ns}:O.·.: ~::;. ~ion 

forms ( 42 ). 

Anothe r use o f t he commerce c~mce· t has been to . b;(l.fld. a _{f,'-deral police ower (43). Conb ress ~~s b~en successful whe re tho p1rrp ose vr2.s protection or promotion of corrunerce i n t he s ense of transporta.ti on ~/, ), vrhe r e injurious commoditi e s or illicit transactions 

we re ( ei.1iec. t ho nse o f channels of comme rce ( 4~ ), or whe re there 79.s 

a n atter1r_:_J t t o a i d t he Sta t e po lice )O YJe r (46 ). 

~he coL.n·ts have co nsciousl y tried to re:nove v:ha t the._i felt to 

be i m:?ecl.iments to the free f low o f commerce b y p rohibi t i n; atte~Jted Sta to 1 egula tions ( 47). The an ti-tl~us t l aws furnished a n addition9838 
- l ? ... 

1 bar.is 1oJ.~ t.c co"L'_t ts e Liviti ... r. i 1 t:~:..s :to cti 1 (t8) . Jlhis ir. 

n cci2ll~.r ru in t. ~.~ l"..bv .: CD."'OS '-~ . Ot.~.c flr.es i.nt"icnte 

r i 10 ' iti 0''. UOOl! the -..,rrt o•~ t1.o r ou.--Ls to ''\) ;"L. l~" to 0 .. '1r.:crci'l.l "'.i.t.-

l..'.~ tio;:.r ~~~- t}:c rnt t-~·. nt lrv,c t /' t coulc J10t e c"'ll-.f. con~orce L1 

tho s .::so o f t he 1::-- n ,:o.~o ~.' t. e Schcr.htcr c,oci ion (: )0 ). 

n:n'-' ( volopmc::-.t of t '1e " st ~ .. rn" the or~ · of comt'lo::. cc offc:.ccl 

m1 !.1 oncon ·.:. cLr.n t tv tJ.1os o L. iJ. i116 to roc !ilEA 1:..pho ld . It ;Ps 

tllOU_,ilt u)~ t ~·sr· ift. v . u. s~ ~· l) I .§_t.c>:.f 'ore'. v . ·::n.l_l"'.C:C :J:~ ) I £1r.d 

Boa:..\,1. of r·,:-acle v . ls .n ~:-s , .l""'Ct co .r· e~c· l~· rx'.C.C' r;l.:".i c t!tc vic .-rs 

(;~~:;:er>sod L". Sl.l.Ch ca·;:;; e..s i:ill v . ·.;e.ll<1. Ce ~).' ) rJ:· u. s. v . ::: . c. 

Kni ·:1~ C'J . (G.J, . Vi i t11 t~ e libc r".. l vit,ri 2.J..:0 1. b:r t:-~,~ --;;;-;,·1 t i n 1·c rcmt 

I'c~Ol::'.l '::.l~a( c D SOS ' oGI , '~j, l., t~.t: C: :::t1 l'O.rcr: "-C~il O ;c.: ~ull cvil'.cnco 

en·. :_~,.., i;,c' icfd, ioll t:r· t coo'1e:c.0 ti ·c ·"~ :L'i .. c :--~·1·'. -,_·ot":uct i oH co P. trol 

activit;· r..i'-ht c "lustil ied .. l..·.n ~·. J.r;tJ.J' ,-.);-. lc:c~_i:-.~1 Coals case (57), 

all ..;,e.vo creC'.enco to v~w :. ~oor. · t~::. ..... t U"c court rro.s :-... e.i:i.'l r <.;a0.y t o 

embe.:d:. \'. 01 t'iro sea ~"- a · roac~cnc ,'. corr.:-.1 ·r o CN'. copt . ::_j1.1.t , hose 

ce.ses s!:o~:lc'. l~:-> ve been . E:~n .. .'. i:·. Lw l~ :~t o ::.· ot!t ·~ r c:ec.isionc, in rr~1 icl1 

t ! c co 1.rt felt it v:8.s 1)J.~ot ctL' . CO !'!; 1c:..·cc o;;- iic·.:cro··:m. L'~t e;:p reta

tions. ':.:'l~C , tt.e CO'\..ll't ':'1 L ' nr, i' :H•si tc: ·co to :l' ol '! 1:. !-.tCSG bl'Oaclcnecl 

V J..e\:rS ' J.·. , 

• ... ,,C''-· . J l :..

~ . c,qc::e - · v : n 

.. S .w Tc l\...:' 'rl .:..-0 o l b' 'I 'J ·r \ o U ~· c- (...,(. ·-, cl ) , .. ·,.:c· ~- -lL '- ::>~·),q -.:..-'.J. - ·

,,·, "' v nt y 

gave r~o much fe. l se .1op e ·~o .... ov t...: :.:: ,~ nt ccl..~ lG l in tr.=. S0hechter: ce.se 

(j9) . It y;:o.s ~loss i :I.e f'or th8 co·,cl'ts to 'u l·oncLcn tl1e vi ews c:x-p r ossec. 

i n these c:> ces su.;:;[e ste c~ to enco··y . ..,e.ss t· t: i.T.I. ?.. . A. Lont o f t horn cliC!. 

no t v rc f ..., :c to c'.o o ( 60) • 

It .• !u s t ·~c ecot:,ni~~e d thrt t::.m::;_ h it is c".i :t'i'i r..:'\:.lt. to C:.1~2. i a 

d i RtL1ct lin e , t1lE.. t tLe co,n·ts clea rly rec :1i:-:.ed. ~:..,."'t co:ct::.in t h i n.:;s 

\7Crc :ot Lrtorstf'!.te comr:le rcG (Gl). 1--..f>JJr ,er v . Da1:~ e:1h2r t ( 62) ilh ,.s-

~f'..teG t 1:e vi m: t!Ja t fec1.er0.J ."~ oliC'y ~:~ · .. e l' cc.n ;·.::>t be extend.ec~ to 

i tOmS . 0 ::' tlClltSO.Ct i OTI S 210 t ·~ ncL l':Tt'l (~ or [' e;ener::1.l l;y re CQf,lliz ecl ill i Ci t 

cha.r8-ctor. There exist eC'. a b e lief t~.2t t !'ie " stream11 cases he ~ i n e f -

fect c ,_ t v:a~,- :r.mch of t !1e r.aseC' of t l:..ir; case . li0 vert:b..elos s 1 it rre.s 

clca _l"- r o2n t ;_. t ti.1~ s case 2. :. c~ ".:l1e line i t 1~ ep 2~es en te c'. v1ere the one s 

too ~ avc l'. c.~ o:..· ov erro.l ed f l~ .r. :..;. .A . .. ,:ts t o be ·~1 stf'i:1ed . 

T:he com·ne r c e C01'1 ccnt is 1:.ot :r.l?.c.e mo r e cloar b~- a s t u d.y of 

cases i::.vo l vL:. Ste.te ezercise of ) O':·er. It ir. '.7e ll :t:ocogni zed 

tJ.1::1t .... till' ' • t::: ~ "i -~··· -E.. ,~.~ Pe" • o .r J.. t'he - 1 -=- •• • t -::.. "' +v......., "" ·e·..1. l..., . )"' ~ t·J.J. ..,e ; r "' \.;;ob "'''l~ l,q...... ·t orv r:..' ""' l.J O\''"' ~ v r 

Of tire J:GC~eral {:.;overnme:J. t (63) • Jusi n e ss :n8 . .)~ }1.£-ve bot> l o ce.l anc. 

intcrzt:::te :->_ ,=n e c t s I~or~ c- ·Ll P~- o· v ::1· .... :-' +a,· J,,r~")o <"' "' "" T; l.; s ; s t rue - ..... ·-. (_'") _ .. v ..L J ..... ... .J. ' \1 -J\. ..:. \,._ ~ ~ • . ..; -=- • . ~ ... ..... to.. 

pe.rti cul arl;y ~ transnis~do n of ·)o':.re r ( G-1 ) 2.m' .g8.s ( 65), a::c.1. the 

o:yer3.tion of l"'O.il·. T.:rs (6 :-: ) . Cert e.i n ··~t e1 s .1 ~ of such 2. '.om inantl~- loc-::.1 c:rE.racte1· ( 6';') tfl.::· t t: ·~ ?. St:--.t e ' s 1·i .:_:Lt to :.:e ct..:.J.~ t c ·onc;.er 

tl:e :::,>a l ice :::one_ i s 1:.eve r cp.wsti c·:i.1 .( ( GS ). ~ othe1· il:str :.ces the 

vi tal l o cal f~f'.ra ct e:c :rrt::...._~, o1.1.t .,ei;)-1 tl1e ·"'.?..ct o f .:om:lG rciP.l r>·1 ver71en t 

(69 ). 

:i.i'C?.r !!lore ~te st2. t utes ~1?.: : fed.e :ce.1 stf' tl tes , '.Jo t:l : umerica lly 

a:1e' L : terr.1s of ::;ercen tfl-t:.:e , i.ID.v · bee!:. ehall ei.1_.::.e c. e s P.:1 L 1 terferenco 

'::i L:. t _-;, e )TO:!:>E:; l' fl o\': of commel'ce . ::.:Le1~e i s ::·. c'. ni ty to :feG.eral 

stetutes v1hicil i s not e.h r,_y s carri e(_ b/ Ste.te stptutes. Then too , 

feo.eral :,:e~.ul2 t i o:l r..a.s not C'o ofte::1 ta··. ::e:'t t~:e r'o1T.1 o:f -•. ur{enin;;; co;'!l.-
-102-

me r ce , n or has it sr.1ac:·.:ec. of governrnen t e.l mecldl i n:;_; to t he ext e:.1t t nat 

t he coul ts he.ve :fel t s ome s t E·. t e sta t utes clid ( 70 } • 

. Some o f the ca ef1.: 1 e,na lyses mEtcte -by ?rofesso _ ·~ -· n (71) 

,_,·ou l c'. s or·ve t o l enc1 some o::..~c". el' t o e.n a~:9a ::..~ ent chaos. I t cl ears o·-·.: 

t hoU£,hts t o rea li ze t hE' t ~·:rpe. ren tly con t r a d i ctc :..J-- lant,-u.abe c.o e s not 

mea11 contraci_ i c to:i-7 case s . The court s l'E.ve mo r e ~-2 11 one t heory e.pli cab e t o I~ Y t ypes of ca ses. T:1e.t on e ·ce.se i s :)hrasecl i n t he 

l a n,:;"Lw.:;;e o f e: -:J rtic g_r t l eo ry c'.oe s not r'lean t ha t 2. r el a ted or even 

con t ::.·ae.i cto ry theory h8.s b e en a b2.nd.oned. T·:io :ce t ho.n likel y it is 

qui e tly awe.i ting its ul~fl t o be c.u ste·cl of f 2,11(1. ·o.sed. t o f u rni sh t he 

basis f or Em , i mno r t o.n t co:nsti tutio:nal .de cisi on. This is sa i c-:. wi t_ 

n o i ntent-i on to .. oe unc~u y ·f lippe.nt i n clea.iin2, wi th one o.f ou ::c .g reat 

cl.ivisions o f g ove r nment . It i s only ne.tru.a.l to ex:_1 :cess v i ews i n 

t e r ms wh ich may §;·o· a good dea l f arther t han t he v i ews on -the pa:cticula _r ca s e . Th is judicial techn:j. q"J.e mu st be r eco; nizecl , especia lly 

t h e u.al i t y o f t heo r i e s ava ilab l e fo r t he c o-cJ.rt s 1 sel e ction . An excellent exam}l e o f t{li s i s hol~ou y illust re.t ed. i r. t h e coc tri ne s 

o f bl " e.nc1 "narrow reviev1" di s cu ss e d ea r lie r i n t h i s st uc1.y. 

Su ch vari a tion i :n :L es ffi.::".2.-· h2.ve a f a i r l y uni f i e c. expl a - . 

ti o~1. Pr of essor Co n.rL1 oL1ts out th!.'l.t c~ue l f ecle r a lism11 :m2.y i n 

-part b e e::-::')l a i ned bv t :J.e coul~ ts 1 c:.e si re s t o ·o r o t eet ve s ted i nterests - · .... CJ 

a11c1 t o ~e t he strea.m o f c ommerce froi;l i mpedi ments rathe ::.~ than t o . 

exte11cl o r cl.e limi t s ove ;rnme:0- t e.l p ovJe rs ~ 72). The comne rc e concept 

:1as !Jeei.1 f ar fl~om sta tic. I t could no t r eme.i n s till , anc, y et serve· 

~1e n ee ds of c;r owi ng nc us . I n t he case o f t his Jt t he 

g::-owth v.ra s umlSlJ.a l. m e. struggl e to mE'.}:e cowiD.e rce mean i n t e r sta te 

tl~9.11"y 't tio i.1 _t here r...a.s developed a situation where t h e e ffort is 

no v7 t o Deke comme rc e mean aDythin,; bu t . inters ta. t e t:ce.ns:p o ::..·t a tion ( 73). 

As cases s te.r ted t o ·shove ·e.si cl.e ·t h i s na r r ov1 concep t of comme r ce , i t 

v-1as :p ossibl e to visuc:lize a n i deali zed NBA as consti tutioE£'.1 74 ~. 

And a s t he neec1 s of t he countrv ss cd home t o t he court th2.t t o " ~ 

f oste r, l)rotect , and p romo t e commerce might c1 ema.r>.d rcg t.1.l ation it wa s 

p ossi q l e t l1.8,t t h e cour ts misht r e linqui s h its long t,'lw.r6.i e.ns ni p t o 

t he l eg i sla t ure (75). I f l otte r ies ,_ .o-pium, 2.11c1 illicit t:..·e.ffi c in 

vmmen ITIE\Y i nvok e a hithe rto non- t.:: xistiJ.1t; p olice vt el~ , coul c. i t 

n ot b e eXlJe ct ccl t b..a. t g ri evou s evils i n i nclust:ry B.l". C~ trac".e mi g h t 

like,-_,is e invol::e such r er,1ecUes? ( ? 6) }qRA fLou l d he.ve clearl y reali zed 

t:O.a.t the Act and its 2cOJ11i n i etre.t i on nn2.st b ear hee.vily ~J on the notioE th2. t loca l busine s s mr:-.y seriousl y affect i nte rste. te -bu sine s s 

(7 7). :Du t the cm t hu s i_asm f o r code s l ed IJ?.A so far afi e l cl. that 

counsel o::J:)oseci. to t he c;ove rnmeJ.1t -i n t he Sche ch t er case coul d. mak e 

an L1.:_en i mJ.S bu t y owe r ful arg umen t a c 9.ins t the int e rstat e charac ter 

o f co ci.es merel y 'b;y nami nt., s ome of t hem ( 78). The cv rn t in t he 

Sch e ch t e r ce.s e ars "L'-ec1 t ha t the ,N evJ Yorlc p r ice e.f f e c ted the price -

ove r ~te e31 tiro country (79 ). Al thoug h the r e may b e some a r gument 

tha t tra C.e :·)ra ctice s ~ lo ce.l problems e.ffc c t :pri ce or a cc e ssto rne.rl:e t , t he governmen t '·s a r gurr\Gnt on t his -p oint is not l uc i d . 

rhe bUT( el'. O~l t he [;OVernrnen t Wf?,S t o ShOW SUC ( i rcc t a f fe c tati on 

o f :. ::. st ·. tc co erc~ by i n C:.ust:i.'i e s oc. fi d to convi nce the court 

thR. t t :1o be st i nt e r e st s of our economy Ll.emanc1od such a s y stem ( 78a ). 

98 38 
?~C' f!.ctivitios o:.l l::'A \7f'rc co closcl·· :eel---tee: to t ho t o f t he 

:-o ... ·e:i.·~l :-::!-·e.·'.c Co .t!l isrio~ t:::"t t · o ~.n l.i.. ..... ti c o f c~ scs LA.volvL1L, it 

cf'..n not ::~ i.:.,norcLl. ':.h' Co ~: .... ross has c:H~ ount e:.·e '. c~ fL.n l ·~' in 

c' ·cft.i..i' ste.t11tc m~:'.:i'in,_ J1ltCh nol'C , aft 1 L1tClT'rt.:tr.tion b,.r t l1c 

cou.1·'cG, th:-n t~~e co rr.;·"l o~1 1::..'.' conce•:.ts or t1:-<:.c.'c lm.r (CO ) . ':!.'he nn.lT0' . .' 

C['r.c., l::... ,itii:.G t!lC ve.riour, st£'.tut~s ncC' c."l to c'.iscus"'io;.1 ( 'il) . The 

c",;;:~i; J.'l-',.1.1" '~ 0 - DO libe :,:el Cr.- s e s t.<- e :1o'?eS to the C2 USe Of 1:::-.A 

(8:'). uO'l.'..)l C?d \.'i th thf' 1"'~ :: .._ U£\.'- 0 of tlw Y:'f' l<'I Cl1i0. 1 Col:'l:J ca.se (8;:'.) 

·1. .c r , sec ·tec'. to be ~oo( ?ossibili t i c s tL~ t t:1e i.". I .A • .~ i [;ht be 

sust."'. i:1e(. (8"-= ) :Gut s :tch vi r;s l.ic'. not add i l' £'.t i tr. Jro~J er 

\":'C'i .;~ct so it no-.r e.~Y .... C::tJ.s) t: E:' e.lle{'i 0.'1(' e o f t he court to the 

econo r:~i cc..c:e ;:-;e t l o ... · i a busL1es s pro bl "'rts ( 811£.). i.;RA. w~.s no t t he 

slo·-, cvo lutio::c r: c~eyclc pmcnt r.'i tl1 ....-:hicL the rc lerf".l Tre.c'.c Commissio:1 :·:.."' ( tel ted. t L __ ai!l sotle sucr.cscoc. I n fe. ct, a;,1 imned i['.te 

enE".lyr;is of ~- :.:cs ~i.1 t eec'.s j·£'. 1' utv.ei(h.oC. :last dccisio"lG of the 

courts. ? ::icc- f ixL1 .... "".nc." -~:i. i ce - st·?.bili 7. ing t•.eviccs we1·c e.llo\7ecl 

to flou:cis~: C:...;s")i te r.t~o ·.;, ju·.' i if!.~ prono,_mcer.lents ::o e.ir:st them 

(33). ::.. e:i.'tei l~ , .i lC'i~C i~ :c e ctron,:, c.c:N:- n( s for suc ~:evi :... ( 36) I 

'Jut ~'i:':\ t :i..·e(.c ~~ :.·e~ ct H: c -, 1·ovisio:1s \'.'0 .. 1t nu:::: fe.rthe :..· t :l£'.>1 tLi s. They 

a tte.r"tec'. to 8Et!'l.blis•l .'.'-'!.::-:. lit~· <;t-2-:l ·P.l' :s , tl~£' C:> cust01ns, r-.nC. reculE'.-

tio:.s a :· 2 U:.~el ' cc ~;: :ic 1 :1::-.t u··E:' OV3':..' !1inute business O.ete.ils. . . . 3f:' c~- o::.' tl:ose mi~ht lw.•.·c coo: ~ .J::-~ e.c.,·li H'.b le L1 i tsclf, but a.s an 

ll'lm;: ai:.:- metho( o1 cor1_9ctiti c 111 llf C. little basis histo1·ic:--.lly, e.nc'1. 

y:i.'o'Jaol:· ·:'. ~E ly tice lly (87) . r:! co'l'.l( not , exce:pt fo:c· e. fm1 b1~i .; t 

~> oi:.s , 1:2vc :1o~) (. loi.· as r.mcL llOi.'r: i'e.vo::.·~ ule t:,_·· ee.tment t :1en tho TrB.de 

~o t1...1iss~ o:1 I-2.s received. B. f r.' ul.'. ~lave 'uc ~; : :1eces::.e.:..~~c to hc.ve suste.incc'. e.ll i t s tre c.e _> re ct~ccs (J::). 

The notion o~ llbusincss e.ffec t ocl. v•ith e :qublic int(; rest 11 ha.s 

"uoe:1 , lilt U~) L1 rece:1 t yee.rs. It is El. useful i nst:i."'U.ment by vrhi ch 

t:1c cou:.·ts forestall ce1·t?.ii1 u.nc'.osi J.-e.blc J.ost:dctive :ccs;ule.tion s (89 ). 

'_ill!is co;.:.cc~>t , ba£cd. u:9o11 the mi st ::>.J:en ree.' L1~ 'Jy Chi ef Justice ':'Je.i te 

i il :i1m•1 v . Illinois (90) of Lon:-. }{ale ' s De Pcrtibus ;~.ris ( 91), 

now lo om~ l e.i.·£·e L1 t11e l arr of b1.1.siness regule.t ion (92). The ~) ro e:-n 

·::e.s one of tnos e l~?.A rcgul2. tioE s: oulc. l..eve had. to face }18.d not t he 

Sc!lCchter c.ccision inte:i.'Venec. ~3 ). Tr ... e YlOY7 famoUf' Cfl.£0 of :· P eo·)le 

v . ~~~b-uia ( 94) c~icJ. much to lla.~· sone of the rarsh e.nc". more questionable sic'.es of ·tho )ub li c intel'est" C0!1CC "l t, such f'..s freedon i n maki.16 '):i.'icos f?.nc'. cont::.·acts ( 95) . The 11 libert y" of t he l 8'J0 1 s anc'. l SOO ' s 

seo . .1s to ~:<? e been dyh1~ . n: c":. ly ( 96 ). Ir:. e.nnounci nt; t !1r. t ~:. ere is 

11 no closed • ·• · ~ ce.teg ory of O'l'..siness aff cctec'. v.'i th a };ublic i n t ere st", 

the co·t:ct r:a6 .. e 2. D'Jsitive contritution to the usefu lness of the conce~Jt (97). 1-::C.vin; t.eflatcd n:r notion~ ·the.t :'!rice can not be controll z-:. 1.mc'.er any cirC'l1

Inste.nce s ( 98 ), 'tho court turneci. to t he c~uc 

process o:- 12.':' concept e.s usee'. h 1 tne f c:!.~ of treie l aw. Le.;isla -

tive C:.e cleratio::.'s of :::; olic;y sh0ul C.. not 'be hastily overruled by the 

jucliciar.' . Sah'. t l1e coui·t: 

9838 

11 So f a:c e.s t£1e eq~: .iJ.~E;men t of C!.ue p rocess is 

concerned, e.nd i n the abse:1ce of ot ~1e r con stituti on -

2.1 restrictions, e. ste.te is free to aG.opt r·l'lB.tever 

econor.1ic po li c;y m0.:.' re0.sonably be deemed. to ·,Jromote 

j}Ub li c vwlfe.re, e.nc.". t o enforce t:1B.t ~:; olicy by leb is-
-110-

l c?.tion ac.a~J te cl to its .. )ur)OSe. Tne COU:i.'tS are 'Ii tlio~t authority e ithe r to ceclare such ~o lic , or 

"~uhen it is o.ocla:L~ec. b y tl:e l e[:i sla tun~ , to overrid~ 

it. If tho lav-rs lJa s secl ~re seen to hP.ve 2. reaeon2.b le rel2.tion t o 2. :JrO Jel~ leg i 'slative :_JU:C:') 0Se 1 anC. 

::..~e noitl1e1· 8 .. rbit1·ar;y n or C.iscrir{iL1ato:ry , t hereqL.,_iremen.ts of c'.ue roces s are s a tisfied. . 1

' (9S) 

~u t this aw ua e d.i C. 110 t mean t h2. t the due pro cess c6nceu t 

will no ·lon[,er b e .convenientl;r e.t hmid whe r e in a pe.rticular ce.se 

l eGislation 2-}T;_J eais to be unrea s onable (100). Perh?-ps, t he most 

it moe.ns is that the iron I.lB.nC. will henceforth wee.r e. silken glove . 

Fri ends o f E~ a t the time of t he ::.ecision of the l'iebbia case we re 

U.l1du+y oyti mistic. They f ,2,ilec1 to co:n.sider wha.t has· been pointed 

out tl"'-9.t the court d i d. not saJ' it vroulc1 . .i:;.-1 t h e future unquestionin y c.cce-, t l et;'isl9.tive finO.in ::;s or .declaration of policy , but on 

the·. co t:L :9 .. r.y·· inc.icat@cl a keen awarene.s s of - controll int:; economic 

fa.cts, .e.ric. t llfi. t ·the Gase involvec1' t he p oiicy ·poyv'er of e. State. .Anc. 

s o i Jc vre.s .. the.t co1.1,.ns e i · ~:Jo ed to the [;overnment in · t he Schechter 

case ci.i( n ot. meet · an·. G~tire y u:nre s)onsive court when the con cey t 

of "b\.1.sL1ess affoctecl with a public intere st" nc~ it ~ m~J lications 

we re ~re sented to it (101). 

The l CJ.bor aspectp of t he U. I. R.A. ·p resented t he most obviousl y questio:;.;table d:ms~i tL.1.tionfll bf>_ sis u~o:..1 which the Act relied. 

While t h e UP.A via s. in :i,. t s early stag e s 2.1:-d writers y:ere declaring 

tha t t:1e .A.ct vvoulc1.' be .u;_ohe.ld, ci..oU.bt .WB: s · e::cpresseci .s..s t ·O certain of 

t he l abor ~irop.lem~; ~ pe.rti·c.ui a .rly wage l. iff e1·e t.i e. ~s 2-nc. minimum wa. :-·e 

fixing . ( 102). · Go·rie i·:J.J J c. nson , t hough sceL1c :.10 :::a-~c . for fa ilure 

in t h e fac t, J.. ec'J t· ni~c . t h ::-.t 11P.A coul ~. no.t 0:-oo r.t t~ c:-J ~0rce substantive l e.bor •)r iO.~ l~ · i n the courts n1~J' i:.'C.i :r:J.3- :o :: ~. -Jen,::.l t ::.es 11 • (103) 

Secti on 7 (c:.) (:L04) 'of .- thr_, ~ct w.e.s· 'b~·C-2. :. ~::.1 ?.. !lP. ec ir:.te~)retation 

to f it it to t he Ji':B.n'( .s~- .·~u::::>~ tio:n s t.:n:> .. ~ ~;y l:c' .. s,.-c·1.sD . It involved a 

f i e l cl. ove r vrhich -l.;h:; CQUl''i:. 'i:l :hacl. shovw· a · t'. is !J i tion to ·exorcise a 

s t r oi1b control ( :::.Ofi) ~ · · Al .t noU£ h the f e c:erf>.l . gove rnment had. been rostricteC:. L1 l c:.b or rogule.tion to the ·. trail~'.IO.r~ation? l sy stems (106), 

the coul't s hEto. shovvn ~o .. hcsi 2.n c~7 f~ f\nc\ inb s\l;ch :=.n affocta tion of 

in t o r s te.te cornnierce as to justify i-:::J.junct'ions whe re labor activities 

affectec. busil1e s s usually' co11sid ered. locft l (107). A more liberal 

note to na rd t he- hanc.lins- ~ qd l abo r problems by . the federal gover.runent 

he. d. be en struck. in recent. years (108). Such cases &ave consideraa ble holJe to defenclers of the N.I.Ll..A .• I n fact, the Go_,;.:e rnmont in 

its brief in the Schechter case·· la.i c. strone; emphasis on the case of 

Loce.l 167, e tc. v. U~ S. ·. (109). · T'his involy ec3. a p1 ocooding in equity 

unde r t h e She rman Act against whole sa l e slaught er house operators, 

an associatiOi: o f marketma.n, 2.116. t vm l a.bor ·unions an d. certa in of 

t heL: mor·:iers. Tho combina.tion consp ired to a llocate retailoJ..~s to 

y;hol e se.l ers an{ to increase yrices. Althou gh the ccrnme rce p oint, 

bri in~ t he ca se with in feclere.l jurisd iction v.re.s not clear (110), 

t h e court fol t tha t such a restraint upon business shoulcl be removed. 

Seeming l y the most powerful argument a t t l1.e Government 1 s comma n d v1as the.t l a bor matters vvere used as methods of co rrrp oti tion, anc 

a.s such, e.nd a s pe,r t of the cost of p ro duction and tre.nSl)orta tion a 

98 38 
- ll -

(ire .ten( s tro.''· c.:' ·crt ··-:- s 1.0 J ' 1.': O' :.J.t •·l c-Vtc c r.1. 1:rcc ( ... 11 ) . 

'1.':1\) Govc J.·· :ne::1i a·tt ") to( t o "~ "l. i1 i tsc1f o f ~1'1"' vi c·:.• (l:i. ), bu t 

·.:•Ot 'u :· nurc:rcd f...·o -.'. i t L t oo :_ c~ . •. ~. ~_.rds t> c, 1 ·• t 0"'.\.. of·"l.!.'i mA 

,u.:. 1or.."'S · :·s t o t..i ,,t,,1 to _ u ... · ll.C'."' i :.. Jov. ;.L . -:. t :_o d , })05, t5.r(. -~ •. r 

L1t .) J.'St['t<' C'JJ :~)at ti\' ~ E'51CGt (1 ".. .... ). 

r·Jl<' 11 C'r'1e r o:rc·,· 11 ~.·c cl[' :.: ':'. ti \ --1.~· -i_ :. 8 CtS E"S~ . i.l 1:·) .-:) \ Ol'C - \. _,1 • c.l .... 

t~ u.,.)lt to s t r cn ~ .. ~ t } ci :;: COi1S t i tl.L t i ~~l 'J~ sis ( 11':) . fTih.1. r rosu1 t 

·r:--:; : ot rc2. hcc~. v:110., L c Sun::;.·oi.1C Co1 .r t h~ c occc.:::•i ·•::t t o .... on riCc:..· suc:1 

ov o~ s (1 J. ::Y ) . I t ~l!'S lon;. ·occ. t .101.1. ;_t t l. t ::>.: '. 11 c: .c r ._ OilCJ 11 ·.·ill 

l ' · •s 4 en · r-.· c.,tl· ·1 to~ ,.,., , ., .. u· ·c ·J1.rt ot 'r·''·.t ·.·-,_·so J·u::-.t i 'ia."L l o (li.6) . ·. S').C' t)'lc vl .l ... . 0 . , . 1. :~;:;, .• • · ~ - . 

SQ 1..; · t ::r -:. sa s v :..·o .·i:l_; C'1.'.t o::· t :!' ·:c ;:l :::: l ' _.C c , . .._. i .:.t ·co this 

v i "'·' (l2.7). l a t fn · rt.s•:; s 1.:~ ~. 2.~ t ::. Av_e_·1_t_ C[sc ( 113) L l:- ic.::- t oc1

. i:. ~2. t 

:->·J, 11 ..,-...,c ·· C"" C''" '"t ~ h t .n 1 J o "'1 c·;:t c ·si ·"' ~ ,~ o ;~(_ :::>~ · ---J o ·:c r s (llS). • • -- ··· - .. _, "- - t.\ ~ -- "-' ·~ .. ...L. • • -. ... _ _ .... v . ... ~ : 

L!Y :_Q") L; e.lolt. ~-~ f li:lf• '.;as C:: f.10Shcc 0:' t llc Su; c: v01".!'t . I t 

1~ ~' . J" 7..:.-_:-> t t~ e co·.~- t. LJ I''.J.s:i-:cl: t !=-C 11 cr!lc l ; c:'.cy 11 cct;~i n·3 af;.:.:-.c bccr> u so c ll cmc ::;e---~~· 11 no h m ,_ c _ .. cxi L toe'. L ·c lc cou~·ts 1 mi: ~.' . r•l1on 

the c> f' S \' c; :..~c deci :.o .. :;_. 

'l\lc lo.::e"J. 02.Si C for ll e_ sseS£<:!r::l.t. S11 •J:..'CS CJ.l.tS E'.J:Otl1Cl' ir.T}Ol't!=>.'i.·. t 

rob lc~n . · ~ ·Jurol '· vc 1.:s~ tD. ::.· .- r:£ t t ... ::.~ t :J.(; i.:O i s no ·.;oil: -'v in C<>.l l ii.: . . ..!- £. c;; l. -

cs~ .l :-J.ts " t;_xo s . r.=: :1.is ref l~s t o .. r sj_ h .1£'.tioll Y!i1 .l'G im'.iJ.St.L·y :·.1orn-

,_c U ·~c: v·rc ··o :;os'-ec' +c "o·.-.J ... l· o-,J·e 'o· ·"· ,o ~"'c "n n ~·oc· ··~ + to bop ·· .l.i.l , l. - ·· J.'- • v ~ "' ..LltJ. L_ l.J l - v 4- · ' .'lL1 \,_ .. ) 1 • t.J OJ. .;.v -" .I.. 

"~O J.l t :1cD, an(' not nc r ol y t l12.t ~" O" 'L·9::c £..S'>el-:-.t e rs to 2 volunte.ry 

Co c ~ I t J" ~ ··"n "- 'o'"' ,. .;- · :-.·t :=t s c; e ·1t·. --· · c:- + ..... !'> coc· e "10'11 c· be l c.-·!=>.l l v \.... • . • ' i..t...t,..;, J. \J l.j _.,. _ ~...... .'V \.. . oJ- -·· • " ,.,; - C ~ ._J v \' -"' . V \.- • VQ .- t.-

DOU.i. :. t o 2. i :..· caso:12..bl;r a ssc s:e,'. co (e c:~~ ·e s (l,Y'). =--.__,_ t t l!i s v1e.s 

~~ot t ::.c t?,; enere.l t ::con\.'l. i r: i!?..A . : t::s ont:cf' :i:' , n c cos f i t :c C. ccr cd 

t h e- : 11 f:'~ s s e ss· 1en ts 11 must ·.; e :m2.c'.e co:::pu l so:..~ . A3 ·.i ·,1 "u 0 Ca_'\}.f. c of tho 

'LU1US.11P.l scl:e r:1C o f -:-A, :r ,~. li sL :..·c ce C::.e1 .ts milf;t l..: e ·L.SGi.. . I n I nst i h ,_te 

0 .::- .i ? !:'· - · t e··.1. - J_ lJ ..t :...p D'e·J ~ ts V • Tt:~C ..W ~ i.. ''... , , 0 Q\."" 1. (l ,;:_, ~-1 ) t -

re -- , ~o• ,. \..I.. V e c·•• P '· -. l. (· . S _ . .J. '~QC 88'~;:, co 0'1 J. t '1e .:.. _ 

~~ eo :cy .-::Are Pa r lim(::: t me. ·_e n o T eo vi sioi'l fo:..' :::-e.i sing l(lm:.oy to ce r:_..~ .. on 

t :_::; e.ctivi t i e s o f t ·le I nstitu t e , :1o :::· raeJ .o e. ~1~r . ste.t u.to ry _:-_ re.nt tr2.t it 

::ms t l l:.". ve i l! tc:r: ~~ ec'. t h". t t !1c :1.0 ~1 e~ b e r a i s eC:. ~~ the I n s ti tu. t e w.1c'.or t he 

[.;8'1Ci."2.l '"90ViTe::cs s ivon it, sL1ce P<:=.:cli£'.rnen t raf1.li z o5. t. e. t t h e e.c t iviti e s 

to :..·es-..•.lt : ro rr tl:8 _::. t e tL.<.tc ·:·ouli.'_ co~t ;·,lo:·wy (13.:::;). LiJ;:9v7i sc t:r1e li .I. ?... A. 

C:: c~ J.:.) t )rovi c'.e for :ne tho s or :.lone;{ to c.e fre.y co (e a1.:.tl1ori t·· e:q:Jens e s. 

It cou.l c". be e.r c_;u.ecl .e.s i n the locb:'Too cl c . no t l:::.t II C; on::_::cess ca L~ sce.:l~ cel y :12. r c fa il e el t o rocoe:;ni zo t hat t r1e a c c::1c ies to i'i J::or:: t he PresicLent 

usJ~ neccss :.~ il r (~ clc atc pm-re r vw1.,~ l·. i;·,evitao l y i nCUl' oxpcns e s 11 .(123) 

'l;!::is :."ccobni ti o:1 v.a s not r.c c e s s2.i ily so :cea.,".il;-{ exi st e11 t as one •,vri tL., -; e. t t ::"e tir::e of t:1e fu:'..l s:::1 o :.; c. e.cti vi t i e s o f coC.e 8.u tho r i ties mi ght 

L~ . ;;he Act Yl2.S so i n c".E::fir!.ite t ha t ~) robably t hL=: ve.st majo rity t }:le. t 

vot.e c. :.~ it e s v;ell 2.s :-1any v.r!1o s·,)onsore c. it j.'l..eve r visUE.liz od the 

.c: i::-:. ··_ o: (~inistre. ti o:1 e. !:., :. ts r e su l t il:.,._; :-9:·obl eras t he.t 'i'ou l { e..rise. 

It is :;.ot to be cioubt c r. i f tl-.e i12. t1.1.ro 2."1 · us e of coc~. c e.utl:.:::> r i tie s 

lP.c,_ b '3 m.J. t i'"e fores e e·,.,_ e.nr.. e- :. ov c~ ~lf' t s or,1e e f:f·o:.·t ·;.roul( ve been . ~ 

me '. e to he.ve fine.nceC.. o :.· l)i'OYi C:.e e. mctho-.. · fo}: f in2.Y::ci:.1 ::_· t 1:eir activi tics, 

or L1 l i eu of t ha t t :-!e ar[:;e.r.leEt m: -: .e in tile Locl:\mo cl. C·?.se mi gh t l12.v e 

b oc·.1 I'.1

.lly te-nable . As stJ.B.ll b e seen L1 e. .t :i.~ cli2::.'tcr (124) it is 

op3:·: to c:_·.:.estio: ·:1et~1e r Co:i: ~,s evoi' u.n c· ::. stoo C.. a t tl~o time of the 

:;asse . .:_;e c:( t r.e Act C'l' e.ssm1teo. to t he co c' e fl.ntl:ori t;/ systor.1 as it 

C. e· 1o~J ef. . Foy:ever, if t l1e coC:.e :::;ut'lo ~i ~/ s yb t ei:1 liE.·· b e en ~;y roved 

?.nc. l~oco :,; nizeG. b y Con,:-;ross , :i.~eso rt COUl(i. have oe e~1 he.( to the doctrL1e 

9808 
- l-12-

ofincidenta l :,oowers to support assessments. (125). Still it shouJ.d be 

remembered that an administrative body is held much mor2 closely 'to 

their statutory charters than Cong ress has been to the Constitution. 

It might be that on such r easoning the courts would refuse to follow 

the Lockwood case. It is not to be doubted that 11 assessments 11 could 

haYe been made taxes by act of Congress p r esuming tha t the pu...~ose 

of the Act had been fou.."'l.d to be a valid public purpose . License 

fees, inspection fees, and other fe.es, t axes, and char c;es falling upon 

those receivin ~ the regulati on and its benefits have l ong been sustained in our law (126 ). Statutes of this character by the federal 

·government are not U11con1mon ( 127). Thel'e is no need to menti on the 

tyyJes of code ,revisions (128). Some were voluntary, but the dominant 

policy of NRA was to make them compulsory as best they could be • . Refusal to allow participation in a code binding upon an industry, withholding the use of insignia as well a s other metho d s were indirect means 

to make nassessments 11 mandatory. 1TAA did attem·ot to prevent the collection cf "assessments 11 as comp~sory u..'Yliess the cod-~ made non-l_)ayment a cede violation and an itemized budget and basis of contribution 

had been approved (129~. Although the placing of a provision in the 

Co0.e ma!.dng non-payment a violation of the Co f.te was thought to offer a 

soluticn to the difficulty (13n~,it is not easy to see th t it did. 

Aside from the 11 incidential 11 powers doctrine which has been considered 

and which if applicable would not require a code provision, little basis 

for legality can be seen in the fact that non-payment was made a ccC..e 

viclation. The re was no such magic in qalling any action an "unfair 

method of competi tion11 tha.t the courts would withhold a critical eye. 

Perhaps, a legislative declaration would carry such _poten·cy (even here it 

it is cLoubtful), but certainly · the finding of an administrative body 

engaged in sub-<-legis_lation W01)_ld not receive s1ich respect. That the 

courts 1.1ould allow punishment of non-payment- -of ari 11 as·sessment" is hard 

to believe, unless solTle real u..'Ylfair effect upon competition could. be 

visualized. by ·them. 

Although the cases are few, it w·ould seem p robable the't the courts 

woulc1 not allow ·fees or taxes to be charged by an administrative agency 

not based upon some positive statutory bases. Despite the unusual case 

of Hruuilton v. Dillin (131) in which such a fee was charged as part 

of the P:cesident 1 s power to license comn ercial intercourse with the 

South d:D..ring the ·civil War, it is doubtful th2.t IUandatory "assessments 11 

woulcl.. be cat led _9 rcp e rly grounded without specific wen t ion in the 

statute (1 32 ~. 

lELA anc1 the lHRA Tiere born in time s of stress. If in the c 'nfusion of these days some thought had been g i ven to the ·si.gn pests of the 

law, it n i ght have been possible to have avoided much that irritated the 

courts L1 less trving days, while yet accomplishing much. It is not 

meant t0 ccntend for an instant that our present Supreme Court would 

have upheld the NrtA if this had been done, but rathe r tha t the NIR~ 

would hav e d one all in its power to harmonize with the judicial techniq:ue rrhile yet attempting to accomplish its objectives. 

" 

9838 
.. 

'-

DELEGA'TivN BY CC "1GRESS 

;T he ·· f'l:cirn t ho t d l_ trnted · ,··cr c:3n 1C't be edeler,C~ted hns l on n; 

f' .1 C"'. l.e<l 11 r.ne ,..f t hv sett ed naxims in con sti t ticnr' l l R7 11 (J.) . 

,~,.., v• in is true is not er~s lv understC'cd, in vi ew of t he lon,O' lii1e cf -~ • v 

"SOS bv t !1e Sup r : e C 1rrt sustaining ;1 ] 1 dele g:"ltiC'ns comin . ., befo r e 

11e .. Des11 i te t .1e se de cisions ''Vhich rycul " seeFl to have the effect t r 

i crurn r;e discussion of this q'.:test io n , it h;,s been 0n of the nest ··E'Oific sr u rces 0f co stitutic :al sp oculRtion. 1lhis problem is Rn 

xce J.Lent exr>mple for students tc use .i n iscus~ .:; t he s enF.Jration of 

C'v ::!.~e1: tc.J. ·oo,..,e rs t ... 1ar r y a nc' the tri-pF.J itite division of rsove rnrnent . 

he~1 t r r, n<'re discern i r.,-s stud.en ts san in t he great mass of Sto te cAses, 

nvolving r::.unicipa l corporat ions p;,:rticula rly , S0 1".1 (">. r eal existence and 

eat in th~ theory 0f non- c,_eJ.e€D bi l i ty of po'.'1e rs. 

T~1e :maxim deJ:~ fltA -p 0test l"l s ncn tes ~ del e -:;n rin ( 2) has A l0ng 

nd cu::..·icus history . It hDs been trac ed in an t ig:-:t.i ty to Justj ·1ia n 's 

i rest (3) as a. refere nce t ju::..·isdiction, An d its use in Brac' on in 

h:3t sense has been the subj e ct of more com::1ent. Professor D..1i'f i n a 

chrl::-o rly 8rticle has p ointed. out that t h j s ma.x im nhich has been so 

ully nccelJted in our larr ::~ on the a,.:tthority of Brac ton, har ... no basis 

n Jrr>cton but owed its existence tc an · omitted cornma, "the careless 1ess 

f e sixteenth century printer " ( 4) . So, these words of BrF.Jcton up on 

ee:~P J! .l ation cor1e to mean 11 the King 's pov7er is not diminished by deleetir:i to others" (5). T11is inte rprettfl-t ion of the la''' is borne out by 

he St tute of Pro clamD.tions passed. in· 1539, which dele gated tremendous 

O'.ic rs tr Henry VIII (6). But to erase the maxim 1 s basis in Bractcn 

oes net destroy it. Professcr Cor r-rin finds the source and f o rm having 

eal si e-.n ificance for our law in Locke 1 s Treatise on Civil Government. 

7). If this ma xim, which has been pa id lir,-service in this · country for 

o long , hod been strictly applied in our constitutional law t4e · 

ffici ency of our e;-;overnmental system 'JOuld :b..ave been strangled ( 8 ). 

n feet, its effec~ upon the developme nt of ad.TJlinistration ha.s "been 

li6httt (S) . 

iJith t he vast srovrth of adr.linistration and the gro1.7 th of deleg8ted 

e~islt8tion, c1uestions of dele gation became mo re i mpo rtant. This Tif:IS 

rt' .. e in ~1g·la nd earlier t han i n this ccuntrJ ( 10). The old maxim 

l~ ~:-;ata. ~J otest9s non potest del c;.ga ri_" wa s dusted off and used a.s a 

eA ~J cn in attacking sta tutes grc::mtin,s sub- legislative U0\7er. In this 

aunt~' delegation is seen as a due ])recess of la'.'.' p roblem (11) . 

his '.701.lid seem to be FJ r1ore justifiable use of the conceut, as inolving a broad question of co n.stitutionb l p r o cedure, : than the more 

ubsta"ntive probler1s to Tihich the "d,.:te precess n co ncep t has been 

uplied. In the mgss of legal artic2.es upon the 1~ . I.R.A., :po·~ers were 

een as B~) ortant but c1elegat io n wa s thought to present little diffiulty (12). In 1825, the court cou ld. say that nt:1e line has ne t been 

xactly drarm which se1Ja rates those i mportant subjects which must be 

ntirely regu.lated by the leg islature itself, and those of less interest, 

n nhich a general provision may be mF.Jde, and p ower g iven to those 1}:'"ho 

re to act under such gene ral provisions to fill up the details". (1 3 ) 

1838 
- 114-

This ,_7.:J S the state of the cases in JAnuary, 1935. As one commentator 

said, ":tJo de legation of p o::rer by Congr e ss has ever oeen i nvalidated.; successive dele ga tions, each g reater than the pre ced.i ng , have been upheld.n 

(14 ) Th is wa s t he important fPct to most stude ~s cf the subject (15) . 

The le ga l t heory of dele gation has be en suggested in an early 

chapter (16). The leg isla.ture states the p olicy . The admin ist ra tive 

body finds facts conditioning the application of the po licy . Statute s 

invclving delegated leg islative power are subject to classification . 

l. on~re s may declare the policy but leave its enforcement dormant 

until t he a.cl.ministration makes it effective by finding cert,g in facts (17) . 

The f8 cts to be found may allow a considerable exercise of discreticn. 

This wa s one of the earliest f o rms. 2. Congress outline s the oene r a l 

policies but leaves to the administration the prcblem of filling in details 

details (18 )·. This mode is particularly valuable where detail not involving broad policies is needed, where expert knowledge will furnish 

technica.l knowledge, · or where Congress can not foresee the many conti ngencies. 3. Involving ma1:w of the same reasons as the preceding category a.re situations where a certain measure of discretion must be g iven 

to t he Administrc:Jtion (19). This is m.ore true nhen delegations are wa de 

involving subject matter not readily reducible to trea.tment by n recise 

forau~a . Tnese cases a.pproa.ch the line of legislation most closel ~.r (20) . 

Rate-making power, until recently, has been the out sta.nding example. 

A survey of a.ll the ca.seshere would serve no useful purpose (21). 

Suffice it to say tha.t in a long line of cases the Supreme Court never 

founci a dele gation improp~r until the ;pa nRma Refining Case (22). T,_-o 

que sticns are of importance. · The court ,could have questioned the standard a.s being too indefinite, or it could }fave said this is a non-delega.ble 

power. Even todaY: the court ha.s never said that :::lny pC!rticula.r atteu2,1 ts 

to delegate ]JOwers of Ccngress are bad as the -p owe rs a.re non-delegeble. 

This line of approach . shou;Ld not bei·.:thought to be closed, however (23). 

In light of the decisions the iinporto?n t question is how definite :t1ust a. 

stenda.rcl be. In Field"·.+ ·. Clark· ( 21-1) if the President found the si tua.tion 

as tc a.ny COuntry in co nne ctfo·n:· v.ri th certa in i terns flrecip rOCC!lly unequal 

and unrea.sona.ble" .he was .req-lli·red ." to susp end the free list. Though this 

might not p resent a very debF~table problem the standard was not stated 

in ~p recise terms, and. though ·manda.torily stated, by p lacing the poner in 

the President's hands it became discretionary. A similar standard , 

though not to be exercised by the President, is found in the power given 

the Secretary of Wa.r to require changes or alterations in a bridge over 

a. navi gable stream if he finds that it is "an unrea.sonable obstruction 

to the free navigation of such waters!! (25). But Tihere terms of general 

na.ture a.re used in a. standard such as one for the 8pprov81 of films 

found to be IJof' a mora.l, educational, or amusing and harmless character 11 , 

the sta ndard would seem to be approaching the realm of indefinite ncrn s. 

The Supreme Ccurt did not object to this stRndard , though (26) . Even 

the genera.l t e rm "public interestn wa s treated a.s a proper standard , t he 

court seeing it as limited as the act "was desi gned to better assure 

adequa cy i n transportation service" (27). A similar standard is found . 

in the rrords "reaso~able •••• in the interest of the public and of comm.erce" 

found in Avent v. u.s. (28). A st<itutory proviso that came before. t he 

court in United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc. (29) allo ed the 

98 38 
- J.l· -

'resident t0 me 1ce exce})t io ns "in th '1ubl i c in tl r a st " to the r u le fer 

;nle c ... c:lien propert. to the hiLhe<-t bi dC:er at a uubJ.ic s:Jle . Such c 

>rrvisc hCJs nr gre,') t e r re nuir emcnt th:m tnet DreP.1lJued t n c • 1Pli cl b·· n 

.~~·i'"'lotu c i n mplci!lg le .:~is ot i n . It can oasiJ.;r be underst0on , fro 11 

evic~ ::L1 g these few exn .. ol e s . wby the Jlr obl e, of stAndords t.':'ns no1· 

:.he '-\ . .:1 t t o p re sent any serious oro blem. ...,;Ven ,,hen o bje c ~ion v.•n s ·~Flkcn 

~r t "i:'e ~C.JJinistr<Oltive assumption of p0 ie r un<le r a del t_")tio.l with bread 

;t"'.:: :' cls (3J) ne ithe r tho tCJndards nor the dele~nt io :r ''e r e f"ltt'3cl::...d ( :5J ) . 

~o s len_; ?S t ho cour t hGs been able t o see f '' 1e dc:::'in i te con e·ot tied up 

Ti tn the sta.ndard., \7het be r it •as t he 0ne L1tencle cl by C ngrcss C'r not , 

· ~;; d.e le ga ti n hos been held to be p r nper ( .32 ) . As s tudcntG hDve nO-, 

,hr'"'"ed. it dele,:ration is prop r· abdic[lticn is not , Scme write r s sri'! 

;his pc ssi bili t y c fore Jt1l1\1Flry , 1 9:5 ( 33) , There ;~T."l s m excel] ent bCJ sis 

.n the StDte ca s s fe r s::>r.1e cc nst r 1ct ive th ught upon the question of 

Lele E;;a tion • .J rOJ t le se co ses it w, s 1Jossible to set UJ' certc:lin tests 

·het de lega tion shoul d mee t to e s cvpe judici~ l c rit icism (31 ). As the 

~overnnent p resented its cGse t o t he Su_u r eme Court t wo of t he sta nde>rds 

,f t he Act ·ie r e ne gn tive i n cha r f1 cte r (3:- ) . These '.lllere the ·~ irGi.1ent s 

;hat 1 . there be no i ne(luitable r estrl ctiC' n upon admissio n t o •1embe rsh i p 

md the re qni:.emen t t h·1 t tLe ,... np ~ent s be trul ,r rep r esentativ-.: , ::1nd 2 . 

;ha t t he ce des s h<"'1J.ld not Dnr·ote Flc ::lODClies or eli mi na te or onur e ss 

;mall e: te r p rises (36 ). :a> merely s:rr.i n<:.'; 11ho t ce de s could not. be, no 

;tanciards were s e t up tc P,uide the Presi dent i n a·opr cving codes. For a 

10sitive guidance r e sort must b"' hod. to t lle third st a n dard suggested by 

;he gc ver~'l:n ent' s brief th.g t t he ec cLe s must t end to e f fe ctuate the p olicy 

.eid a.oun in the Act (37) . ·rhe Decla r ati c n of Policy seems t o be CJ. broc-Jd. 

1re:> i:ible ( 0B). The ob je ctive s of the Act cne stated. i n broad Flnd Dossibl y 

:ontrr'C~ ict r terms . h'ia i nly efe ~":ce is made to i ndu stry and labo r, 

rit i.1cut restricting t hese to CJny concep t of interstat e comme rce . 

iug:;e stio:..1 s as to the me thod to accomnlish t hese brm d objectives Tiere 

tot fcund in the Act. Broad st [m <'~ rds hAve 'been app roved but never hC'l.d 

;c many ancl. !JC' ssi blj-· contradictory ones been co ntaine d in one Act ':.'h ich 

.ndi cated no basic or underly ing plan. It wn s obvious t ha t t he CC'ngress 

Lid net lmow ''hat ·7ould be do ne, nor did t he Administration. Here V:·3 S 

lbdicaticn. The Congress hacl SC'l id , t l=lke over t he r> r oblems of industry 

md la.bc r, p hr asing it i n p l at itudinous lan .::~a ge . Desp ite wha t a are ~ 

mal;;,-sis uould have s h0vm at e> ny time, t he P?na.ma Refi n~ decisio n ( 39) 

:a!i1e as a. distinct surprise to most i nf or med -pe r son s. Dele gations in 

~ngl~nd had go ne much fa rthe r t han they hc. d in this country, the English 

~o tU~ ts being without judicial r ev i ew have had difficulty in curbing t hem 

:40) . Dele gations in the Uni tecl Sta tes having been s 0 bread as has just 

)een se en, it seems t ha t in t he PEmama case the maxim directe d a.ga.inst 

iele [.,c: ticn nrises as a gho st t o hamper" (41) government. Tha t t h is ma.xim 

vhich had been kept alive by the Stf1 t e cour t s as pa rt of t he unwritten 

::onstitution (42) ''?Oul d cor.:e t r: ;Jla _3,ue the f ederal Cong r e ss had bee n seen 

>nl~' by 2 few students (43), But Chief Justice Hu he 11 opi n ion in the 

:?na. a Case gave flesh and ste> t u re to t his ske le ton '7hich had so long 

rattled in ou11 ccnstitu tional c l ose t s . Here vras a ca se t ha t ~r ved t ha t 

~s h? d been intima t e d there we re caees where t he judges would G.ra.w the 

Line ( 44 ) . The co urt f elt a--lparently t hFl t if it uphe l d t he de leg:;~t ion, 

f:.ee as it was from standa r ds , "it \,cu~d be idl e t c p retend t ha t anythi ng 

Yould. ·oe left of 1 i r:1i t at i ons upon t he powe r of Cong ress to d.ele gate laTInaki ng functions" ( 45) . ;i r. J u stice Cardoza contended aga inst the Ch ief 

3838 
- 116-

Justice that the po licy of the Act becar.1e t he sta nda rds f or 9(c) (46), 

al thn_,_gh later in the Schechter Ca s e he did not feel t hpt it p rovided. El. 

standa rd f e r 3( a ) (47). The most precise reeding 'c!ill hA rdly discover 

mol e tha.11 here ,-·a.s a dele gation in a fiel d where t he c o1: rt felt teo 

broe.d standards undesirable. 

9838 
- 1? 

':-~APTER XV 

D:CLE AT I 

In the fir~ t i!1:-.f:"nr.e "cl·ninirtr"ti0: L t~1 "X,'rci•;c of ri l0 1 :· t cl 

ro':lcr (1) . It ''l"'c i<- t.L"'r· ct~....ri~: c\ i!1t 'r,t~ ll.,r ;· tl cl~::lnc;-". io•1 of' 

;7,o•:rc.rr- ''1l~. fwl, ti01 o . .\.en~· O"rd o_ O"J•lisciol1 i'l gi c pm·.rer it in 

l'-IX cc~ c'. trt t1ic O\'C- ·ill be (:.--rci;cll:;t su crtli: t ::; . TL mcrau0r" 'f t.nc 10:- rd or co li'lL. i o' or t>."' ~( •. l.:.~ i:-;tl' Lor (if one :1""1 : ..... 

~.:, on tire l" O':"~O 1"'ibi 1.i t ·) c r t.:'"'}JOl' "'i' l0 i'o . t "' ~--ercicc of t:i.1 

.... -.ltl-lrity , · '.t t h3. c·::~:.0t , cxc.:>'Jt L : L1c 10 t 11i:'t0r i1: t 1-.co , l· ~·cic­

"L l~- 11crforf'l. t _._..,_ c M;ri ;-.(1 of c:et ilo ,l1'C ;~c'.-. nd rr '"-1r1Lti:-tl' ticm (1.-~) . 

f.'1.··ti u.l·rl~~ i; t~:i"" tr·.le ,.,~ e ~ dutie::: ., . .., riled U.D )! t .C ~re::: id'-'::t 1 

w .• crc Coj:t: r c ..,s :1· 1 r · ll.r L1tcndec to t1.1.r _ t :_,.,. ·''>.Ltcr ove-r to exc c,ltivc 

·:ecir;io:1 (j) . T:·_c re .·~s bGc1 r'o unifor :~V. b to ··.-; ·w< ctice in c;t; .ti":g 

~l". t ~ o···cr or :i:)O"'e r s C') l-l.hl 1: e ::.·e·.'.c l c:- ted , s--,e c::. · l l .r r.rllGre it :;ee:n 

:r...-...tl.~r -" 1 t> t t !::.e Ul-.~iCG r:ill c ·rf-:nmco .- y e~jJ0: 1sib e cubordhl".tes 

(4) . The r e i t ic tl·Y'._~· t ,~ t p ower vri ll t: l' ecloloe;r-.tcc' to ~>.mo e i!lde~"endellt offi r.i ,_ st·-tut os h ".ve ·, .Gn :-:1o r o -"~ reci ~ (r-.) . 

I n t}l..; ~.., t'cec~ i:l C c 'Y·:ntc ~ it ~~r . ..> ·oocn s e er. t >r t c:i.o lG[.;t'.ti'): by 

Congre('s >'.c.·. :1c·rc1· ·-..rcs" ~: ec' ·- quc .... ~iol'l of lYt1.:.:1i·-:.-': L lt ::: :;:c .--.t unti l 

r ecentl y . 'i'r.i s E~c'7:is , i s tr· .e of the ·-:rob l crn of :r c(L lo b~. 1g 1'0"/Gr ... 

Cl'~ e ~~eC b·,r ~n n t - - ~~ 'nnn .... ,,~ ~Crl Y nL- r-~ ~~io~ l· - ~t · l'11 - ,._:. v . '- v\' b .. ~ ... , . 0 _,_. ... ') vv i:.;')t... .. :.>~.\:. .. v ~ --. '-'\.,-'" v ..... J..L ·- -· • 

lirdtr- i s t >.e :lOTJ7l" l im:)l ic:-- tio;;_ of·t~:.G firc-t CClC0 '·.t i o:-- to "'-Jrli!'listr ::.-

tio: • Tw quc::;th,I'. :;.r1 ;" ".rir c s C01J_l cl ~1c r ·Ci }' i ont of t':"c :po .. •,rs from 

Co11LJC"S o I".l' r. '- el o~~. te i 'u.:; pov·or~ t :.:.t L lt' Cf1Ur t s '.rou_ll_ i:wolm tho 

m"'.xLn 11 d.o lef..:r t <'. 'otcstes • m: ·oo t c c t ,·_a l oe r i 11 ? It -- ·oul-J s ec;:1 t : -~.t thi s 

mi{-'..'lC _r_-,·,en . I f t1l8 st· tutor,,· --, :;:· · cticc. i s to S) cific·- l l ,· ment i on 

dcle :-~· on ~ to ~.; ~ ltt"'.'' c. -+:.o :;~1 :c "' . .<~.:;· ciz" nJt Circc tl,- r "::.·;-Jo:lsib l e to ... ..,# \,. u -

L:.:> .-... ·e ~l y _·e ccivL!.l;. Llc ·r,o-.<··c Cl·ci,::. i-:1 JL-- , it r;:.i ·: t l:o i:1fo r r e:d },~ t 

o:.e-rcs~ :->.t l er'st eli ,_: ::-w t · --,·::.·o·lo ~uch " :.. cc~.:lef: "ti o'!·~ :1.ot , -,)e c ific .... llJ 

:~ut11o· ·i zcd. ·b;: it • . 1~~, e -.-)'J ;;o ~ " r c E'~G 'l" cic::- d >:_; the <:>.c_e!l.c;{ or ,..,(.;rso:: 

r cco i vint, t.1e -:-l b •J.t t ·, !(: .. ,rGG <' UJ'O of YJo r L ~10 si t-· ton r cs o:.· t to s t :::.ff 

"' "'.-::l· t-- •ce rs t _•,; c: l. c: ~ ~-, -r · ., .... .. ~v C'l,.-, ..... C-·ltr> -/•i co t_l. c or'· "clni ·l -c~ tion o'b- ' '-" ~o.. JoJ ._ .- . .. ' v ....... _ - ~ ~ ;- _ .L . l ~ L u - -· V ..., _.. - .-,;> v ~ • ' - ',J .L ' 

joct_;_0:'l o:~ trh; c'c~ lc s·t i-J l ;''YOl.U1d v.o~.:· d no t Tl" Op (~r y :-.ri s e . r_r};_i s i s ['.S 

l ons ·-s r .'.c~r. rt n nt cxcrc i sec. <'j·,cJ. ._., .... _..., ros)_10::si'Jl o f e r t~1c pouors dc1o .... 

~;" ee' t o it , no q_--1es ti o. vJO-;,:.l C:. G<..! em lE:-. l .l to come U}) • S') with the 

Pr c_. sh:.ei:t ,r; ~;,-:t i:.lt; n i s fu:r_cti;r::s t o -- cr· i ;:e t Cl f£ic<.;l' or ot!:.Cl' offici--.1' 

for i::.1 t.li:; u:::us;.lf·.l s i tu_ .... _t i o1l suc h po r sc:1s mi c;ht :oro~0.:; y ·be ::: 'J :;. sidor e c1 

T':.rt of 1 i s s t ..,ff . Tl1i s }Jro-Dl em is tir ~r il: t he r e ···.l rn. of .l')e'culp.t i .,n , 

:v t_~ :10 c'.i r oc t , 01_;_ t oE ~r c oll :·, t or:- 1 :' si st :· ~~ ce i1 tho c ···sc s . I t woul d 

ecm lo, ;ic" 1 to c::_:·:•o ct ::c s y.JO:..ls i bili ty ·-.::c~ f'Ll"_l 6.e ter.:!L"!ro tiol:. t o ctr.y i n 

L 1e l)e rson or :-.ce:1cy rece i vinl; t::.c :J'Jwo r f·:oY:'l Co:1'_r css . As Ll t he q1J.c sti o::l~ of L·113 (e cc~t o·,1 o -.- Con[:r e s :: t ho re c~ ~1 no t be .... .-i__,di c ,".tion . I t i;t.,".y 

be t.l.".t 1is oi':'-'et c:--.;.1 l;c '- ~--.rec. "u ~- t oo muc~1 :rt., li:-...n c c oo i !1t;_; g i ve·d to 

t: C r0COt tT110i.tC~- .t ·-:.m s oi' r <l Vi SO!.': :- ,[_.e :"lC i CS 1 bv.t }!~ t i s :-'. ~.LCS on of t!lC 

huPl-"',n eau:-.Gi Oi1 :~,ot r ".-.'.ily t r c. ~, c(j_ ·.s r, ·ctcr ')l l:'.w • (5) 

Ti1e NIRA spec i f i c· l l Jr· st<·-tet1. t ·'.: t t '1c:. rosi c'c ~~t .ni:·: t ~k e_:::C'.tc t h e 

-~c+l·0- ~ ~- 1-' c-O ' ''r· r· .-. -. ; ·c-, 'r-il··l·.:•_ +o 11 o -; f l· c -··· "' ··e~· ..., "'•l Cl <... .-.,·.no loy...,ec:- 11 (7 ) . u..J...L v . _ .._ ~J L. _) v~ v ...> c._; ..1- • _ v - \.;..; - t .. ..__ - .. '-' t .... ~- ~ _ ~ ~ '-" u 

I t die ... ilot r'.ut'1o :::.'i ze cG.e: le~ ,r. tiol'. b;• tbc:t . The ?rcsi d.cr..t d i 6. est ..... blish 

mo r e 'r_,_;·.r~ ti1o ~:HA u: .:G c l' t _ o ·· ut.~8r i t:: of the Ac t (3) . ~ e ..., e --.:;;e nc i es vrerc 

not subs cl r;y t o ~J i:lA , but ,.d.Ju·"l c t or ~c1J -. te ~-.r-·c '1.c i es of eq_1 '..."'.l s t £'.t us 

t o -:~i c: tl ... e Presiden t i :l r' . .C~L1 stcr r·.g t :1c .c\.c t . T:ie .c t s t .... ~-llG of ll 
- 113- .. 

such <'{;encies w.--..s n ever c1e".r (9) , b 1..:.t r> s o~1g 's the~ we r e cre<'.tod by . 

the President ~1eJt co :1ot ue --- ~: ') ~c quostiojl of rcr.to t e (;d.eleg~.t io • 

J:ho d.e leg::·.ti ons m2.l:·e ':; y executive ord.er .".ro t oncn to 't}'}is q·u.estion 

o i t -,1e r (10) . T:1ey , t oo , vrerc .'..uti.1ori zed b~.- t i. c s··.f:"e ··· r ovisio:1 of the 

Act . ?..cde l egr.tio11 ~r the N.HA , horcve·c·, ;r s opc::1 t o qr.estion . Power 

wc:-.s r cd.e 1ef:;".tcd ty t he rJ-.tiorlc.l I nl'.ustri:.:.l :;:kcovc:? 3o<.'.rd to the D&puty 

AG.minist:c·- tor fo r :1~. w:~i i (11) n.:;: d fe r .Al::-.sJ:r. (12) t o· exercise the pone rs 

c~elc.gC'. ecl. b;)" ~1e Prcsi (,e:J.t to t !1c 13o ·~ rd. LE~e ·rise LK AC:.minis ::.r ..... tor 

r ccle 1ec:--.te C:.. p owe r t o the :::-:•eputy .A.:ID.il1istr··.tnr of t !·e Servic& Tr<'des 

Se ctiol. to ··'-:•lJ:;rove tr.:-.cle r.re<'.s c·.::1·::. r eL·.tcd ~.c ioi1S (13) <'.r..d to t~1e 

ep t~v .A.dministr::- tor of t he j)i s tri tuti:tl?.; Trc- des Se ction to <'-1Jp rove 

c e rt::-.i 11 loc··,_ l code t~ut ori t 'ies · ncJ. cour..; ils (14) . :Sven more q1."LestionC'.b1 e vvr.s the V".s t l'e dolego.tion (1 5) to Code Autnori tics (1 6) by !.IRA. 

Those . rede l egc:.tions ·wo re n ot usUr':'..lly in t !K form of offici.:->.1 orders (17). 

Powe r VJ<:'.s g iven , n :·1( -:•J rovc~ 1 -r~.s gi vc11 by "'' ~:. ovi?:"tg t nc code p r ovisions 

conto.i nL1g 'such c~ ts Jf ;~ ower. Whe!: t he r::t~t of )OWe r W['.S :--.pyro·.red 

by t :w A: .mi aisJcr.::. tor r ·.- t hsr th".r: t he ? r ·::sident tnc r ede1eg.- tion question becomes more c.cuto. First t .'.1e Prvsic!..::llt hod. d.c leg<'.ted ti.1e }Jowerto c~o ce rt.,...i r. thi i1(S to the A.-·.oi l1istr t or '.':l1c i;·_ tur n de 1egr.ted it to 

t he Coc, e .Authority , ic l1 frequc~1t . Tcdc:l GP'·-.ted t ,. .G ·o>Jer t o so!:J.e committee or d..ivisio:.1:·"1 or regio:J:•.J. ···x.t .:"; -ity. (18 ) o is no rule 11:~. t 

c c.n bo :'.:·.-l}J1ie d t o ct.c. t ol"T!lir:c Jh~. t is too :!.'c.;noto .--. c' \.. o~;:-' tiol • 5ut ho re 

it c:--.::.1 c .::rt "··_ inly be s.".i d ~·w d.o1e.o~ :·.ticu Vv"e:~t nn::.c:1 :f"..:rr·tl1c r L1 nu1nber of 

rod.e1cgc.tiojlS th.".'il i s conmon r- ctic . ·~he t est t~:- t t "1e courts v·ould 

prob -oly <'-!='\) l y Fonlc'. b,.; t':lc D:ro ·-- d o--l.c us d L:. so r. ".:ly ..,_clr::inistr-.tive 

L:;;w problems , "Is 1. s b: f. ~ .. : ... stT t:;_~{e y-r .etice? 11 • Such remote 

r ede 1e[;;'.tion s n ot re:co,·;nizcG. s~ ,c cific '. lly b~: on~~ ss "·rould seem to be 

u n6.esir2.b1e 2. cl! linis ·-. ti7 e ~:;r-- cticc . Wncn. t !1e :.ub1 ic, :fee2.inG Le 

e ff e cts o:t' the r>,G.ministr .".ti on o:f t he lHRA , C.:".r:lC t o rc:-.lize ~u- t :•. riv.:--.te 

rou~)S of Llte rcsted o-c r s ons ne r o exo rcisinc t ~)0\'ver s Vl~: ic _ co-al ( 

effect its soci -- l .::-·nd e c.onomic ·futur e., d no lo:l['cr l ooked upol1 t :1ese 

c roups ·,_s ·:-.:·:.e:1ts of t he President, t:1en it woul d ~0Gr.l .0.s ~~ :n .. tter o.· 0<1-

ministr,.. tivo p r t:-. cticc de legr·.ti on 11 c1. t.;onc too f".r. V;1J.1ci_ tho off ct of 

.::'. ctio:·. ·o:• such :3r oups v-.r -.s t he fLl:· .. l e x,:· reisc of "CJ:~ii.istrf'.tive -oowcr, ove r 

which ·only :. n ineffective C'.:1d. fo :rrnc-.1 cor:.tro1 \'Tr'.S n- i nt.':'..ineCi. , t l:1-.;;11 it might 

be <...--b .., ·r ~·ue d t 'l·le .-. ·,.Jrnl· ;, 1. c• j- r ·. t l. •0 1, ''(' co i vi ., ·." ~,..... (-•-1 ; "! :.:··- ... ~ -o ,...,,.,,., .,...<:. 1.., .. d "bdi c ".ted ,. ~. l 4- '-lV ,. ..L •• ,!.. , __ _. _C.• --'--' . ...., ....... , .(_"'\ \J ,\...._- .J•\.J.-.~ . l.C.., C .. 

tl'ie exercise oi' t ho se :)oYvel ~: L _ L '.V·_,r of cr 1.ns :.u. ". l' co r..izod b~r the 1egisl .::.ture . 'I~'·. w nnou:.n:cc !. ·:J olic-:,r of 11 Sc lf- Gnv c r-;l.! ,-,nt of ~-=-~s ness 11 W<'-S not co::.- - . si"-'t Ol1t wit!.1 · simple ~~_, le -:-;" ti o:i. of 1,10\'v<Jr co L1c Pre sidt:'nt "..!1C, his subordi ;.l;-.t es • .• 

Tie: l r. .t ecl t o t~ c r cmo t e;1oss of t .::.c r cc'.clc.:_:: .. i~n is t ho ·q 'cstion of to 

whom t l1c ])Ower w.--'.s roc".elec:;::-.tod , .-": _r'· ·~ e.tl :c ~ te s0 ·"'- rso::s or c-roup s could 

exe rcise SLlCL powe·r. It wn1.u(:. s~:· cm ~ •o-rf Qctly prO}"'G-:' to c.!.c let:; t..: :~)O ·.rer to 

other f ec:.e r ..... l off ici :~. J.s s uch ".s Y.rr.s , o .. w ·:·:!vre t _lc PrGsidm:t de1eg:--.ted 

p owers u:-ide r t he NIR4.. to t :1c Secre t -rios of I:-..t ri r ·:Hi Ac:;ricul turo (19) . 

T:K. common ~1 tic · is to redc 1otg".t e l')O 'IO r t o rGSj_)n:l ible forlor"..1 ffiei::'.ls 

(20). I t lu·.s ooen 'he l d ;wo-oer f or tho f ecio r-' 1 P- O- n~ nt t o uso St:>.tG officiJ.l S ·wl1o r e t:lo Co;.1._T e-ss l1" c~ so ~ro viC:.ed ( :n): -:::~~ is W.l..s cl cid.ed lli1doa; 

t he c tre""' of v·P ,r , but ~10 o'u.jcctio ~ c ··, '!. ' 0 soun to u~ ing ·', st"tc offici ".l 

~1o rc t J.1c r o i s n o thi:.:.,., in h i s r:t .". t o duti es or •~ "'}: .il ili ti es i:J.CO'!:sistcnt 

\1i th h is C' )Cl ·.), rfor ra·-J.1Cc o~· ·t ~le t?d.cl l d::tti os .'J·i vcn h im. 

'l'o w1d.c-cs ''.l~<l t 1...' .Lee;· ·. )_ ,, :.~e cts 

r o1"..tio:'l tn tL cs~ tio~_ , some Gi, u.e;ht 

9838 

f t nc coC.e u tho::i t y ~Yt o blom in 

culc: c .~·. i ·1e:1 t o L1e ~'lc ture of cod.o 
- 11 ... -

:--u~'1o:.·:it ::. s . Co2L ..,.._tt 1ritic" " .Ia ~ i!·. c;., ·. .~ 1· d cr).~fL.ctiY'~ .... llc::?;i-

'"'.:'.co ~J . '.'.".lCn th'-' Cotl c ~ut :ori ty m '1'1 01 ·· o ""iv, ;1 t ' •, 0"/...:1 of '"' 

··t.uJic 'J~.':."ic~..r ' .., c i''Ct' t'. 'ut f it:lfull:· to C''"T:J ott .c st iitcr-

~,;.,ts of : : ::.,ovc.rn .::'1t .. s ., it . Y t s . . J~,.r ~ i c:u"'t..·;; :1· 'J''~,;d. 

(~.l c·· t') t:1c ii1L'l8t--: t o .vl}J "~'.'O lOtc it . p·,·c 1.1 .. 0 t~ t ' . coull~ 

possi tly I02.' "'C t :.iH i.~(' wtr: s i tc c-tr- ) "'Cil 1 t"'lY , r till !1ir ''hole 

tr· i::.'.l..'.: v·o·tJcl 1<- .cl .!i r. to f · r ·li s i '\.l"t~-y , si.iC JC: " :1 t:: tcly ::;,'!'1-

~:'1 • t; :.i zc ct. "it~ 1 t s , r6 b l crt>.s . T t ·1j i1 :i r i.'!.rl· •s t l ' Y 1 i, l ' '!. t,' ·:- r t r· .!o11lc. be 

::·irst ·:it1::. 1i"' era fLT~ , ·-:~xt wi!~> ::'jr •. ~' .!.. "' <" ' . ,,]·· -~:tis )'vV11 . 

:·'- rv , t;Jo , ft::vr c:1 co~.t lr'_ h · ·ro .osG ilJly .J C' Jo t !.l f ..... L :·.:.· · imp rti..., l , .10 

us·::. .L::.. ~ c.:--,~:. i . t .. c for :~ o:: · s"l".r: T-• L ·b~ 1 >, .•• \):.· o; t-1'-' i.Jcl.,~s try 

fo1· svrv .l.cGs ~s co;._;; ·· . <r o··cv' tive , ~J.e CO'l_l · il 1 ~ffo C.. 7.o jeOT'r(1 izo 

1 is :future so cu1·ity, i f 7'~ irncss --:.,_c'_ · ".l it .~ ~..:rl' c' cJ i t . 

':':.o !.: I:'.J.. :r-.c oh.'l'2.z .:) s t ' 1 t -cr· .c'.c · rs·; ci·:-.tior_s \'Q.Ul c". l"l".rticiynte ::~ 

LlL: lc[;isl ":;ivo ···::oco ss , o -;.,_t t ·_o c i s i:. it :1o rcco---;:.::ition t !l. . . t thG~' nou ld 

.ctivc ly .. ~.cl:.1 ini~t cr r~or .io: ~ )f t !1..c res,ll t (23) . T!.1c coc.le ".uthoritic s 

• 'C'1''' ....., ·:c·r- c1 .:· .L~. .. r·u""- <l t. 'f'oq._ t er-. · \..: r'-, 'L.... -,"- ... . ,: - • ·""~ "r.t o··+ oft·, ., t,~ .-'- "~ soc · t1' o·1s "1 ro- 0 - v v· L.L v l.o. V _ \...L. \ ., " • ....., _ ( .. _ .... 

p')sL1..,; c0c,es. ',;:::w :,:·.c~c '.scoc:.· t '2. ')!1S r · r( s-:- te c: 1Wu .. t·.lly t he m0st proc ress i VG ~ .. u. ~ rc;e r ::.tc:;. ,JS J.:. s L' .. ~:.!. .-.. .. s t ::(7 ' ..... :lr: f:.··om th .... se i:.:-1 teres ts' L :. 

t .1o :J" L1 , co{ ..; --:at:~lO :Li tics ,._.,__ ·· · :.r:--· .. c . J:l ·.~ orc ,,::.s L1 n ·ny C".se;s -. close 

bo~ ~c:. -:)e t, -- ~~-~ t::c: code ·-· lthori · of ·.Jl -... c~ ls t::.· · ·· :·f its cr :-.c1e ssoci ti o:.l . 

I :1 sor·~ c~s ~ , ., ,., · . .-r"s --,-r <•1V t· ·" ,: .• , ... . , .o ,.,..::· l·i·r:o o+-1-~ -,.. \' :)L\) _ .. .-.~. .!< 1· .1,_ 1' ts • .tv v)..; --- -', .. · .J -\...i ~ _c.,; ~~IV__ · ; .L li-J.v lJ-..lV .L .. ..~ e IJ. ~'-i. 

f il'St C".:.s , U:10C'_Ui= ~)GC.._ t .: '.1 .L~ stel th :lc...,S ~ 'Jf coc.e s it ,,...,_s e:::-L:··1i~:. ~ 

e·1t ' :.10. i ;-·b· od ':•it:·. c 'lc~,-~_ ry ~:0 :: co -.r :c: ,,-~r~ .t :-~o ct i::.o , ~l.co-.rr --.c;ed tho 

coc'!.e <'1.·.-thori -::; i es t.~ t ::o o-re~ '):!sil e-r --. ·b~l .. o ..... clm i: ~ist ·' o po·rers . T~1 s 

i s ., _,_::. t icn·.l::.rly 7."c··J.c L: c·s :: of 11 cour!lorc i <'.1 :cc~~ol,~t o11S 11 .,.,·,_ ic}: fr e C]_ue:.1 tly 

~ .. ~'. '.:. :ce ;:fL ct or J.ec; sl~ . (2'3) i!his , c ou:plcd '.7 tth t :1e cl onLl< nee of 

tr; Cc8 .- s~: ci · tions vv:li c.~ L: .. : y C''SO S cJ.cc cc~ L ''£' qd~· --:_t :lO ri ~r or c ont

. -rolJ ~ . ..:l .; :- ~ Sf' .l r c-1· ,.,, (· r:. ) . " -.L· r t ,u·· ·1 i ·r - ' rC t o D1'''1 \. 1. ..,,·~ ·st~~ OUpS +"'e _ . • c.; L I_ .J.. ~ ... '-· v '-' - "'- 1-.1~ ' v ... _ ~ -- ~ L_., v • ... .. _ _ u . . - -J· .J. 0 _ vl. .l 

~9o·re::.~s c,_E:;::;,ie( t~:.::;1 , b;.· t ·l'· ·. ti n:s t l ·.., ··s ~:.!C. n·J'c S't'Ccific:' lly GiVOil them 

;.~ ~lC c oC:..::;s . It c ·.n ·cy ·:".i J.y 1.~..:; 8881".. ~·l ·t 'there". :;r".QO <'.Ssoc i :-.ti m;, y TOpe>sGcl ". cod(' : . rovis o~-:.. '.:hie> . .. ,,_ ,s .-; :;,1 ed ·J:r the A.O::.mi rlistr··.t i on , ".1:.c'.. ~;e t 

t . e r G Vl''.S iv e~ " E :to its iY:1ds ·_ o-- . ~. J. mo~;t U:! :le Ce(_ powers t o e ff e ct 

tll8 S: .1·:: TGSUl t i ·: ~,C Jr!.l Of CO de r'\..i.tl'!.O:L·itJ :uJ.· ·· tiO!'l~ , t }rG t J.lS t errp t c.-

ti0~1 ';·r, s t oo r~· :c e:. t for :1·-:~ · t o !i ~~'J S!t ".~l . c .. rc-:-.t co:'lf-cls io::.. n ;;,l lted. . At 

t:1e t i rr:o o: ~u:; Sci-:o c ':':.t o r (.o c isi o'-·: t >.crc wc::..~e still m~·.::y cod::. "Ut !wri t y 

-rc ,-_;u~ tio ~1 s r.·:·.c~G '.7iL'l L.t~l e: Ol' ;:. c ··:c.ti:o:::- ~~- t::-~ t ':.'e::o ·. c ing 7o llowe d by 

L 1c'.ustri cs. i?.A :cco ~_,::.. izec'. t::is 6.i :.'ii cu l ty. I t s ,:_:; f f' orts t ; ~.s e it took 

tno fo r;7ls : 1. -: : --ov"'.l ·o_:r t ·.:.; 1o ".l :--::.vis or -:~c.l_ t !1e ~Cj:m y Yri t~1out forme',l 

··;y . ::·ov-•.1 OY 

. t £'!.c :rc s~-lO:.:-lsi b 1!"'~ . ._-,.L-;:. __ or i t ,-,;· ·. /.".S r'_l· c o .1 -.1.1 v " !! -~,.... . eru c ~ (-\ G -, 7) ' ,

~ _,ll, .. ri 

. .. 2 e c .L .C' for~t 8 

..,-;o re I:tc,c~e ~-: see t~~-- t L .c c oc.0 .., J. ~'!.o:c i ti cs we re truly :~o~p res cn t .ti v e ~. :: d to 

S ... ,,.,- t t·,c-. 1 f 'r o,..., t ···c .,. .~ ,,-c ·· !':. "'.,Cl. ··· +·i ,., ... ., f ':'l.S ) L-_, _ _ ~- .~ _. v . .... .._,d LL v _.. -J ..L ' "'· "- ~v v-. ..J! J.u \ • - e 

C'Jd.e <'.•::..L lo: i ti e s wcro :· ·.-~ -~--. ~L ~~~o'. rs:: t o L lVc stic ·· t o c .... ses :--.:.1d. r eCOJT.::le:.:d r.c t o~1 (.'2'? ) • 'r:1o s c c::. coLrr 1e !.cJ. '.'.t i o::s rm r ,; . ::c c -.t l y r c l i cd u~J0~1 by 

l IFJ\.. 'ce for e it become f·~..;,l1 : cx:~, ~·ic .1cccl to it E __ ,:to b le·ns . -=-'~ 1 thouch c:;>~)C: ls 

i'~ o:,-~ code ·--.. ut~ori t y :·.ttio·l .~:." to ~: A '~-~t:1cr c.:i ·re:n L1 ~1.e c ocle (30 ) or 

not , L :c CC) d.e ".utho::·i ti o s 1 r tti ·~ld. o V.'".S e~ t€}d :-.s t~" .:::lgl~r j_Je rsu.:.s ive 

b;,r ~F A ~~1~ sano \7':.::; tP:o whc --:. ~1.e code -:-.u nr i ti c s r oco;·.nc:Ddod i:1 r ec;-- r G. 

to ..l.. .

,., J.. " 1- .1 .1 tr .. .~-.;.r V ....... v v "' ..... ctlv o·· · - ;::. -- -·

_

1C_ , 

. "~ S ev_......_'- -. r.,.,. .!" J\1._ ·o· . _

·~_ S ' L;."\.. , --c r:

......... .,..,7v 1' 0.-

'S 

- ' <:::+ v ' c.

V· S t 1. .._~.~-r _l, \J' r -

ret -- tio~!.s , 11 c o '.!Jc rc i ".l rulii1;;:s , 11 -:.:.( c,cen " , l'':1t'j·1o:1ts (31 ) . 

9-38 
L1 t11c ir rcl tio:.:_ wit h L w <'('_:1inistr .'c ion_ L :-: code :-:c .. t !lorities 

~~ {. V.JC :ful :(.)osi tio~-·,_. Jre rrere :. st~ es vil .. .:re- :-. cocle :-.. ut ~ ori ty 

c auls sus~Jcncl ~: ic e ~1e dul s, ~o l1cl L1 E; .. . ctero i !l".t 1.0n of t:Eci r :·Jro-

:!rict~· b~· .; he ;-~ dm nis tr ti ~:. (32 ), nJ.1ero t :-lG cor:'..e -.u t::o :.i ty -. ctio:l s 

fL1 '.1 u:-: l css t l1.c ACnil1istr· .t or :li .",.;:.~·· -c ect i t , ~.:1<1 -:,he r e tho coclo 

.u ~1o:c ty v-r .s p l :--.c cc1 u~-.o~:. :-.i.1 oq_t.u·.l position vt i t~1 t :1e A rnini str.:-.tor L:. 

:cevi ewLlt; . . cti on by . ·or".:'lc h c o ·:n·:1i tt oe o:: C'J r t ·.L-1 q-e.cstio~1 s of t ri:'lgL-:g 

aew or i C. l e :•roc.uctive [1. .:-. cit~' L:.to > r odu cti.o11 (34) • 

. 1.7he r o cod0 ~J:c::nrisions out lL:od n·o· :-~ s l s u:·; o:·. V".r i ous subjects to 

be i11 (' e b ;l ~1e c ocle r>:u .. thori tics :.·.:1( ~: · .. ~o·rea. ·by-- L1e rresic:e:.1t or AcmL1-

i s tr·' tor (35 ) it be come s ".]"·" ",re:;.t ~1 -- t~1ere v1i ll ·-: rob :- l~r ·oc no resort 

t o fi:..ldL<l[;S or :·. ·f ·-.ctu-.1 -b: .s is for ~::co cN'i. , ot:1:-.. r t~ n t ho se necess <.'.r y t o c;c t .--._c"u.lii1istr:--.tivc r.:.-·• rov:-'.1. i 'h c. e ffe ct of such J_) rovisio:ts 

w:-.s t o lYUt CJ CC'.t fL1·-.li t~r i!..,_ t J.1e ff ". rs of · n L1d-J.s try L1t::> the h.:.ncls 

of ~1 e c oCl.e :.ut l'wri t ;y- . 

V\G1o t !ler tile coC.e :o.ut ho ri t y 'N':'.S g ive:·. l)O'.rc r to -r '. c l~ulcs t.."'..:..id rer;-.ul "J._l·0-1"' ~-:- or +-<10 -- l· l·s J..l· , o+- t > -. cocoe ?- ~ - ~ , .. ;,e '-'nnr 1'J.. "ssw-Jed , '-'' • t.. --;:, .l v- . -~- L - \J .. • lJ 1. J.. .. l o..; - , 00 ) ' _ . - - v -"-' u , , 

1 povw r s it w:·.s ·:'.l mos t i LllJOssi b l c f o:r 1c Ar'.:-n.L.1i stn.ti on. to l::eelJ "ny 

ff t , ' 1 ' t 1 I r C ) .. .., .., t' ' t ' d c ~ 1·rc c :.:.o c:.: UJ.::-' 01.1 'iH1:-. rrt'.s C.LO l'l_C ,, ,.'J o:·. • . ... c~: c oc:.e " U .1or1 l GS use 

r cc;i 0!1 ~. 1 or d i v i si .", l coL1r-1i t te e s :·, e ".C.mi::.1i s t:r - t i v c '-. _c ncics , the pos-

. sibili ti es of cf1cd::i l1s -o ~ "'.c ti o:1 ~m :: .. unC..o:c the r-:uise of cover:..1..r:te1.1t 

aut !lori ty b c c t'lite e v er, n or r:J :coi:tote (3? ). i'his cli f fi cul ty YiC.s o-- :r ticul ~. rl; 

evi C:.o:1 t L ! t11o vror~: of b' -f .. e ~r cticc COlD:;J l :.:-.L -:. t ··:-· roce d·...;re . ':he:.1 no 

".JJpec.ls rrc r c t -l':c: .. ',:_y · ·r c ssu:ce , sL1 e1~~ et o~1 or 1fe nce -J the 

co::mi t t eo woul r'. :;:lOt be · ) ·-· To;.: t ( 38 ) . '.L':r ::. y <'. ~.r H21A coul cl 1'1-:-:.ve 

c:J.ecl:::eCl. lJ.:!_Jo~ cse ctj it ies vrou J..ci.. n:-\ve J ; C!l t ::> :-1 ve :;:equirec "· full 

r e c ord of t!.1e JJ r occ oC...i :v;s to b e . submi ttcd to it or ·be:: Lo 1d c.v ".il ".ble 

.f o r i t s i n s:.., e ction. Suc~ L ''. --,rocess v!O-l.U d -;,..,.,_ c b e en co tl r L 1 no!le:r 

t o L 1e cod8 :~tthor i ty L1. ~: c: :;. g t he reco r d s, . c~ t o :.::RA in · · e rs o:r1e l. 

'full r e c or cl s •Nc r e :r)rob.:::.b l y ~leve r l.::e:--'t of mo r e th<. :.. ~ t Le &·e:..1e r c.l st:e-ps 

.t :--.lcen . I n t i ue it ·bo c r'J!le ~:,'lcl ". rcl -·rac·ti ce··to :-1~:::e t ·llEn mr8.1J:-a0-le-' to 

;..TRA. T~1c AcJ·ni n istr.:--. t i on cliO. , i n tino , :r::-equire l'c-::-. orts fron·, code ut~1o rl.tl·es v

"''~ L. • rcl... l· --i./Y - t 'Il"' 1..:. • --r, ..... lJ.: u'. ,::. "' V1-, . -,., V --~· t OL'J . "Of ....., - !."l)l 1£ -·· "• l··-. _ ts ,--,., .-_ c_' . v -.tl1.J.. V ,-, l' 

_ '-' roompll. _ c..~ "i1Ce ., ctivitie s 11 (39 ). These r elJ ' rts , owover , were oft e:·1 i'1. .zy .~.:1d i n :-, ::umbe r 

of st t u;-.tio;::.s none --.t <'.11 we re :-rn c'.e . 

Uncl..er ~'l e RA v c.s t JO "'G s vrc:.;_ c :. T't s tei t 0 '.S soci;--._ t io11s of bus i-

:i.1Gss r.1e11 (40 ). Coclo utho ·. ities r c -ros o'-1tccl t :l<:) ,c~':' :liz -.-- tion of business :-clo:.:c 'c e lines of r:';l:tiY. soci --.. lisr: . ':'~:e rosu lt _,_ i 6 .. :1ot ~ .. rmonize 

wiL1 t rw no tio'-1 o::· o; o~rernr. 10 :-.. · l coo·)c:t .ti o:1 yr::_ L 1 ·uu s L;,oss , f Jr to :1~.ny 

b usi:wss r.1en t h i s rv••roso :: ec.~ t~ ) f :n1itio:1 of 11 moro busi rc ss i:a c;over:.lme~"J.t , ~. :i. C~. loss C_'OV ~ne: t i:t iJ1.1si:.1 ess . 11 ]or ~lO ·e -0l..'..S i l:.OSS L1811 tho 

1Jl C',i1 Y/C'..S re ~'. ll y O:i.18 of L10.·· 1. ::.. v so l :l- r;o·r oJ.' :..,_ C!lt -~ 1) . T~1e f-w1ctio::1 of 

t --- "'1 l. llr- ·..:J · _ .L ~ t"_l ·c __ (l- --l ·'-""-' "' .l -~-~ ; \'·i" S ... ~l· .'· Il '~~ , l' -•r' -, c:.t· '~ f,, ~ c+l.Ol1 (4--) ) ~'"' G 0 J •-- . _\.. L - _ J ~..o u. v - -CJ • .1 c.. .. 

o.ssoci:'.tio,_ls h::'...c1 lo:1g do}lO t :i.1is. :J1. .. .t. ·.r- e;_l t~1o c oc:e ".u ortties ::.dvc.nced 

L 1to t h o :c cC'.l E1 of 11 co:r.1j; li·'.!1CG11 ~ c· :.!'o ··dmc: l ::-- ';'1 u: 1 L1ei:. rospe c tive 

L1dus tries t;:10 f ·t.L1.. cti o:.1 s eerliod m re ov ~.. nt -~ 1. ·.-erit :.ble ~rmies of 

inspect ors }; ~r --. :..-. t; ~ Y..r i th ·. m·)re O J: less ·:. "o 12.. lous }) sit o~ (4:3 ). _..,l .... 

poL1tec ·.._.:-- coc.c ~.--_ .t ho:r i ties 1ey exercised fu:.lc ·cio,:.s .;ovcn-:1..1el:.t :.l L: 

.- 1~ ---. ctor (·_/.!: ). 

It \/O-;)..ld. be f ·'.i' f :c ou ,-·oJ_;cr to . . s sume 1.-- t o c-• .::;;e:1c ies c · .n 

9838 
not 

r r 

~ · r'or1 

nu. , 

c.:.utie; '"':.c: d1u •. t .i.on 

J' of "'•ccifi ·- ~ .-

- l' .... -

• r,:::; i(" ct t ~ 1.1 b;· t J {ro·.f l'DiiK.n t . T ncr 

ccc o · :--l:. +- i.o·"' ::ltt ·. r o·1 r:1 nt .1-~.c 

1ciro . C1 o::. t v rl:i ot --it-..·· t.l. Oi1'"' 

.: ·u ~-- 0.. l. t l· -;'· ·L ... te; '"'E; ci. ti"l!L ; , rr.l.·r :)')",1' to '~tr..: ' Ll(' t}1 

r: J'·'-'-'· !'.1i. i~" · )::' c;~in. , f:~.- t u· lul·· . :i.'o·~ l'ofcori·:m I. co1, 1c t , d 

Cll "'Ci ).L~:1 .· •• i\· cti c:. f :~.._;c 1·ulc.., . -~"- J.:· ;li "''i1 c; r.r cir" ,-rl i J,::-: 1 

C"' :c)' t li" • 1 1Vl '"' 1'\ ( _:... ) . 1-1. O' r .... o:( ~...:· .... o··s , ~-·u.· · J.:' -. '11 _iv tG Jt' 

i~· t_)::. , l.' •. j~).i ic.i>l v<...·.: t ::.c ':.i1..:.rt·· ,_ · ()1 oi "··•\ "':!. k " ( ) . 

'Ll\. c' -~ ·c tr,"" t .d.. t. · .... bn 1·Cl " 1 :-'l- .. r r l,; ir.:inc t~ "i:'l.r-tc :tc·- ;_)Or>:. . 

"It i r.: 7 l i;1 , 11 ~~il t C'J'Q·.t , 11 t :.t t ·c~ c «o:cc-: : 1. ·n j ,_r.ici ·'. l O\ Jr . 

I~ ir. Cr'l.l- , t'.· ~ '.:)t10 ,,,"' _ro:·."' ·1 7,1 1 ) ' 'C.' t C.)l't•it , ,! .... 1 : !"\ . :1ot .r-.. .. .., 

•• ••• •• 11 t: ? I-_, ~~: .3 1it ~l- S v"tv r , ·r:c::.. ,u.r .. c·clic J ;')r:io-r.iu~· .1 '.J .,; • 0 0:1 

ci·!e. J.ic.cr."' iL~~ \~ 0'/(;l' C: (-"8) . _; ·1CGC "':. llini <. ~JO .:.clr, 1."/ e "...'CC.' t·· ··~ tc (l 

~- "' ]!U lie ·• ·c::1cicn (.'): 0 • .n 11)t 10 r · ro::.'enr·i 'l. vi .r. ;,J ~- -. _,C'i:.~,.; l8G is 

t:1c 1 , ..• :. :!y ~t .te r-t t· ·t '-' s -,_[ :r r:: i :c .:F~ . -r t eC:. .·r.:, cr.; 'If t •. o o · r 

L~r. r s s ci ti 'J ~ s e:x~ :..·c is ::c co·_--ic~ ·c ·· lc n'J'7t-l'S ovc·· itc:. l "Cl ·L:c r"' 

(3C ). F "1· t of t~:o i)O "c r: :::l _·.~ t•J ~ r -. :~oci t1:-:mc· m'.s t :row out of 

t : 0 t:·:-"'::. tio:cic- l pl c f J. ·.n., c ::s s 11 offic ~..!·· ·s of ~ .. e co,:..rt • 11 ?hie-: .~ocs 

rot '' ~"~1- }: t: ·; 'L 3i :..en· t ' ·~ ... rr.:;·· )::': . . clic · .L S)Cietic:-; . rJ:x CIJ",_tYtS 

h".-/0 :lO t t:l:'iCC:. 4-,,_ ~ " ZG t ·'-· •','OO::_e;:'l i ". ~. l1TIS Of {; O~TC'C'_L~e. ;:- l .. "e::cie:::; 

r-: • . :po·.·erc . r:I.K :v '<:v·" .., C!:. L: 1tc-,_~ t:> .' .'.0: s lf- 1· c. :r.1. t i o:; ·u:· t .-.e so 

p r ofoss i o __ 1l1i, J. ~ ·- il~ a··-li )'•.sl:r ·Jc:~."") ::·· it ~t. : ·yn.

1Jl ic ·J: ·'- i si t"' . .. ~1c 

{.e .e .. l ~.:-- c.cte r of ~ .-:: :· :r i.v!:.~si ·) · . • Oi.- .--~ t, i' t_ .j_ s t . c ·nl ).ic ::.: .s 

li :~t lc ·:.tc::-L ~t i .. , ~1.0 ·. _,· lx e: ;~-- i:~t ('·.;·. J .:.·, ul ·-c~ ::L~ 0i: :-::··oi'cssi. 1s . 

" '' ' -- .. +. · .... ' J. ·- \ ... -.~_ S'JCict~ . 

i~s ,.7 .C! 0.o::.: lice:. s , 'J- } .. ct 1''=·- s t') .' o :C·: L . c>c 'J~ t of c ·- rr:·L '..t" o11.t tho 

: ct , . ._,- '· L:t il"<_ ,-- 8u-: lt ·· -~ l' l o <; t , ..., t::":·c .. , or ilo···e l es::-- ~. m·. ls . 

A~ :r ''Xcess ;~· -J ~:J co ll.:- ctlCl ·- s tc bo c o -!~·,o·· ~·. :i o11 f'0r Gln'o rci;;. _ __. .~ c :.ct . 

:t·~i s --. c t '-'€.:'1. t t o t .. c :.T:c.i t cr-;, ~ ~ .·':os Su 1-rc e :oul·t . (._;, ]_) . L: [.'. t r r e e : ::-.::;e 

opi ~. 1io:.1 ·. ,· ··ir . J·,-:_:; ticc :---·,oJ.(~s , o:lC ·,·, · : c IJ ~ v1 .. :~. cl: •·v-:.s c3.o v c t ed to 

r:uotL:{': t he nktu.to , t ::e :.ct 'fi''.S l·~ 'i .l cl . '2:1; CO 'l"cJ" t c'~ n'Jt d i sCl1.SS 

le ;:-r;ble;m ')f c i·rin.; sr:c ':1 · • o r:e l'S to r. -y~i :· te or :~ -: iz".t iou , r"Lle r it 

.:o:.1.., i dcrC(1

. t :., c--.s o f· o;r. t:·_:; s·:.:tt.s ··~:-_ tiv o due --..., rG c oss of 7 vi ew . It 

:1e l l. t ·.:.:' t ~:t:: s t:.- t"J..te :c <; •:rcs·'11 t ed "'. ·rJ.i cJ. exercise of t :1e ~Jo lic e =;owe r . 

-::'he Co:. )or '.tio·_, Co:t'nissio::.: of -:::l c.hiJn . Yr::-.s 7i·ro;1 poYTe::.· by st..,_t utc 

to :· ror,_.te oil , ·.:·!r-~ tiJ 11 o!:l~:."l·J~- o:c ,·.~-- _1 0L1t sucb ·. ·. -.~1 s with t~:.::; C(JO".s ent 

r_-!: ~~:10 G-o7t:: 1or s ra".:; be Eecess· -:-y t o c :: .f0r c e L1e Ac': .• ·: (52 ) .r 1e 

Cc : .issio~: u.::cd. inf'Jl'd c.tion 4 s - ·L)C.sis f or c-.ctio;1 t-~1e c -oy ·-· :·olX. e rs S 8 l"VLl:: n:.t 11')1_2t J' ·-~ -- , ".c'. ·:'J. 'U.r.piro \'i.Ll')S8 s:- .~. :r /~ S ·n:-.i cJ. b~r ~G 

-...,.t x·•~CG:L's iT'. ,· c f:-. ll t o:;:' . J. c&i s l :o. ti v e ;_-·n l"o··Jri --. t i 011 . ~·lC; co'\.:t:d r e f u sed 

i .~.i. o l' Fk'. t i 011 Yie rf' 1 v 

< 

~~C ". -s c o··" its so--.rrc e , bu t _ i ~ t'..L t L.s or(c r Ll\.·.s t ·uc srtO'iVl'l 'i~. f'"'.Ct to 

·be ·· ··u~·: t,... ,.. ,- .. --~ c'i~ ~r- ~- tr-.r "- ~---'o r 1' l- /0 '' L·i ; -, +,..,r·lc r c ( 1;..-..: ) "'·1 e J. -..vJ,... "- :. .• _\._ · - >J .- 1.J. .. ~ J t.-' \,; ..l v v ~ 1.. !...J..- ... 1 ... vv ·- _ "-' • -.1 -

q'··.CStiO' ' o:':' ~-) ~~ iv-'. e :r<:- !·so;.:s c"o L lG -- cts t .:..t v·o·,.u c' J. ~.- rfcr e ·wit.1 ~o::_"~

e:..· t ·· 0:£ ot::.e r _.Je:,s o::-1 s -, o~ (. s..:om to 1v..v o ". iJorc -r c~ l existcc. ce L. t :1is 

c . e t :1:· :: i.: t >.e ot: er C" £-:s co::s.- · crcd :1erc . Still ~~1e fLY.l c.:eter1i:..:. -._ ti iJ ~!. of •)o li cy is ;·18 t L :ro l7 .d. , :--.:.C:·. s~1·. ·)x·iv; te --,c. ··~o: s c ct i:'l :10 

c:,re " t e r yJo s it i o:·1 t ·., . .,_::.-_ c o LL c. c c or s o:::. f , ·.c t s , 1l:.. i c!:. t ~:.c Co fl·· ~i S" i o:1 c auld 

tre .t .-.s it :!is:wG. . 

Joi:tt stoci: 

f or c:-.~. c: o•-r.::.ed ·o 

-- ct ~.s :fi ·:.c-'.: ci ·-. 1 

?838 

1,-,-,: , _ ~·. !.i'.': ' L ,_c s t oc1::s OJ . r£ Jic ~.1 :1:' .'le bee:::1 s· .Jscr. becl 

~Y i ~v e :'- ers'J;.J.s , :);:-~: .~ :~1 i zocl_ ~= :..·s'l:c:;,1 t t o f .::; de1 ~. 1 s tr-.tute , 

· .. e :-· t s f J l ' ':. :-:.e ;.:o·.f c r::.L :1e~1 t L':. 1~ L:h1(; s c eel. l o1·.;.1 s • ~1e 
- . . - l . tJ :., -

quest i 0:a of t :he ir- riv:>.t e ~:-. r~.cter ~'1." s ~' eve:_· ac e:1 cor:siC.erod by ~~1e 

co-.t:i.'ts (5·1) ~ ?'o' ~O Ti , little J-bj t.;cti 0!. -. ~1 lie se:c~ tc the ·use of 2 

v .i v."' t e ". C, CJ:l ~- CO Jr}:t3 l o." n s Y!1C r e t 1lC 'CC is no ') 8liC~ 7 r:-:"!}::i';1g pov;e r 

['.!1 d. :r: o £-K c i .::1 il: t e :ce s t s ,_:) . o:·:. t: ~e ·;. -::>.rt o-.; t ·: e .. - e~ c ·r. -. t i o a:..l ·~, n2~s -- .J. - .. c. 

h:::.·n :; lle e~1 : .. c :rrd tted. t0 en.;-.. ::;e iY. ·w iv:-.t u f u:,.c-; i ons .: -1 2.s r.cting .. s 

tT -,_s tee Yt.i. -~ nol.lt i n j•.ny to t~ ir ~o u. lic c~ ".r::>.ct e r (G5) . 

Ac tivities of -- :;cve Ti'll.lentr.l !· :-.~ ·~ ct r by -·r.Lv=-.te •)o:; rsons c>.re 

foo.1J.1C. L1 t '. '') core L .t .: resti:1l, c ... ses . Ll F l:;r:10utl: o~ l Co . v . Pe"1'1s y l -

V"'.:.1.i o. , ( 56 ) no ·. ob j e cti:-::. ':.'2.s :71 ~c::. e -t:, y t':e c ourt t o tl e c~a ta:·mLl"'.tion o"" 

t ll"' "" ~ c' t > o.r -b.- -"'rl· "' i ' ~· l· ll -·r 1· ... C"- -J. ~ ·"'es ·" ' ' 0 ' 1' .-1 ~-,..,ec J_or eT"\-nloyed ·· o r ....., YV --v-L ..L _,. J.. _ v_ _ ,.., .l - ....J • ., _ __ _L __ '-'c) .. -• :_J v - ·. L.:...LJ cJ 

t he St :-.t e t'.".f. te e;1gine ers· of t~:o :-.c oini!.v~; ~-, :cops rty ovme rs. The 

court vi evmd ~1r:;; qu e s tion --- s ':'.. s u .:,s t :::.r.t.i.ve 0 1:13 of effe c t u:--o·1 p :_oye_ t y , 

r.nd r~ot 0: c c: :.1c :: ~-. ng ~w ro~:J t:r of L-,e po rsor..s cxercisi:1g yO\ er 

(57) . L1 St. Louis hno11 · c. in ~-. c. So ~w rn. :=ty. Co. v. 0::::-'.ylor (58 ) 

t ne Co'Lut CJi-lSicie r c d L;e CO?J.st i t·•_"'..ti o:.-,-.li·:.y o::: Sec .L i0!1 5 of t na ~fet r 

A~Jp L.'. e Act of 1893 (50 ) ~-· :- .J vi d. L'lC t :.1:·.t "..it e:.' ~. d·· tc n<.:--.1ed or:.l.. c,.rs 

V!i t h cl ro. cft•o.r s 0 f u:. i f 0 n :.1 llG ~ilt slloUl( . -be ·:.A.sed. L:. i:1 t e rst_:. te OIDJTI~rce . 

Tl1.e st[; l cl:·.rd fol' t~ s he i ttht ""·--s t 'J ·u c fixeo_ o~r t~ e AIJel·ic ~.n R~ il ilO.Y 

Associr.tioi'l ; t he L1t e1' 2k.te C0J1r.1e rce CO!.:mi ssi m: ·:.r:·.s to ,:-;ive n::>tice to 

a ll com:mor. c .:-.rri e 1·s . It ,._,_~.s c ont s :r;_ d eG. t :1- t · t~:i s · ... £> :::.:1 improper deleg2.tio11 o:f :! O':'icr -b,/ L-:,e Cor.:. ress . 'l ~le court s. i:~_ little - out t : is conte:<: tion . 'I ~·1 c court viewe d. -t-~ -... e ·•n"Jvi ;:iJE --s ". r1 t'UT·.l L.1t entior.. to 

dimL:ish ecoi1omi c l o sse3 (60) . L1 , -bo t h t :;c se c ::-.s P- s tne IP2.tters :7€re 

purely i·~t :: ::\l t o t :(lc .ust r;. ~ L ::ro l 7eC. . o e ff e ct co lld be felt 

by ~"' :r.T•e ·r:- 1 r u·=-. l ic· ~-- .-,·. t .,,.., .-co ,, ., l· '1~" "' -1--. ·b,... -J '"'~e -ro •·e i11 ot - J.L ,;, ....... -- __ ., .J u - • ,.. ..;'/t..:; __ V ..Lv_, o..A J.... __ \<J !J .... ~ • {. .. L . .J t - -

c ::-.s es , ~:.c;: .ly t e c imic:--..1 :·.: . c oul c: h:-:.v c lit tla t:':"' "' l'e ci --.ble effect upon 

p rop e ::t~r . 

Some Ct',Ee s :r.ve b e e1: fo m-e wLcre C.e leJ'.tiO:LlS t J 1Jriv:'.te ~)e rR o:a s 

fl.:-'.ve ·b e e 11 he ld b 2.d . · ::;) ,: J. og ;.-ti o:::s of J:"JO ror t 8 COllilt y po l:.ti c[',l cor:Jl11i:tae s 

t o (esi g:.lc.t e 0.:·1d CSt!"!.b lish cle legJ.te r.listricts (61) , to CeL1eter :- ss ci:--.

t ions of l e."i sla ti ve 1-:.Ed. rul e :122-::i:n.::: po"J6 r L:clL1.riL1t: p r e scri i ng of 

e~ ltie s f or viol~ti n of r~le s to be enf orced by civil "'.Ction (62 ) , 

o.nC't. to ~18 :-- ti <."'.. l :B c-t: ~ 0: ?ire U:.l( e r-;tr i tc~ s .L :> c::r.ct c":1c: promulg['..te 

. co cies set tint, f ortl: ~le s f o:.· t:1e i r.st .::'.1 -·.t. i o:J. o~ electric2..l equipment 

(6;_-q J,.- T~ e -been :C"e lcl ·w ~consti :J.t .-·· 1 c:e l -::(;:--.tions of poHcr to __ riv2.t e 

0 r G:'.11 i za c· i O~'lS • 

':'J'lc:. ·c '-'-'<-~s the ::!.eg--..1 :, .., tin~..._ of c. oG.e :..·: ·.L-:o:cities? 7!;,-J ir ) riv['.te 

l<'.. ::-..ctc r i s evi c,_ c:,:t, ye t rr::.;,;yr o: t :.'le ir ftnc tio: ~ y;rere of F.'. ~ ub lic 

!.l.::t ure . Coc.e r.uti1orities 'Here ." :L ::!.m1cd. ·c-: L: L~ ·n"'.tv :.r:d to sue c~d 

·oe s ued . T1 i s Ci')en s un Vli ":-. t... v i stc. of .:~ -G -1 i s ".. c . ::·:. o -·" tion ". go 'n

ment :-:'.1 r.: ency . ~owe er , :1c ~e f .--.cts o:' i ·:c r -'.:'r"t io:l · .:l.d t he po'.':er to 

sue o.~: C.. b..; sued :'._ c::o i:l.d iCt"'- t i 7 G of '•. ~, .·j _',' te _·.-.t-,:Te , ,,,~~ c' l of c ourse C"'.n 

be ovc rC.ome by c:uf ficie!lt f 'C t. o :f ~-;1- l:.c c :i.l.:\ 'Ctc r . 0 -

'1\~ e li;:.bil.it: of c ode :'. "..G::_o:. ti( ~ ~o t -- x::-t i o .• •.,·i l l l and muc- li2, t . 

ot o.:l y faclc l off icG•.'s, ·uut fec...cr<:l c.: ~)loyee s 2 ... c exoffi!'lt from St<'.t e 

i ncon.c t r.2:e n (r-:4 ) . Fedi.' rc:l i:1strum"'}l~,-li ties such ."" .... o~ oro.t io:tls of 

V("'_,rious t~r t.;; S "}~C- L:·: i =:..;. l "' n<is '~ro ..:XC1!1l:' t fl'.)!i1 St < te t ."X".t i o!1 (65) . 

T~ xi:_. L tll.C' S" l e Ol l i __ uor o;· ·· :1 :.rrny }':'!St :1~5 'uee~! :-.n irap _ ope r t':x tll:'On 

a. fedcr .l i1: tn: ~nc1: :.'.. li r-y (56) . I:or·- rcc atl~r _is rue see;:1s to ue 

ov rt 1ec~ ·o~ ..... l l 0v'i::-'.b c- cs upon r.r:. ;~ ·oo sts sclli::.'.& e.' .s o li·1e p:_·ivc..te l~ 

(G7) . Cle ".rly L1c:1 , ·' uJ~ic c.c.e ::1c~r ~1-y h~.~vc -... ~::iv" te :--xc'. ~.:le f-u.:.ct.ioils . 

9838 
- 1:\ -

Jn th other h['.nc·. :> ri v.:-- t u ·n~Jl C'ons i: o :tn1 ; ·ubl ic tU1ct ion"' La.ve b en hclcl 

tEl·:.:· .Jlc ( cf) . In :~tc.~_1.f_!_D..~-]~_r"L v . I 'i ch811 ( 6,.~) ::. t '\S h8lc1 th, t a 

'ii'l1 () .. co·-.!",_;_tiL·; cn ·i.·'"'"'G ·t·l."." ··1rl: :.. 'ljcc~ , ·' ic~l ''"'f' :at ·t-r:~ ."'n~"l t 

y OJ.' contin.1.ous -~: CYl ;····,.., , ·;~:-: no·~ n "U-Jli.:: ~ ·t~r:c . r·,, t) l. ()1'.:· t ::t l.icr" 

t. e -c c c- t t lw t : 

11 1 n o :t ~ l e ~ · i" "'. · • 1 i c ~ t ~ : J': 0i.fe:.::. et· b~· t::e : · , intE1 r:. t of ·ovD:i.'IT'l·Y1t . ':'he "~ 1 f"'lO '"c CC' S t.c i6c:;; ') t P1l..:e c·· • ; t i "1 Ci ~ol·,_·r;vm t rnc".. - ' . . , :1'.t h • ~-i~·co. ·.:·· ,_< . ,n ( -;-o) 

Joc' .. 0 f''..~tho:c·ite~ Lo.C. ten,_,.r,-· , '-'l~i.. .ti)~, , C"n: ~··.t ier :.~i:cl ·Jr· ,'o2.c·:rtcc" l.c;-

~s .. · tin. Lilcc--h·-2 , t.1c l;~r~~r:.• rc..lc:.·i. ·;; ··c_·. c :1t ·· ~ l, c~ "uy -~:::;.... . Of 

::.oul' '":e , ocific "u .· .... is C.ir' ; ot e·:i •·J,. iL t_ c ::. t.··.:~ut, :~:.i l1 :-1it ·ht be s: iC:. 

.o ·~ccu thc:1 .... ro: ~ O('in ~· .,_,_olic '\'C:':Cie r . T·l!'; r c;'.l.l.t,r; , rc 1" t l1c:- ~ no.1C".-

lous. : :c.n~r o:f t :l. nt t l ~ hu~ c:- of C". ~Jub . ic [l.,:r;~-:c~· c:.:-.. \, ::() '\.,_~ ( .. L1 t tc cod.e 

uthorit~~ . -·8t , ib, :1 ::-:~· Jc:. s c i :. 1".1t ,:- 1_- ·· ~-r <.cvotc Llc.i :L.' :;"u:t: ·cine to 

el.l' ·"O c'e <.'".l·t}'." ·1.·-'-.· ··t+l e~ i~o·· .·,c· t .r··· ·"'- ~··c • .,~-~ oJ·' ,,.,. c· ' J· c:. o·c- "' - v .... \.I " ' .. - l ~.l . .. - c, .• v - ~ .. < J. !.,_ \.:#.. ,.1 - ;;,) L .. J... v.... ... 

'ro"'it. It · ·[".£: :.·cco :~ni:.ec t ;.L t co .:.r- <1:·· 110 :·i·~ie'~ ····::·c:· ;~, ~ n· C.e U.? o~ 

.ru.blic of ~' ice~:-s "-)ut :;: ;;~Lt": ' .:_·i ..r .~to ~:!JO:lf' . ~he; -~~J, r:·::.l J.ecJ~:..·cJ1 in ..... n 

":~tenc\.e(. 10 10 ... 0L(.";,~J1 CO !. C1.~'-l.E,; -. t ' .: t \.:.0 ·.o " •i. t .• ,J j~i ti8!- . O:L' S not r->:~En.1_. t 

"'l'O"l t <::c>tion c s ·· n'Jli · <, ·2·~: ~.: .···s ( 71.) . 

In G. :·.ieno:-rn::.ur: C.L:ccta r:. · 7. t;,c ",:·o:-(.e-- '· ,,_e, tio -~ o."' ,1 et~1er coc\.e aut.horities ·re re _j't1..'... l i c o:C :"' ice··s, IJe-:;= ·.1 ·~a~ ~; ;:..~~.,.:. con~}.uc"eC t l:- -r. tJ:1ey ··•ere 

:tot (72) . Co6.e i":U. ~w:..·it ;y :·Je:1-:.1c··s · ·c:ce n()·~ 11 f:~ice;.·.-: of t : Le 1jnitc:; c.1 St c:t.t-

~s 11 '."'ithi n tl1e 1e.:-n.in.::.; of A:..~ticle II , Section 2 of tl:c Constitution, 

.... ~icl v cs t c t~. e E1.".?:9u int;·Jen.t o:f ::n1c:1 of :~ ic e:-.·s in t ·.le P :::-r ·s iten t , in the 

:ourts of lc··: , o:r t !·le o.r':9 .. -.:.·t ,.1ent:' l heC"tc (73) . :cithe : . .- --cl'e coC.e r.uthorities crec..te6. "u:' J. er~ isl ct ion (/~) O:i' ·o ~Jr:: r~-~' c.ele-;c- tec"_ J.ecisl2-t ion looki~ . .::; to ~1e ir P::izte·1ce (75) . ;e7o:·t~ e_ es :-..: , : 1c:.n"r o·':' t ' w ·:;o,·e r ::. e:::ercised 

b~· CO Ct.8 autho:.•i tiC2 --·e ··e in ~t G i12tUl'e o::- 80","8:. eic;n i\mctio:1s _:) rO-_) erly 

~s i ;na'Jle to <' _~iJ.8 2.ic officG··: ('(6 ) . A ·jubl.ic o:l":: icGl' :mst ~;e ['Ccount-

~-. .,v_ J e +o v t~--,e :

~:> ·ove·•Ylr·te·n - - .L.!. __ t (77~ ) • ,V ~"'~o c·,. _ .._ . < ,,,t'110 ~..,._ _ ·1· v · e(" "'' 1.. __ 

·n t.J.. 'le e·,··ly <. -. .- c'~.· c-. ; -C" .. , o·"' ~~•· -)~ '· 

e:c seen. ; s ·_....,:.~t. : o-: i "!.c'.u ,... t:.· ·- c· J. :-·.ccount. "l-lc to i l".c'u:> tl·:·, )U t 2s ti: 1e 

e~~t 0'•1 ·-:~.\ ·,C ' c'(1 .1.0 l-, olr· J.'·P' 1 tO ' )"'0 ot~l·~t· -cco·,nt~ '. dll't·• ~ 1.' 11 -- -- - ~ u ,. ·-- v - - -~·· v_ ... __._ .. .J. '"' .L - L.4. .. ..~.. . . • n.. _ ... 

• ... -"t::. ~ c~ -~~c•·r·r.;o•1 .~ ·-I·iv: +c 'f·r c· o·ns e"e .~ cl· .... ; ., ... --o·.r,-, .. -111e·.-;t--l .o:o,u.nctl· o,s J.;::, l.,..l..:;:) " ...s.. •. • . ... - ~ <J _..J , :J -- - . -- \':1 - ;J ' v l • - . - . . - - ' 

t~1is (.iscuss ion oi' ·:'ublic o::' ·~ ice :;:s h:~s o·":,"r::e c' no L!.<' ~ ,~:0.s· 'Gl'. Co C:.e 

'>" ' t 1 :;&.L..,. lo r•l' tl' ec ~ c'o 'lQ+ l .; CC>el VI>.:: · ; ... JlJ .o J.C'.;V •-::>••e t}•~ ... ,_; ,e ~ C~,t "' • l (' , ". t"C.. ·h·s 

,J \.~ r Jj_ ·r ••·- \.... ;"l1 •J. 'c Q.£',•.' 1. ce ~'- <" ~ 

~·et the~- :~e c i :::-.e t.1e le,::;:-- 1 fu.nctio :"!.s o:: ''J"U;Jlic :- ~ic ~:.· . 

~l1e HL~ · ·c.s inte~1c.et to eLcou:-n-;e coo)erL .t:i.ve 2 c·0io::1 on t l:.e Jcrt 

)f OU~;iness ( '(f!,) . ·.hleil f u:1ctions 0:

7 ·';TOE' . .'~8 r :m .. :.l.JJ.ic c:lE'.:.' ;}.Cter t :1.:-n ·ou:

... 

"~ --·" +e--n~l v l. c .. -- _.~ :-·.;· _ c.. .. ___ --._. · · ·e ··e ..L ...;) .''iv

_ c·,-, • _ ·'v ·o ; ., COC"E-. , t ... ·"-' ,~-'-hoi -\.I _ ~l· -1--- v c.. J .t'i· - J · r;.<""' ... • .. LJr-..... .l. e~t t • 

t G!I9t:· U.on 1J:::>on :~ co ~J ;, etitoT to :·!F~: t e :·o :e:r ··iven ]1i '·1 <'.Sr. 1c 'be r 

) ,n ~ cot'(' ,., \.+~10 ' t-· !"' ( ~f ,"\ i .L' (.> ')0' 't:>' ~ •-re"e '10 t ~·.,, .I <.'A • r' J• ~-'-rr l,... t "l·~o .... e -- '- - (...,l.,.v - .... .J.. .JtJ J ~- _, .., ...... V- 1- \-J. . . ·- c_ •. .l ... .)~ \ .• , "• ...>lJ --•.J .,J. .,:) 

rron tL e c:cces- o~ 2. co:~·:e; ·';ito:...· t o c:o~1fi e~1 tial. in:.: o~:-:- "!. ,• Jcion ~-::..:' :"'roi.1 his 

~osition to finaJ.l:r c.·.e c.ic-.e i :1 or:O.r .n t .12.tt·;:.. ~; vi t:- J.l~r 2::·"'ectL-. :1is co:J-

~etito:~ (79) . TL1e Gone·~·; l Co-:..::.nsG1 vf :: :.~ "':,. ., in }-..is o:.·.:-.1 a:c ;L'.::Jent be:.:ore 

the S-c :9:C'OI.28 Court in the Schec t e r ~ c:e C.i ·-. not ::·e co.r;ni?.C this l~oblm.l of 

inte:~ es t' • Ee .:--s1:c:.::.. , ~~'J',:c;'v c::n:.l ·- ·o c 2. :'~. i:.: :· st-nc.r i t!1:-.;: tLJ.c-.t 2C'.o:9 tec!. 

by thos e lO n~:; r;::.; it n~_,o n t:r:c:1s c lvr:s ? 11 CO . It li.c..'; lo~g be en :.· e cor;-

• 1ize~ \.1

- t~1J.. \ t l.'n+e-n"' v - .....,,_ r-"v ec' - ··"O'· -""" ..... '""-' O. , ... 

, . ;- _ 

-r ..,_ '"t)·:OJ · al.. _ ··:-> -"c.. · c .,) 10<~ "'1..~1.... c "-'-" .. Vv J. C''"0 r.. ,, .-.-1-:o~ C u..... ·, 1y ( G c'1) 

:-a.:.:ticulrrl:·, in t he :t.~ lG.. o:: rice ["_ :;_:~. co ::;t y:o-..ri. io·:1S ·7a:.. it ~o s:- ible 

for the ele..1e 1·~ o:: ·oe:.~s:>l12.l P.;lr cl.['s;; i :o.t2j:est to in::'li.te;nce cocle c:>.utl-wri t ~· a(J .. i n.i s t :i"C.t i o 1 . s:-'-:e s e -_~:·ov is ions " e:- · oft c::::. C".c1i~:.i s t c-c·cc. ;'~'[', ins t 

those 7~10 ·:en~ 1. .~ht to ·Je 11 out o:C 1 L .e . 11 P:...·es u:..~ e ···['.G 1)rouc.;ht to be~r 

th<:1.t there , :oulC:. 1e e:~c-.: :in2.t ioil o:

7 tl:eii:' ·cooks , -:_J :cosec·sttion , 2.nc". o t~lCr 

lln~ le ?.santncss ( 82) . ':2he ·,;J o,~er :~ 2.s su: 1ec. ove r r.:w.n:· fi elC.f. o:r the co 0.e ~­

thori ties in :1r.l:inr; 11 cm.:ue l'ci~-l rosoh:.tions 11 :..'<oflect ti1c int e:·est of the 

c.oc,e 2ut norit·· !1ellbe:c c . Ele£.c: Y"...ll el:; :e:..·.::: ofter.. ·.1c."'e to ef:ect results 
t11at could not be achi ev ed_ b:r code provisions 8~ ). Cede authori ties 

';rere not al'.·:ays t he most d.esiT<."ule c:>. ,e:: cies fo r t :-e hardling of statistics, 

reports, and. confi c~entt£' 1 inf or .1.:·.ti o!1. A!l inte:~es ~ed comp etitor on t h e · 

code authority often \7nu l d b ec ome L1fo :cr.1 ecl of vi t a l and secret clet a il s of 

his com:'} e ti tor's business ( 84 ). J ust r:.s i r1p ortar.t, but of an o~po. i te 

char<::.cter, rras t l1e ref-llsaJ of coCl.e autl:10ri ti e s to publish price li sts, or 

delay 02- the c ode m1t hori t~r in )Ubl i s:1ir_.g t h em because i t felt :prices 

':7ere too low ( 85). The p o':"'er· to co llect :~ ta+; i sti c s ofte!l bec2::1l:: tbe basis 

for a general 11 fi shing ex•)edi tioi.l 11 y:; lich rrould ::.1ev or h a.ve been sanctioned by 

the courts (86).. Li ke cUfficulties ne1'e fou...."1.d :i,.:n traC:.e p ractice complaints 

commi ttees· t hat often a ss•.uned inve r,ti :;~ tor ' or j"l1.d.icial functions rather 

than mecU.D.t or3r one s ( 87). 

The Ice Industry p r esent r> , for a -:- rio d of time, t he beautiful Je ctacle 

of int erested members of industry r1::.ling u;;on t he bring i ng of ner: aG.cti tional 

capaci t 3r i n to t he industry ( 83). It C<':tn he r d.J.y be Je cted that an inclusti"J 

membe r Hould welcome a competitor Yti 1. O'llt [:tretche d a~ns ( 89). The difficul t ;y is so obvious t hat as one CE..n Fell eJ':_Pe ct i t became the target for 

colunr..ii-:;'·is opposed to t he Administr ation ( 90). The for ce of indust1'3' i nterests u_Jon t he code authori t ;:;r ;-ra s qui·t e aDl10.rent i n this industry . In a 

letter ,-rri tt en to 11All Reg ional Acvi so :;_~s a.:ncl CoT!rrrd ttees of Arbitration a11d 

AplJee.l, 11 A:'Jril 'Z?, 1935, the Co de Aut}wri t2r Ch3:i rnan stated t he..t t h e 

National Industrial Recovs ry Boa r d. hE:. d. <::~ree d to no t disturb Article II (91), 

despite tho f a ct t ha t a new procedure '-ro.s E:.lmost i mme diately authorized 

\Thich ha.cl_ the eff ect of de utroy ing I7lUCh Of the Val "-Ie of thi S 2rti cle to 

the inclustrj (9la ). 

Cocte a1.:\-t h oriti e s "' S })rive.te L:te~ c~ sted.' Rc enci e s hc cl manzr deficie;1.cies 

both as instrumer .. ts a cbnini stering pnblic l a'J c:i1.o. as i nC.u strie.l agenc i es 

(92). Uhat effect had t h is E1c-~.. tter of int e r est :t.l::'On t he legal p osi tion of 

cocle authorities? It is a nell-l:no1;·'n naxim of lc..'\7 tha t "no man ~1all be 

a jucl..ge in his onn ca;:1se." (c-1:· .. ) I nterest disqualifies a j udge ( 94). Pecunif:'.ry int erest 6 a :te ;?arti cu larl;y· frmvr.. ed_ u-oon. IJo m<:.t t e r ho'.7 small the p ecuni<:.r 7 interest, it c";.i s qualifies . Othe r i nt ere§ts mu st 1Je more substanti a l (S15). English l aw has los iC8.lly ex'Gend.ecl t'lis r ule as to juc'-l_:;es to 

admini strn tive officers ( 9 6). Ar,_ci c:t.lth ough ca..ses have not been found doing 

this i n the United States, the re can b e s 0en no re.:-.son why it is not a 

p rolJe r 11 due p rocess of law" requiremeTt . It is co ,lsi de red as one of the 

foremost principle s of natur ['l.l justice in EnglancL ( 97), and the very lacl~ 

of co.ses in tlli s country ~rust t e stify to its accep t a nce here. There a re 

State cc.ses saying that a g r c-mt of ~) \·ro r r-i t hout. rcs11onsi bi li t y to the 

[;Ove rnment can not 1Je made to a pubJ.ic official ( 98). The diff icult~ of 

recovering for the malfeasance of al". ·:.1.c.n i ni str.!'. t i v G off ice r in this country is no \'!e ll knonn, tha t l eadi ng sch ol ".r Q llD.ve lon"· urged t h e aben _~::-illlent 

of Di ce~r t s "rule of larr 11 in fa.vor of a moc.\.ifi cfl_ droi t 2·dmini stratif. If an 

administrative office r using eli screti m is Oi.lly to be lia'Jl e f or ma licious 

neglLgence or wilful d.isrega rc3 of tho richts of others ( 99), the dar...ge r 

of trusting this i rrum..1.'!.1ity to an int,_ r ested person is tre1:~endous. 

Briefly stated the l egal position of code aut;wri ties \7C'.s o:pen to 

seri ous questions. Admittedly , they ,_., ere of a priva te character com- osed. 

of lJri v2.te functions yet the:r uere enc,oY:- ecl with man~ r l)Ublic functions. 

The ~) reced ents e.re fe\7 , but s11.ch a s t he7 P-re 1ey _i d not indica te tha t 

~J ri ve.te ag enci es could aclmini st e r publ ic l aw. In every case ~:he e the 

f.:wts involved mwh a p roblem the &:-)reme Court ha d ignored the question. 

9838 
1

'J.e no st lo i c.l c n n··e r "' 'C"!! s t o be t .t·• t ').Ci ··,tc r t:ncie~:; ·:t c -.,1·o'l): bl.y 

:~2..?t.: bl. c l e,;r.l Me nr.. :r or t l1e e.clJli nistrC' tion of mi l o r r 'l'l·tt ions, t:1e 

:.c. D .tr:r 0f ,·hi .h o"tLld not b e open o !'".c ri ou pu b i c1 i ;)'Ll.to r-ucl as 

:.•~0 .:: ctivi t i e .. , ~. nd fo _ t 'ie hC'.n .lin- of ·Jur e\{ i r.. t ' l n~J ; f 'r,i ;, of nn 

n cl. tst!::· re tin0 on thG u ... e of vJqJv rt ~ a nd lil e\!i se i "1' ol.vin no (l"L ~~ r;tion: 

f is~ ut'lbl e ocin or oc ononi :)o li c~ . The anonrtl J con ti nu s \/'1e n i t i .... 

. i ~ ove:.:e . tl1n t the re .. r e c e r t· L t e ch ni <. 1 l et:.r1..l _ equ i erne· t s a t ~a '1ccl to 

~ e )O;,iti on of . ublic of:. i c e r or c ... ·...,_.. ci. vs \1hi ch t he octo :J.Ut o l ti--s c id ~ 

ot fu.l. ill. Coupl t:J d ·.rit':. t '1 ei r p. lv:- t e harcct c r , 7llj.c!t micl t l t .... wo been 

, r eC. , 1 D. the J..Lal i nt e r e c; t ed c' c r:: t r o_ code :u.t~1 nri . Althoueh 

\' i~~i 1V' in ce r tain inst un .e s t l1< t the i nter c :teu ,.Jw n.c tur of co de 

~~t wrl ties mi .c·l1t di squ<'lif y t l en i n m ..... k i i G to. :r~ clc i sion "' , the 1 . n .A. 

P C:G.J. Di vi ;.ion 7C. S cont en t t o scr atch t . surfac e L:.nd o.l l c~ ocle au 1;h :n i ties 

n i ,...o·1. e r is, as i i' t l i s ex;>J.o.i1 eel. t he ir l ega l st c- tus . ( l Ot)) 'ho sc..me 

_'> )r [lc ::. i>ldicrt cd ::n t he fi ~::: ld of ~ e c lto. e und.o r J :? i:r._; ]T. I . R.A. J.:.n.s een 

a:-:en :1e r e ( 1.01) . he c ode o.ut ho r i t- i n strUJ"len t :n s not been l.ondemn ud 

s ne'.-r , In r:1c..n r e spe cts i t -as u scf u.l , but i t;, disabiliti e s 0Ut'·roi :;hed t he 

.clvo.nta;::cs it off e red.. I t Jnl(· t be con clu d t :,·,,t cod . a;ltho r i !; ies es ,.~ n0\7 n 

o 1TRA. , <:EH~. Tii ~1 t :1c e:--: e~)tion 0 f a f. ei.J minor f'".nC t ions of t h e t y p e ) r evious-

:r col d.uct 3d by t!·a c.e e s so ci 0.t i on s le:-aJl' , e.:i sted n i tho".lt the sanc tion of 

aw. 

I t may hmre been y o ssi blo b.,r a t;; r:: c:::. l evolution t o hav e dev e l oy od 

rivct e agenc i e s in t hi s co unt r t. o t n:.;:e on nore functi o;1s of a public 

har c:'..ct e r e..nd hanc,.l e t hem in c.n ef :·ici en t ma:me r . Th i s ~.-rou.l.. cl. hav e r e quired 

lo: deve lopment to fr~cate bo ~ e ~t e 86encies d ~e c ourt s to t he 

.se <:'.lJ d. va lue of ~e ne·.: f <.mc ti ons. But :·::iA llorrecl. fo r no s.1ch orcl.e rly 

.e elO')nent • The p robl em 'TD. S :ph 1.c ed o l US t. e ri ng ly 'befn:re th'3 pu bliC ancl the 

our ts in a s:10t space of l e ss t han t \ro y ct::.r s . It came 1J ef8re bot~1 t hese 

rit ics in i t TI"or st li ~1 . 11 Inc"..u.st r•r ,el f - g ovor nner..t 11 a t I i r st mea:;,1t o.'b G.i-

.ti n to code c.n.1t ori tie s ( 10 ) • As C:i.o· -o t s ue r e exp r esseO.. [1 s t o i:.f:e p rori et:r of unsu:9ervi sed e cmt:1oriti e s, efforts ·:,e r e r:tn.de 03r i-211\. to r1 ore 

;...r ef'l'..l.l:r 2..nd. clo E"e l j; control t :lGce c:,bm:ci es (103) . Co de c. u thori t ies Ti e r e 

eL1g t :ree ted a s hc:vins a u'b ic r espo:.si bi li t y sho j,·tlvr b efore the 

h3e~: r o.e ci si on ( 104). .~. t ;1i s C'.e ci sion the court <li d llot spea k e.bout 

t i1e.:- tl1un the l et;isla tive f-;,m.ct i on s \7l1 ich i nc.u str:r a t tcr:mted t o e ::e r c i s e , 

,t i t c,_iQ sp ealc about t hese i ll unmi sta2::a ble tern s: 

i838 

"T:1e Government urr;e s t hP.t the co 0e s \Ti l l 1 con si st of T" 'l es of 

com:peti t i on c. ee e~..~ fe..i r for each i nc.u st ry by r ep r e fe.tt c.ti ve memers o'f t.1a t i ndu str:.r -- r t he u c r sons mo st vi t a lly conc e rne d 2.:.1cl 

most fe..Ll ilia r r,;i J. i ts p r obl ems. I I n st anc e s c.r e ci t E; cl i n rrhich Con-

[;r e ss he.s c.Ya i l e o. i t se_:Z o~~ such e..r.si stance ; a s e . g ., i n t l1e e::e rci s e 

of its auU:.ori t :r ov e r t '.:1e _.;r:J.,"'lic Cl.omain, ui t h re s~·J ct t o ~1 e :te cogniti'on of l oca l us o·~!l s of r u.J.e s of mi 1e r s a s t o mi n ing cl c.irns, o r, in 

r.w.tt e r s of a mor e or l esG te chr..ica l n'-.t".lr e , as in C. esi.::;nC'ti ng the 

stnnc.e.rd }leight of c3.ra'."·bc:-·.rs. 3ut ' Toulcl it b e se ri ou sl y c .Jn t e:tHle d 

t he.t Cong r ess co·~ lcl dele,--:c:- t e i ts l cgi , l a t i v e au t 1

l0 ri ~r t o tr&C!.e or 

industrial asso c i a ti on"' or g-rouT·s be cor:!.: ti O. J. e;;i sL tive b odies 

for t:1e. t J?Ul'J.)Os e b e cause such c:v .. s oci t i ons or t:; r o1r·•s C'.r e fami l iar 

t:i th tl e p robl ems of t ll eir e _ t e r ) r i ses? An c"t. , co'\..ll 6. an effort of 

t'1at so r t be nade va li d. -iJ.,r suc ;, a l)r ei'a c e of gene r a liti es a s to 

per o issi bl e a i ms as ~I e fi nd i n se ction 1 of titl e I ? The ans'le r is 

ob· ious. 8'.1ch a deleg c. .tion of leg i sl 2-t i ve p o'.7er is unkn.onn to our 

la'."r a nn i s u tt0r l y i nco nsi stent Fi th the con stitutional p r e rogatives 

c.nd o.uti es of Cong r e s s . II (105) 
- 126-

A similar s.bdication by the Pre'sident of l1is adr:1i nistrative dut ie s in enforcing and adrnini st oring cocl.es could have hardly been treated more gently 

had_ the court t~~e n u·') the p oint. 

Uhat standaro.s nere set up to .:;ui cle the code authorities in t'1e performance of t heir adninistrative function s? ~ta nly the stand~rds set 

up b3r Cong r e ss in the NIRA. should hav e co.1tlnued to gove rn in any event 

(106). It is imp o ssibl e in legal contem:9lat ion for an administration in 

the United States to go contrary to t he x-~ reE sed stan:l__arc.s of a statute it 

is administ e ring PS ·ha s been t h oug.."l t p ossible in Eng la.1d ·under t he 11 Hel1~' 

VIr'I clt".uses. 11 (10.?) The same criticism of the stanc~a rcls of the !'I?.A in 

r el a tion to t he liTA . apply to -the Act 1 s rela tion to co de authorities. As 

a furt:he r ste}? it might reasonably be concluded that stanclards for t h e a clministre.ti on of l a'"' by code authorities must be muc ~1 more p-recise and det a iled, anci thD.t they shoulC: leave to the code authority no room for e:::ercisine; po licy :p.ower. This is merely another way of say ing code a.ut1orities, 

not being public [:;g encie s, shoulC.. not exerc;'i se public p oTie rs of c i scretion. 

It uould seem perfectly proper that the jiB,A in some i nstances set up 

standards for the exercise of code al..i.thori ty problems. In fe.ct it uould 

seem highly desirable ha d such a course been pursued.· ( 108) This leads 

again to the same p oint that the mo st rigorous standards \"lould have been 

the best p r a ctice. This is .not to sugg est that hi gh quality staLd&rds 

either by Congress or t h e Administra tion coulct ·hc.ve cured t l1 e inherent inadequacies of the code authority instrument. Such nor:ms as we re cre2.ted 

should have been in harmon,_v with and furthe rance of t hose st2.ted in the 

Act. 

1-.RA' s practice did not accorcl ui ~1 tl1e s e sugge stions. Frequently , 

sheer p oFer rras redelegat e d without the slightest atter:1pt upon the part 

of t h e Administration to guide the channels of its use (109). PoTie r 11as 

given to establish accounting systems (110), 'to make allo\7ances for tradeins (lll), to cha.ng e the period to elapse bet-i.-Jeen the filing nnc3_ eff ective 

date sof 1)rice lists (112), establish the maximiJm periods of free credit 

(113), and fix the amount Qf liqui dated C:amage a sse ssments (114). This 

list is f a r from x~austive and wa s foun& s the result of the most cursory 

examination of sever~l volumes of co des. The st ~n rds set for compliance 

activity by the cod.e authority or 1e courts under t he enforcement p rocedure vrere no different, in many instances ( 115). The greatest stand.ard for 

code authority excrci se of -p one r -,;ms tl1e: -vote of such a body ( 116). Th e 

power re se rved by the Adminis-tra tor to ap:p rove or di sa:Jprove code authority 

action ( 117) could. not be ce.lled a stan o.o.rd, a lth ough some mi ght a rgue that 

su ch a . device cure d_ the lo.cY.: of stanc'.ard s. The value of t his a r gumen t can 

not b e co ne eded when such checL:s oft e n served a s a me r e formal control. 

':.'hen st a ndnr ds nere set up b;y lTRA t hey nere often in such broad angue~ 

tha t they ~re re \7holly i nad.equate as norms. Code authorities we re g i v en the 

-p oner to 11 cor.1_7Ute the 101.-rest reasonable cost of p roduc tion on a f a ir basis, 11 

(118) to jJrnvi c':e rules to distinguish c e rta in class garments using 11holesa l e 

pri ce s of about a c e rtain dat e a s a guid..e, (119) to e~e rcise unchec ~: ed p ovei 

aft e r fi-ndi ng c ertain circumstances to exist (120), r.nd to require price 

lists t o be fil ed if it found that 11 the enerall~r reco nized y ractice 11 of 

the Industry had b een 11 to sell on t he ba sis of p rinted net price lists 11 (12] 

These also nere found as t he result of a hasty g l a nc e a t a felT co de s~ NBA 

9838 . 
adopted stc:.ndard set lln or to bn set np by ~ri ate L';cn .i.es (12:) or b:r 

other go vernmental o.genciec o er i7hich it had no control (1 23) . ~;o motter 

h0\7 re ... utable the agency , it C:.oe"' not '"'eem pro-per ... or lJHA to have sanctioned 

that r:ilich it had not yet seen , and which may be made \Ji thout any reference 

to the purposes of the Act. Even 11here stc.nd2.rdr· al re~.dy set Ul:> -,ere ado1:> ted 

a full con...,ideration of t:teir substantive effec t shou.lu have been had. 

The standnrds problem as relat ed to code authorities presented to tl e 

courts nas just one step more re1aoved than t~1ey had ever been called u:pon 

to consider theretofore. l'ffiA, just as e l egislature might act , but \7i thout 

even the qualificati ons demanded of legisla tures, said \7e recog nize a policy 

of price-fLing to be desirable (1 24). For ~eculi r reasons of their own 

thiS as forbi aden. · Even had it be en ~J rO j_Je r fo!' a l e;:;i colature , J:ffiA , the 

administrative bo~, had forsworn its traditional role of filling in the 

details of legislative policy , and 1ad assumed the p olicy making pone r of 

the leg~s lC?.ture. Even had this escaped the courts' cor.der.mation there i1C.s 

yet the question of standards to govern the code authorities which assumed 

the administrative functions as i1ell as legislative functions too. It was 

the existence of this situation, 11here the administrative ager.cy( lJRA) had 

ceased to function as such and had g iven over i ts lJroper functions, historicall~r , to agencies of que stionable standi ng t hat caused the Sup rene 

Court for the first time to g ive such serious conside r r-.t ion to the p robl em 

of delegation of po'.7er in the Panam'"t Refinin1c; Ca.se ( 125). 

In considering the poners e::erci sed by code authorities no useful 

pur-pose \70uld be served here by an attempt at ext ende d analysis a"!fd. classification (126). Rather it is more productive to survey the gen;ral 

· char&cte r of the porrers granted 11ith a vie11 to the public or privo.te administra.tive character based upon the tests already suggested. 

The l:> oner to require assessments has been considered. ~e rcised by 

iJRA rli thout statutory specification it l!as questionable. In the h[tnds of 

code authorities the problem i sintensified. Assuming that the de~ ~gatiQn 

had been cured it 11ould not seem :p rop e r to allo':J private int e rested :persons 

to enter into even the mechanics of assessme:1t administration. The relation 

to the taxing poner is too obvious. Certainly, fixing of .. the basis of 

assessment is a public question, which was not handled as such merely because 

HRA he.d to pass upon what industry proposed. The possibility of 11 putting 

something over 11 was al':Jays too grea t. Then too, the psychology was to 

trea t t he recommenda tions of industry as -o rima facie correct. Fot t hat 

this nas not true in the g rea t mass of instances. But there was no 

guarantee that the viewpoint of objectives b e t neen industr>J and gove rnment 

nere the same. Even 11here the industry's function ~as to coll e ct statistics 

as to production ~J on which to ba se assessments t he re i7ould seem to be 

more desirable agencies such 2.s the Census Bureau • 

.. A number of different kind_s of porrers to carry on investigations can 

be found in the codes. The provision most favorc bly vie\7ed by lJRA allo\7ed 

memb ers' records to be inspected by agreement (127). The fact tha t memb ers agreed to lay their books open may h ave cured the public aspe ct of 

the p roblem. HoHever, it may nell be tha t nhen members so agr eed it nas 

uith the feeling that these records ~ere to be ins, ected and used as governmental information and that this was not merely an exchang e of trade informat ion. r far t he greater number of codes, hot~ever, carried broad 

por!ers 11 to investigate 11 (128). Related to such p rovisions nere ot~1ers g iv...: 

ing S}_) ecific power to code authorities to inspect t he records of members (129 ) 

9838 
- 128-

or giving that poner to a confidential ag~nt (130) . Tne ~oTier of investig.a ting record.s has always been looked upon by our courts as being close to 

the border line which separates public from private interests. Such investigations should properly be conducted Tii th .s-pecific govGrnmental ~'_)urposes in mind and, as the courts have said, shouid .not 'be resorted to 2-s 

mere 11 fi shing ·expedi ticms 11 (131). As has been po inted out, the 11 confio.ential o.gent 11 provision did not alnay s l·:eep t he information gained. by tl e 

inYestigation from interested competitors. The lone r of securing confic3.ential informc.tion seems governmental by nature. It seems extremely questionable to a ll or: its exercise b;y cocLe authorities, their D.Gent s, :or anyone 

uho \70\lld allow competitors access to p ri va.te records. 

Povters were g iven to code authorities to bind t l1e ir res1Jective in(ustrie 

by lJroy.J osed. a.mendr:1ents for Tihich no :9ublic hearing l."as required (132) • Although it rrasnecessary to h2ve a:-9proval of the Pre sid.ent or his p rop erl..,r 

authorizec1 rd resentative, . the effect of t he se provisions 'ias to g ive sreot 

legisl2.tive and _rep re sent a tive por:er to the code aut>.ori ties. I.t r.1c-..y be 

nece ssa ~r to alloTI a Yiell organized g rou1J to speak fo r di sorga.nized i ndustry, 

but this should involve no more than the right of petition and should not be 

treated a·s binding u:pon either the g overnme:11t or the industr:-:r until resort 

has been had to an adequo.te public procedure. · 

In the field of uniform cost s3rstems · code authorities uere alloned to 

impose formulae u:pon their re Je cti ve inCl.ustries ( 133 ). There \7ere , of 

course, otper related. t y-pe s of p rovi sion.s· rri th varying shades of autho rity , 

bu~jG it is sufficient here to )Oint out that por:rers of a :public chc.racter 

11ere l1eing e::-:erci sect by an agenc•r COT'T)JO sed of intere sted. persons. Uniform 

cost· sy-stems b ear a very definite relationshi :9 to p rice and. p rice control. 

As such, they are delicC'.te devices 2mc1. if e::::ercised b;y a public D.g e ncy 

woulc3. be subject to the. most ca reful cant rol by the courts. In fact, such 

provisions hc:we often been helo. lad ·pe r se. It ca_n be seen that in t'1e 

ha11C1.s of a. code authbri t y the courts. nould.. probably trea t such provisions 

as improper. Classification of customers is of a simila r charact e r. Co de 

authorities rrere allo·wed_ in some inst.:mces to impose U'"9on their i ndustries 

mandator:' cJ.assific:.tions (134). The courts in the pc?.st hn.ve treated 

clo.Ssifj_cation of customers, as a me.tter of agreement, as being und.esiroble. 

It might be tha t the courts r1ould a ccede to a leg islative judoJTi ent thc.>.t 

customer classific2.tion nas needed, but it is doubtful that they nould a lloTI 

the same people who as members of tr::.de 9-ssociations illegally classified 

the ir custome rs to ·c1o t h is as code authorities.· The effect both of uniform 

cost s~r stems and customer class ·fication may be of s e ri ous eco\ b: ic co::. .s cc•.c: 

Such y owe r therefore shou ld only be e:·:erci sed by public c?genc~es a. ct not -t)~ 

priva t e or qu asi-privo.te ones. The collecti on a.t"ld cli sbu:rsement of liouic3.ated dam2.cse assessments hEls .generally b een . held imprOIJe r as a me.tter of 

tra c1e c-.ssociat'ion activit3r. As a menns of enfo rcing la':'r (135) such devices 

shoulo., of course, ha ve a legi sla ti ve bc.:.si s. Further t han thC~ t, t·1e adrlini stra ti on of such provisions is so easily upen to abuse it \701.lid seem :..J ro:per 

tha t it be pe rformed by public agencies onl ... :- . 

To '-'·i d in the ac1mini st rat ion of the co de s, co cl.e autl ori ties ;:ere given 

t he p orrer to designate self- g over:..1ing C:.iv isions (1 36), and to determine trc-.cl.e 

are.::.s or zones of activity ( 137). Such :9 0.1e r nas merely incidental to questions of a substantive na tur·e. It vvould seem that as long as code aut 1ority 

activities ne re confined purel y to leGal trade a ss oci a tion a ctiviti es and to 

. any other f unctions which might properl y be performed by interested members 

of industry for their ind.ustr;y-, t hat such )O' :e rs would. be :proper. TI1ere the 

effect of o.esignating such divisions or tra d.e <::.reo.s might have a profound 
- 13 . 

economic o so cia l Gffect, i t noul d ecm lm )a:'OpL;r to e;i ve t i1i s no .1e into 

t he ha nd s of ode .:tut ho r iti n. 

It :as _ui t e ommo n t o ' llo ·; cod· aut ho r iti es t he ar rti i st rati ve po·,re r 

of G aj1ti e:~ ep ti ns or e~·er.1p n~. This rras true in t he ca.se of distr ess 

me rchancli se ( 138), on si bnment of _,. oods ( 139 ), t he ope r ation of price ( 140) , 

hours ( 141) , ::age ( 142) o-r:- :r~eal :: pe ri od ( 14-3) and r est day 1a bor ( 144) 

provisions. He r e , lil eui s e, t he t est mu s t b e t he ch.:tr a ct e r of t he p r ov isi on 

to 11 1ich the eJ"ceptions or e:::em· tions 1ere g r a:1t ed. '.Tl e r e t h e eff e ct of 

such p rovisions and t heir a dmini t · ati on rras f elt b e:rond t l1e inmedi ate 

bou:1d s of the industr:;r, it would "'eem i mprope r for a code authority to 

exerci se suc 1 no'!ers. In the administration of most of the n rovision s of 

t1is ~:::ind .the social and economic j_nt 9re sts of tle public wocld s eem to be 

such as to require public adninistra tion . 

Code authorities rre re given poPer of a judicio.l na t11re (145), and in 

a 5 rea t number of instances rmre given the p oner to hea r and decide complaints 17i thout referrint:> them to .rJRA ( 146). It might be urged that re~ 

quent1y the po1.7er to act judicially nas g iven only \-:rh e re the memb e rs of 

industr~; involved ab reed to the re sults of the code authority action. It 

must be remembered that such egreements and compro~isos affecteQ 9 rope rty 

interest just as substantially as if the members of industry had folloued 

the p rocedure of appeal . To the members of industry dealing ui th code 

aut11ori ties they 11ere faced by an ag ency backed \7i th the sanction of the 

lan. Further .than that, i t \?as k noun that the r ecommendations of the coo.e 

authority uould ca.rry great persuasive weigl1t \7i th the Administration. Often 

membel~s of industry agreed to settle the matter lli th the code · authori tJr rather 

than go to tl1.e e.ig)ense of pursuing it fu~ther. The very poner to cause such 

inconvenience and e~ense to a member of the industry g ave to 'the code authori tJ the e~:erci se of ~o ol.'e~s public in charecter. Such poDer of 2.rbi tration, meo.iation e.nd a .12.rd e.s uas desira.ble in the e.dministration of the "RA 

should he.ve been exercis8d b.,r res:9onsible public ·officers. Code authorities 

nere also given the pone r to incor:9orate (147). 1.7hen this is trec;.ted c-.s 

purelJ an administrative adjunct to the carrying on of its general poners, 

it seeras perfectly :proper. It cannot be said that the incorporc- t·ion is 

inconsistent \7i th t h e 11a ture of a public ag encyfor numerous example s of 

incorporc;ted ~ublic encies are found in our g overnmental ste~ . Such 

o.gencies as a raih:ay or a financial loan institution engege in business 

functions and do not admini st e r laTI in the sense thE·.t N~ did. Therefore , 

the -c>o::er to incorporate P.ould seem inconsistent 11i th the public functions 

exercised b code authorities. 

The im osi tion U"")On code authori ties of a cl.uty to make recom.rnenda tions 

on sy ecific ? roblems does not seem obj e ctionable (148) . As has been su g~s ~td , 

the right of p etition in this countr} is nel:: founC:.ed, and it '.7ou.ld. s eem ~ 

im·Jossible to prevent c:.n.,r .g roup of interesteC:. priv2.te :persons from petitioning 

the government or a goverl1.rnental agency for certain action. 'Ierel~r because 

this is stc. ted in the manda tory form of a duty im:_:> o sed u'Jon this 6 rou:_J 11ould 

not seem objectionable from the public viewpoint . The only issue that could 

be mace rrould be if the code authority it self refused to accept the dut;:,r . 

TheLe is little need to consider this angle because the p roblem Tiould never 

have been raised. 

The e:::treme number and im·oortance of p or:e r s g r a nted to code authorities 

9838 

~ I 
- l3Gbecame obvious in a short time . Various check s ue re resorted to. Action 

by coC..e c:-"uthori ties nas required to be submitted to t he Admi ni strator for 

rov-al, or the Administrator i'7as given the :por;er to disapprO'Ve (149). Thi : 

l a tt e r :p one r meant nothing beyond a formal eJqJression of t he power , ;:-:-r 

superior keep s over a subordinate, unless the code autho riti es a re loo_:ed 

oo n e.s coordinate agencies of equal st a tus to the Administrati on, because 

of the President's a pproval of the codes cha rte ring t hem. It can be reasonably c:.ssurned that the ;president neve r i:nteno.ed t h is. Even t h e p ositive 

requil~ement of the Administra tor's a<J}Jroval \1as no cu re all. It is doubtful 

i f it riOrlced a~r ·imp.11ovement except upon assumptions of p o':rer p2.tently bc.d. 

He'..1e tl'le r ea ding by an NBA offici al nas a ~1e lpful check. In othe r instc:-nces 

-rrhe re inf ormation na s nece.ssa r y tQ explain the p ropo sed action of t he cod.e 

authority t his was furnished almost inva riably by the code authori t J . Coupl· 

ed n ith the p sy chology of industrial self-government it ~~ readily be seen 

app rovel by the Adl:linistrator, no matter hon conscientous he might he.ve 

been, became, as a result of the p re ssure of circumst~~c s, a mere formality 

Dominance of tra de associations lil<:ei'7i se :pre s ented a :9roblem dema nding 

control. The result Tias requirements for ·represent a tion by non-association 

members (150). But organized. trade r.Jinorities did not allow this to th-rrart 

them. The picture resulting ri8.s much like the :Biblical stor7 of t:1e hair.f 

hand s of Esau. RelJrecent o.tive chc.r r.ct e r clid not s olve t he baffli ng q_uestior 

presentee'~. by the lab rrinth of orgc:mi ze..tions and divisions found in some 

industri.es (151). The p 1

1

oblem 1.:as l

1 eSlJOnsibility. As in all ; o re r::1meLtal 

and Joli tical structures re sponsi-bility is of ext:i1emG ir.r9ortEJ.nce, so ":Ja.s 

it ·in the control of code authorities. Asi de from t he s·Goradic requirement 

of re:·Jort s , the 11 ac1mini st ration memb ers 11 on code auth orities pre sen ted the 

agency p otentially best abl e to cl'le ck ex ce s s and. a buse of l}OTier b:- code 

authorities (152). From the first it ap1J ea.red tha t t hese rep resentatives E".! 

a whole nould never exe rcise auy imlJortant control. Almo st a ll of the firsJ 

nine t y j~p ointed ·,-,ere liRA deput;7 adr:1 ini strators \7~1 0 \! ere f e.r too bus~ ma~dnf 

co de s to check on their a dministrat i on ( 153). Thi s un.s remedi ed by ap-;>o int: 

full or pc rt time a dministra tion m~mbers later, but NRA never cap italized o: 

the ~~ ossibility of this device. The individual members usually foun0. it 

ea si e r to float rrith the current, and in absence of strong be.cking enc. yreci se in structions from NRA. it nas e9.sier to accede to industry 's !Jla.ns anu 

clran their p ay from the g ove rnment. 'rl'lis o.oes not mean t hat indiviclue.ls dit 

not rende.r valuD.ble public s ervice, but ::ca the r c- s e. g roup :LTRA never sought 

make t~1em a strong effective instrument of control , a lthoush ste~J s i 11 t~'lis 

direction v:e re being t aken at the time t he codes died (154). 

The rec3.elega tions mac-;.e to the cocle aut horiti e s ~~e re n i t h out ~1 e sonction of t~te ~ It is doubtful i f a st n.tut e \7ou.ld have cured t he 11 due 

lJrocess 11 c1i f f iculty found in using privc-.t e interested persons to admini ster 

l mv u i th a public cha r a ct e r. The 'J0,.7e rs g r anted. ana. t h e stanc1c..rds for 

their e:::e rci se we re such that co de authorities aD Jear to have been an ... ~ 

ex t remel y questionable g ove r nmental device l egally . 

9838 
' 1 

.. .,,_ -- '· I V 

- l : -

:F'OJ.ESTALL I NG "BhO_\D REV lEW II 

The desire of c.d111inL trr' t1on to sc,~oe ti1 "bro·ld r cvi wn of the courts 

is more than a. selfish de sire fo r p ow e r . New adninistra tions ar e not creat ed 

to employ people . They a r cr ~ t ed t o n~rn inist r on idea or a num r of 

them. "Broad vi wn may take the gui;.-.t;: of shL~p ing a po sitive cours e of 

action. Too oft en , the pr emium is pl aced up on maint enance of the sta tus 

guo , no ma tter \lha t t he demands of soci e ty . It is t h is l ost aspec t of 

"broad r eview" tl: .:1 t administrat ion d esire s to avoid. . 

No ma tt er ·.vl at l ofty stat ements the courts malce of detached inter st 

i n the law a lone the vourts are vitally inter est ed in th conduct of a ny 

administration botl internally a nd ex ternally . This int er e t has b een 

such a dr ag up on the d evel opme nt of ne eded r:; ov crrun EJntal forms and methods 

( l ) tha t l egisl a tur es have b een l d t o t ry to av oid. too gr eat judicial 

con t r ol ( 2) . 

Viewing the NIRA befo r e ch administrat ion of the Ac t wa s had , i t 

was not unre sonab ~ t o s ay i n the lifht of the cGse s thnt it would be 

he l d constitut i ona l. Tr ue , t o say t !lis one h-:.. d t o g o one ste:p beyond the 

cases. any author i t i e s f elt t hat t11is one f.t ep ':'h.S t he next on e t o be 

taken and a ea son ~l e one . Admini s t r ative ct~on wa s gaining a str onger 

hol d upon the cour t s. The com~1e rc e p o ·;er ha d been s ub ject t o extensio ns. 

The "str eam" theor y had s\ ~ep t asi de the nar row Suge r Tr ust case (3) . And 

t he Supreme Court showed a str ong disposition t o r el ax the anti-trust 

l aws, wi th i t s r e fr eshing op inion in the Appa l achian Coals case (4 ). 

Eco nomi c unr e st l ay heavil y upon the COUl1t ry , and the c ourts seemed r eluctant to block action reasonably desi gned t o a ll eviate condi tions. 

o a t titude s upon the par t of t he Supr eme Court ruin ed the pr ed i ctions of l egal scho l a rs. One was the misg iving s a "'J out gr eatly i ncreased 

f ed e r al au thority, and the other wa s a. f eeling t ha t execut ive p ower had 

gr own too strong . Wi t h the addi tiona l pr obl ems t hat a n ew f eder al administ r a tion sought to cop e , it was imp ossiJ l e t o a vo i d a ll appearanc e s 

that mi ght l ead to the court develop i ng the a t t itude s mentioned. A 

conscious r egard f or the views of t he courts mi ght hav e gone f a r to p r ec lude t oo hostil e judic i a l treat ment. Good administra t ion, full p rocedural 

safeguards, and compl e t e l ;y r eas oned action ~ase d upon t h e be st evidenc e 

obtai nable might have a ided Greo tly . It i s no t _p ossibl e that storie s of 

the haste i n, and the i n justic e resulting fr om , the ad.illinistra tion of NRA 

did no t r each the e&rs of the j u s tic.es. If t h e se st ori e s had "been differ ent, 

the court mi ght have been more pr one to consider 1ffiA. a ne,tiona.l need. Ins ead ;ve have such cases as the Sche cht er c a se (5) limiti ng f ede r a l p ower, 

and the Panama ( 6 ) Hum-ohr eys ( 7) s l irili t ing 1inist ti v e a nd exe cutive 

po.ver. 

A p ossible expl anation of the Sche ci.1t er case may li e in l egisla tive 

and admini str2tiv e appro ach. I f a c tionl1Bd ueen c er ef ul and r easoned the 

poss ib ilit i es of being susta ined would hav e ·been much h i gh e r. I t is 

not meant to sugg est that t h i s a l one would have caus ed a diffe r ent decision. I t would hav e aff orded the court a much be t t er basis up on which 

983B 

- 13 ,_ 

to , ve c'.e cided othe r n i oe . For i n stance , i f an ovor whel 1.1in r e c cn: d 

is OC~:u d t o sho · t h dire t "~nd v ital r e l a ti onshi lJ of e ny pr oblc :a to 

int cr st :- te commerce , t he ourt ··ould be mor e hard put t han t !:eywer0 i:1 

the Schc ch t e!_ case to s y this is not uch .L nters~ c=t e coimaerce Ps t o 

be ·it. i n t he po ve r of th ' f ecL .c al g ov ernment . It would be better, c- l so , 

to · .... ve ~e c ourt a pr o? ch tho lJroblem with a i7 a r!h feeling of commendation for tl1e excell en't administ ration of t h e agency than to be un-

\7ittfn.:;1.y 'Jr ejudiced by knouled.·,e of an unjust conduct of its af fn . 

9838 
- 1 34-

CHAPTER XVII 

ADI.II NISTRATIVE SAFEGUARDS AND THE CHALLENGE OF .AJ)ii/II NISTRATION 

Uore than the practical conside ration of escaping "broad revie1111 

is involved. There must be a pride developed within administr c,tion. Efficiency, which is the chief merit of the administrative 

technirJ_ue, must not smother Jur heritage of fc>.irness. The goal of .admini st:.."o,t i on should be to .provide the b est ·:possible g overnmental agency. 

This me c.:.ns that places both for efficiency and fairness must be provid.ed. 

Administrative structu~e is imp ortant. 

sumed, h owever, that government can be made 

ment of bovernmental forms. The couplet of 

It cannot be naively asfool-proo~ by the developPope is expressive: 

11 For forms of government let fo 8ls contest; 

Whate'er is best adrninstrld is best.H (l) 

A proper j?ersonnel is vi tal. IJ.1he success of an administration rests 

upon the type of personnel it employes (2) if the basic idea is scund. 

Persons of limited apprcach in positions influencing the administrative 

policy of an administration, may offer a severe handicap. There V! ere .L_ 

NRA too many responsible officers 17i th a desire to get things done 1

7i thout regard to f8.irness or appearances of fairness. An efficient 

business man is not necessarily an efficient administrator. Even e, 

busine ss man desiring to·. be fair do8s not necessarily p rovide a fair 

administrc,tor. I¥ is very proba )le that 1;7 i th proper instruction or 

advice tha t · the personnel of NRA could have met the requirements of llc1ue 

process of lawN both procedurally and substantively. The conclusion mu s 

be that tno al terna'bives were open. 1. All responsible positions .c oul d 

have )e n filled by persons experienced in the administrative t echni<}lo 

'This, it has been suggested was impossible either through the Civil 

Service (3) or otherwise. 2. A certain few trained persons, with a 

proper feeling for the administrative apprcach, could have been selected 

to sup ervise administration and to instruct other officials therein. 

This sounds almost ludicrous to any one having observed NRA in its e~ly 

days. This is probably true because the immediacy of the vision of 

hustling-bustling NRA obscures oneis vision necessary long range objectives. The very notion that NRA was to be temporary must have .had ::. 

gre a t effect upon administrative and personnel policy. It may be ~e 

that good G-.dministration 1.-:.ould not have prevented the Supreme Court l3 

view in the Schechter case. But had the court approved the basic .'idea , 

good c,dministration would have gone far to have made NRA a healtJ:-..y 

efficient agency of government. 

Prope rly tra ined personnel for all positions or even for t h e key 

positions are not readily accessible. This does not mean that all 1J ersonnel oust be eA~erienc d, although in this country ith our inadeq~te 

tr a ining sources A~ erience is one way of gaining a proper appreciati on 

of t he lJroblem. Even e x:-_perience is. n o guarantee, however. A persnn 

'vhose eJ~,?e rience comes fr om a p oor administra tion 1Jli ght fail to appreci at e 

the ino,dequacies of that administration. 

tn1at uc> s needed, and vvhat YYill be required agc:dn and again in t ·le 

futUl~e , is more than expert training in a single line. A lang range 

vi ew of our problems, grounded on a gen l ~U1der tanding of our social 

9838 

all 

ec 

ac 

dt 

;! 

:I 

il 

Sl 

\1] 

t,] 

u 

a 
~ .. 

and lcc;"l his tory , coupled ni th sn cifi kno vl dt:e 0f imm dio.te 

c on ""~:1i c rnrl socinl f--c s , t:1i•· i•; sr me of the t1 ~i nine a r esronsiblc 

adLlini st1.·:..·ti ve official should h::we ( 4) . Truo , the "Our c s whi h • r 

ducc ·uc:~ men . e too f C,''• A llO~sible solution nould be toP ick n •:.· oons 

thuu":l1t C<"', ;_ ble of D.df-!r~Jci<'tin ; nd dcvelonin._, a roper administr,,..,.t iv e 

t cl;.iliC:'_uc . · ( 5 ). Then. t~1e ~e -persul s shuuld be f: iv n em intensive scl ooling 

in.·; in o.cu. ini stra t i on by trC' inod De rsons (G). 1['1 stly, the g r adu te s 

si1 oulcl. 0c clo~ cl su"Y)e rviscd in the ··)Cr .!.·L)r .. lenc of tl,cir regul;r dutil)s 

unti:. t'tcy h d dcmon..,tr ··· t ed such nbility tn:·t they cou ld "b fitted into 

the e~>t" ,li<·hed 1?roc dure . 

~\." ·cs been sugge sted it is C]Uite _.ossibl e that NRA per sonnel 

Bould 11;-ve r eacted. f vor ably to "?l'O'Jer guidc;mce. I f its inte llie; -nee 

"las ,.., ~ b:i. eat a"' it l oy<Jl t _ and ,., ill i ngnes h to work, a cha rting o f the 

p r o_Je r course migh t have b een eno11t5h. Cert e inly , p r oper a dministre.tivc 

anp:i.~occ~l u1Jon the part of the nersonnel •:7ould have done much to h .:Jv e 

est c:-.Jlished NRA in n much superi or :9o si tion. 

~1e ~1c- .nical saf egua r ds i.·~ht be uocested apl enty. In Engl and, 

depa:..·t1.1ental advis ory c ommi tteo s nave been successfully empl oyed . ( 7 

Thes e co.r1i tteos a r e authorized ·by statute, have c.<. perJtJanent rnembe rshi T, 

are ··Jr.id b.l the gov e r nment, and as t heir names su goests ar e ~Q.c1;y1 ~Gr~s· . 

.A.n 2~e~O [,Y is sug "?:e sted to t he NRA Advisory Council, a lthough its _stc>:tus 

'ilas cli ii'er ent . Some de tached 0.dvi sory agency whose r ecommendations 'H_Qul rJ: 

have rece ived every po ssi~ : conside r a ti on and c ommanded respect ~au d 

pave been a n inv lua."~tl G id t o the NRA to have seen the l ong range nroblens, en::;,ulged as it · a s in a sea of imm ciiaci es. A conscious .effort 

to a·.J"·)l y "na tural l aw" or lldue ·r::Jr oc e ss concepts" c ould have only VTO:;:lced 

as M-- r:_: nt for good a dministra tion (7a) . ·· 

Gener a l J ohnso n , ~o on r etireme n t , seemed to sense a number o f t he 

mec~;.ani l e.dmi nistra tive diffi culties of HP.A (8 ) . Some o f these coincide · i t h difficulti e s a lready ·oo inted out in conne ction ,,i th subs tD.n ti ve 

questions of :9olicy (other t han- administrative ) wh ich a re not within t he 

scope of t h is 1:10 rk. Donald Richbe rg san similar broad admini strati ve inadec:.ue.ci c s ( 9) • 

In the g cn e r e l r e view (10 ) l::l l~ '-' c •. ding this study c urtain s pe cific 

diffic1..1J t i c s ar e l)Oint cd out . Reme di es c an not al r.r.!:tyS be su gge st ed . 

WhLH'o t ·wy C<?n not b e so L· n by a statcmunt of th e p robl em, an at t om:;?t h 2.s 

b .Jcn .1z(o to ·t"> oint out •7her cvcr po ssibl e ac ti on · •h i ch might have n ccn t d.:cn . 

in connection mith each nr obl cm. 

~s the Fr osidcnt sa id in t ho bc 6 i nnin.o' NHA pr vscnt od 11 a challe1;_t;o 

to 2.Cl.rJinistration" (11) . Nili\ ans, cr cd it •:·ith duvot cd speedy a ction . 

It f.:-.i l cd, ho 'TGVor , to provide t ho t 11 ;h stand.nrd of c:1dmini strati vc justice 

t h c-.t tho courts damcmd a s t he rig~1t of our ci tiz~ ns. 

~his 11 chall ence to administrati on" v ould have oue n judge d by tho 

cou:..~ts . In the light of vrhat tho courts h vo done n.nd said this study 

has tried t o 9o i nt out h ow they '70Ul d have treat ed NRA administration . 

Evon ~1oug~1. lat e , N~A is pr c.paring t o ansncr t h e chall enge of administ:..·c:-.tion. 

9838 
-136-

Its careful self-criticism should n oint the 1ay for future administra tion. The inadequa cies and t h e dif-~ iculti es Hill o e foundation 

stones U1) 0n which to build' ane ~~ . Somedr.y ' ne rhan s not immediately , 

c::; overnment will have to a5c-.in adninist e r the :o·roblems with which '~RA 

was concerned. vYhen this time cnmes, it is our f e r vent hop e .an d b elief 

that the g ov<; rnment w.ill build an adl11inistrRtion full y c auable of 

efficiently deal~ng· with the com.) lex and i rrm ortant economic u roolems 

of mo dern society , wl1ile afford ing justice to every man. . · 

98 38 
., ' , .. 

CJ-TAP R I 

( 1) Tho Nc.. tiona Industria l llecovory 1 r.t , 48 Stnt. 1 f=i . 

( 2 - atiom'll RP covory Adr:1 inistrn ti0 - RnJl e tin Fo . l, June 1 6 , 1933. 

2' Sta t. 209 (Thq ShPr rnan Ac t J ; 

38 Stat . 730 (ThA Cl ayton Ac t ) ; 

38 Stat. 717 (ThP. Fe dP _Al TrP de m~ 0n Act) ; 

Fo r f urthe r stC1 tutP.s n cJ. C !"' S 0 S U1"l0n tho r, o l p···s gqP, Thq Fodq r e l Antitrust LPt<TS , u.s. G0v~"' 1Pnt Docu..."JlP.nt 9~ . 

( 4) . a hren r o ck , 11 FAd."lr , .l Anti-:Vru!=;t 1 ? ,..... a nd thq N. I..R. A., 11 

37 Ai ch i ~n LA"' ::1Av i o ·· ] 0. ~_ 4- l '(_,_:]J)19 __ (L930 ) . 

( ~) A l ist r f t.hnso i s fo·.md c> t. ·p ~.::.r1 to n0 :r 0. rl m r f t h P. LP.ga l 

Divisi n , r . R • .A., l"::1 :L'Ch ~1 , }934 , ,--Li ch ,.,P s s r·· -- i "'lr 1rr thA Dena rtment 

of J u s t icP. Th P. l i s+, co ·"" r P. d P, ~"'n -:1 !'\ --: 0 w::-. .rc (l. ::. !' t··rr-hundrod sixt reight of t h o inc.ust.ri P. S f o r nrh i c_1 J\TRA hrc u ro·,..., () sqfl. r.lirl"'S • . It i s t o be 

rP:nAm PrAd 1\TRA e ··)n rovA:l f'i 7P. r'='d. f i f t ,;-s ov qn r'0 0 os (not including 

SUD lements). ·}.lho list doGs not in r: ~u A t hr.s "' 'l .; i: t r'1 '3IDb Ar s 0f indust ri.l3 S or tradq .-. ot 01-=:: ifiACl. :1~r NBA. 

The me'!lo r a ndu n 8n,j r. i n Ao f.1A T'1be r s rf t he Lec;p; 1 Di ri sion to submit 

n o ssi b le confl icts in n rOD0 SACl. code s or co m lia.ncP. "1a.tt P. r s of a·:)p r oved 

co dqs to t n e DeDart m'mt 0f Justi ce 11 bofor q final C? .l~ io . 11 . 

( 6. ) Brooldngs I nstitution, Thq lf2 tional Ro cov r Y Admir.:istrat i on 

An a na lYsis 8n0. an Auo r c.. isa L (l9 7 .f=i), 5: "E-v~n bt:> for"" thl'l dqDre s s ion 

th ~r ~ ~'8 S -rruch t Plk: r'i SO-CC'l.l l qd 1 si~k i ncl1).St r iA G. I II 

(7) Johnson, Th o BJ. ~ E:>2:1P. f r 0.,.,1 "· to Zc> rth (Sa turdP.y Ev~ning 

Po st, Jan~ 19, 1935), 72 : 

11 ] efore t h t1 '1"'1<'1.:r , · Ar1"lricPn · business we.s a. :r.onqy comb o.f ,-;rater-tight 

industria l CO m"JP rtments. Eb.ch cell -'<' S ,jeGl lO'.J. r gtlArde rl. There 'lli!ElS 

a maximum of cor:met i tion an(1 e. min i FlU:J· ,.f co-o :rc::. tion. R.J..thl8ss and 

unt~rn'D er ~d com·· qtiti()n ,..,.Ps oP.r.r "'Ad l)v ·t h8 h~r n ancl Clay ton Acts . The 

e r ctan e d t hat . Th~ orld na t ~a . Th"" at i0 ~s Antorqd a cont P-st 

t o S8° mhich coul d lJ ~Ur the g r Aeto nt 2S r3 of its y oung me..nhoo cl and the 

st amount o f its '10nAy And n ro )Ar t.0r i nt o thq firo in th"l shortAst 

su ace of time . The.t ,·-a s t he -;-r ""·Y 't o ~i~ t he '"'[l r. 

11 Thq old ho n ~yco 'lb -::1a.cb i ne of thA Un i torl St.? to s ou CJ_n 1 t Droc3.uc8 

thi ngs f a st An0UP'h i >t t:li s r'PC.A to QP S t r G:;r ovor7t r"i.nr:-. WP. ha d t() scraD 

i t . An0. in tho s':lrrt ri o 'J ~t ··'" "" n A'D :>:'il 1, 1917 ;. -2r d l.()·,remb Ar, 18 ~ 

we litera lly t orR i t p·0a rt ~:P d -rmt. it t ,..., ::o ther ;rA i·~ .• ' Gn t h e ca.ll of 

Govo r DI!lent and ..:: d. r thA n r Assu r A r f ,;at:ri ·"' tisJ11 , tbn c- l o_ i nd ividuAlist 

battlers ro. ra l -bw:r:-:1 q en or r-;e r1i zqd s quad, all :r~hi :r .£; tO""P rd t h o sound 

of th"' g,_Ul S . 

98 38 
3~ · 

Com"'Je ti tors )001~0 th~ir. r"'SO\..l.TC"'S, t h"'!ir t:cPd.P. S0 /""!T 0 t S , th"'lir f?'"!ili tios. 

Industries orgcmiz~ (1_ thoms~lVP.S into g roup s a nd figur'=l S n i t h the sueP.d. 

and a l most thP. lJ ~l""! ision of a highlJ . dr~ll ed chorus on a r1usical-comP.d. 

stag P., a nd GovP.r:nr:Hmt too}-: charg e o{ 'b oth lJTOduct i on an.o. Cj)nSUT'JTJtion and , 

to a large extP.n t, :p ricP.s. It "orkAd. -J<"'U.rACl_ forth su~h a. flood of 

u rod.uction for th~ usPs of "'aX' as thP. '"'C:rj_cl ha.cl n~YP.r sP.on in onP. country . 

It "VOn the ma.r . 11 

(B) Ibid., 68: 

"Plants,_ finding .A. s9ant mar }-":P.t for thP.ir u ro ducts , b egin frantic<?.lly 

to · s e P.k for P.ny lJOssibl"' '1P.~hod of rPdu~~J'). g ·nril""!9s, and.· thP. I!lost obvious 

methods of all ar"' to roducP. '"'7P ,;;,s , SDP.P.d u ·0 : machinP.s to iJro duce ":lo ro in 

a shortPr ti'11P., a.nd e x t"lnd . th~ ··hours · of ·7ork to the limit . l1o·st h~an e 

emu loyP:rs do ·not ·'ne.nt to do this, but a. :· sing le g r o.2t cC'mnAtitor ca n force 

it, a.nd, likP. a rott!'m aiJ'>.lP. +i nil in ~ a._. ':"Thol ~ bfl rr~l; one 1Jlant or one 

lOcflli t y Tll!hich aCl.oDt s _this 1'118thoo. cc=:n hrin}; it. cnrentufl.l1:r to a. =hol8 

industr~r . .. · 

11 That vt=Jr.v thing '"A.s . thP. yrorst C'f this dP.'lJTP.s.:SiNl.. It b og<> n to have 

its dPstru.c.tivP. P.ffAI""! ··. air:~0 st immt=Jc3.i~ t~l ~ in 1929. :· Earl y in 1930 , PrAsid.:mt HoovP.r.:mad.e strong ~:( orts to ·atrest tho di zzy dor.rnn?..r 0. s;Jiral in 

wa.gP.s· and em,Jloymt=Jnt, but onP. comuq.ny aftP.r .another, in ag~ nolfish 

comDeti tinn for thP. r~ 'J idl r .. ,. d.8 clining· bu s.iness , cut mFJ.£'P.S And , l~ngth necl 

hours. As eB.ch dicl .· this~ its .co:r.TnAt ito:rl? ·- r:-erP. obligAd t0 dC' l_i k en isP., 

until all d.icl it · in industry afto:r l.ndustr~r. This d.~sct=Jnt i nto ~1 e !!laelstrom -r•ont on foi~ four years. 11 

( 9) Ibid.,, 75: 

11 It hanpPned bP.Q<:mse . th"l;.r ''T :.~a door J.~d ·. thP. l aw to unchecked and 

uncontroll8d comuetition--cloo.mecl by thP. l am n0t -to t a!{P. comnon counsel, 

not to rPgPrci . . 8ach in ustr~r ~s P unit, a,nd n0t to rogBrcl thq country Cl.S 

an economic in tP. g"'r in mhich ovpry cit izP.n hac3. an in t~r o st· and' AVP.ry 

8moloyer an obli{;? t i011. ThAy could n0t havq saved thAm s~l VAs,. bP.cBuse 

any com;Jeny thfl.t J.~ggAd in thP. .fight. for a ne,l\T cauacity , conste.ntly incrP..P.sing iJ rOdu~t ion, . a~d . the : 0 thf'lr fellow Is· mark et, "'70Uld {!,0 to the "<'78.11. 

The larrs of th8 Unit~d Statf'ls sinroly sp.id: 'Root ho g or die. DP.vil take 

thP. hindmost! 1 and thA devil took- it -all. 1 Th"' biggP.r thqy arP., the 

hardf'lr thqy fall,'. and this. structurP. first bP.-CA.rnt=J monstrously big and 

then fell •rith a cra sh thPt sho0k thA ,,.hol"' '"Or1d. 11 

(10) Pr-=1 ss Di gP.st, Jun8 13, 1935 , 'qu.c:tP.s from fl SDP.Pch by Hon . Donald Richbt=Jrg a.t GalPsburg, Illin<"' is, 11 Unless mP. havP. fflct :finding agt=JnciP.s a nd. '"ri t ors 0f sciAntific ,-rorl:s to T'lhon·. leg i slati vP. and judicial · · 

bodies will ac0.0r0 [-1Uth0ri tv, n 0m 1T iP.ldAO. to p hvsicists 8nd ChP.PliStS, rrq 

shall haVP. arisA • ~; 1Jrofound iS U~S of f8.Ct ~h ich rriJ.l b e de.clarAd Vl!'Ong 

by . tht:?. courts ••• 11 An ·auuec:l l continuP.d for a 11 cordial alliance of the · 

socia l sciAntist a nd. thA -o ra.ctical u oli tic i an to gc=dn for o'r~rnTTJ.f'lnt mhat 

Congrf'lss ha.s wo n fr0 rr{ thA 'uni0n of businP.ss and sciPnce. 11 

9838 
-139 -

(1) ·il l oughby , .Q_on? t :!. t _t_:o nal__b._, ~ tho:; i t t d States (New f ork 

1929) , 161 6-1635 ; <~nd Goodnm , Th-:- in~i es O.!_tt.e A minis t r a tive Law 

of the United St a t e s ( N ·;· York ' 1905 ) IV I .51--i:2 .• rr· 1(? ·rheory of the 

Seuar 2tion of Po c rs in the U it cd St ~ • 

( v ) Frt:nicfurt e r c: nd Davison , C8.sc s 0 '1 Admi 11istre tlve Law (Chicago 

193.:.. ) Append ix 1. 'l'he S pa:.. n of Po : r s i :1 St a t e Con st 1tuti ons , 1149 . 

Eigh t St a t e s hav e me r str uctural t r i pur tit e div 1sion. Six r ep eat the 

three d e _;> art ment f or mula . Six dJ. a .:;r or_i bi ti on r:..e;a inst admi x t u r e of 

po; ers. T ;enty- s ix provide f or s ep .. rc.: t i on of p o\7e r s with cxc ey t ions . 

Tlil O r "cogni ze a.n "ecir:1i !1 istr a t i v e TI in )rov i din[; for s pa r a t · on of powers. 

(3) Articl es I, II and III. 

('± ) Holme s , Col lect ed Legr l ::. rs ( NcVl. York, 1920), Essay on 

·on tesq_u i eu. 

Se e !J_rli ch , limon t e sq:ui en a nd Soc .-. lo ~"' :=t l Jurisprudenc e 11 , 29 

Harv ard Law Ruvi ew 3b2 , 592 (191 6) ·1 e r e t h e aut '1 or su gg est s concerning 

the chap t er "De l a Cons t J. t u.tion d 1_ttng l t e r re ", lfTher e is n o doubt tha t it 

i s found. 0d entire l y 0!1 o bs ervc...tion of t h e vw r k int: of t he British Const i tution. Yet t h e re is still no mention of Greot Brita in ep t in the 

titl e c- nd a f ew ~o rds [ t the · n.d of t he ch ap t e r. The qu estion vv ith vrhich 

he i s concer-ned is not t h e f r a·.1e of t h J3ri t ish Cons ti tut ion, but ho-rvr the 

Const i tution of a fr ee u eo-o l u :.mst be f r a.rn3d ." 

( 5) Fran1.d urt cr end 1d1 s, 

37 Har v. Lc..-.- Revi :;~r , _l 010_092'U : 

of t he r i gid pa ;: ti n of -p o·.1e rs 

"A Study in Sepo.r a t i~:m of Powers," 

Surpris e is ex·,)r e ss ed a t pr eval ence 

t h eor y . 

( 5a) Comm i t t ee on i\·l i n i nt er 1 s Pori e rs .rte·q o:t t (Cmd. 4060 , Pr e s ented by 

the Lo r d Cha nc ellor to Parliawcnt in April, 1932 ) S4 - 95. 

Th e Co;ami t t e e comltients on t he f s..c t t h a t lithe O.octrine of the separation of p owers is not s a cros e:;:1 ct, tl ::' nd. sta.t e s, "the sap3.r a tion of povve rs 

is merely a rule of r.Jo lit1cal \!i sdom, a!ld. 'nust g i v e V'eY where sound 

r easons of public p oli cy so r equ i re ." 

( b) See d iscu ssi on on s ro vt h of Adlninl s t:r co.t i ve Law in relation 

wi t h the d.octrine , i nfra , t h is cha9 t er, s octi on e . 

( 7) Bonciy , Separ c:tion of Q_~v rnr.1 :1 al Pm·:ers (Hew _rork , 1893). 

Admix tur e of pm;ers end ov erlapp iag . PG.rt I r, 41-49; - ·The Legisla ture 

and t he Courts, Pa rt III, 5; - The Lt::g i sla hrr e a nd the Exe cutive , Part 

IV, 89; The Ex e cutive· 2nd the Courts, Pa rt V, 105. 

( 8) Bing' em v. Ivilller, 17 Oh io ~- ep . 'h5 (1 ), Fr e.nk f urt e r and 

Davis on , op c it., 51: 1:1 a0..d ition to tho h i storica l p r a ctice t he court 

f elt tha t to "de cla r e all t- e consequenc e s r e sulting f rom it void, is 

pregna nt 17 ith fea r f u l cons equenc e s." Maynard v. Hill-_ , 1 25 u. S. 190 (1887). 

But con tra, b a s e d on t he s epar a tion of p ':'•: ers doctrine s ee : Spa rhaTik v. 

Sparhawk, 116 Ma ss. 315 (1874-1875), ~: 1kfurt r a nd Davison , op cit., 46. 

9838 
-1 40 -

(9) Calder v. Bull, 3 Dc.ll. 386 (1798) despite a dictum at p~e 

388, HAn a ct of the Legisla ture (for I can.L'J,Qt call it a l aw ) contrary to 

the first great principles of the social cbmpact, cannot be considered a 

rightful exercise of l egislature authority.'' 

(10) Cooper v. lfair, 4 ll. 14 (1800). 

(11) Wilkinson v. Leland, 2 Pet. 627 (1829). 

(12) Honolulu ].:tapid Transit Co. ·v. !Iawaii, 211 u.s. 282 (1908), 

preventing courts to interfere to maintain a rate schedule. 

(13) Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 (1825). · 

(14) Article III, Se ction 1 and 2. 

(15) Tutum v. u.s., 270 u.s. 568 (19 26 ) 

(16) -The C~nstitution, A.rticle III, Section 2 /1/ 

(17) Hayburn 1 s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792); Muskrat v • . u.s., 219 u.s. 

346 (1911); and Willing v. Chicago Auditorium As sociation, 277 U.S. 274 

( 1928). 

(18) Willis, Parl iamentary Powe rs of English Government Departments, (Harvard University Press, 1932 ) o; The Author po ints out 

that the separation of pouers doctrine has never been reali zed in pr actice. 

If it could. have been in the early d&y s of our governrnent he d.oesn 1 t say, 

but he points out that the changes in economic soci ety have not forced. 

upon us other governmental _methods disharoonious wi th this theory. 

(19) Goodnow, op. cit., 35. The doctrine does not apply to local 

governrw.ent. 

( 20) Ibid., 34, 37. 

( 21) Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)' II, 8: 

"When we ,speak. of the three grec:.t powers of government and maintain 

that t:1e s eparation is indis_yensable to public liberty, we are to understand this ma.."{im in a limited sense. It is not meant to affirm that they 

·must be kept wholly and .entirely separa te and distinct and have no common 

link or connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest 

d.egr ee . The true meaning is that the whole power of the one department 

Should not be es ercised by the same hands v'h ieh possess the Phole power 

of either 0f the other departmonts.u 

( 22 ) Holmes, op cit., 263 : "His England- the England of the threefold division of power into legislative, executive and judicial -- was a 

fiction invent ed by him, a fiction wh ich mislead Bla ckstone and Deboline.rt 

( 23) Goodnow, ' op cit. , 31-33. 

( 24 ) Bentham, Principles of iVIo rals and Legislat ion .(Oxford 

University Press, 1879), 13. Bentham ridicules the principle expre~sing 

the vi ew tha t its history is qoubtful and i~s utility even mo re so. 

( 25 ) Frankfurter and Landis, rtpower of Congr e ss over Procedure i n 

'Inf er~ orl Federal Courts - A Study in Separation · of Powers", 37 Harvard 

Law Review 1010 (1924 ); 

9838 
- 141-

( 6) S8e ~ .is u . sin!'l r :t 11 •)0 iticcrl nu~cti ns , 11 i nf r ::1 , III 

7 Bl t1 c hJ.y nnd U;1t"'lnn , cl"1~ i s r :" i v"' Loo-i sl til') n a11d Ac1,jutica t ion 

( r ookin s I n s ti t u ti n , 193L1 ) . 3~ : 11 Th"' d.nctrino of so [l :rc• tion nf 'I)C' nr"" rs 

had not d""VAlOu Pd in th~:~ Unit "' S ()t'"'s , B.s i t hr:~r, in FrAnc '-' , in such e. nra" 

thr:~t th9 C' r <'l.i nA ' c urts ma;r nnt i ntorf r o ••i t.h () r TTlini st r- ti·ro [l e ts a nct. 

th~:~rofo o admi nist r "'tivo cnurt " h£·0 t o "uo "'lr t ·,b i. hn.d ; but I' [l tht:~ r i n S''..Ch 

a l"Tay thf"t h "" 0 r r in0.r . courts , ., l~:~s~ ""S Acia l n rl')v isiC'n is "'lad "! 0tho:r- ... 

wi s8 , cont r ol tho ad'Ylinist Ption. • • • • • • • ThA du~ 'lJ TC'r."'ss of l a.--r 

claUS""S of tho fPdArnJ C0nst i t u ti0n havo n0t b 00"1 us t:~d t0 b r i nP' t=~ bount a 

'~"'q ll- lanned 1 mP ll 0u l:t out , and t:~l:l -~ on rol Ad syst"''l of a dministrPt i ve c:'ld j ud i c t i n , but havp bo <~ n US 0 l u : i mn r i . y as c:. 'lt:> t hod. of cnnt ro l l ing suh s t a nt ivA l.CJ'' • 11 

( 28) Fr a nkfu rtpr, "The Tflsl- 0f Adl"'l is r...,t v~:~ LCJ ·-, 11 7 r:: Un i v'-lr sitv 

of P8n sylv[lnia r; .nPVi Pm 614 . 6J_Q_( l 9?.1l : "And so , t h i s il1eg itil'l'Ja t A, 0 XOt ic , ·ad mi n i S t.r F~ t i VP l ? "r<T , a l nC' S t ()1J0 rni gh t OVP.r•·rh P.l mt:~d t:~ '!Jr OfP.S Si C" n , 

wh ich f or t:~ Fl rs hM1. bo O> n tolo of its st"'80 .. :T . ecl.vn ~A bv ~ ln ne r w1.t c hP.rs 

in t ~ to'Me r . 11 

( 29) Go o dno , Conroa ra t i V"' Ad.mi n i st r ,.., t i o La'I"'T (i.'Tt:>··· Yo r c 1S03) . This 

i s the f:frst r ocogni tion of 11 ac1.mi n istrr:>t; i vo l P,"" " B.S sur.h in t h e Enrslish 

F~ f-:uag . 'l1hi s nas f irst 1JUbl i sht:>d in· l893 . Harri man, "Tht:> DP.v elo-oTTlAnt 

of Administra t i vt:> La.•'T i 11 thP Un i t Pd Stn t o s , n 2.1:) '..."C~ lc:l ;L ~r Jou rna l g58 (1916 ). 

( 30) BP.ard a.nct. 3 P. ard, The A!llt:> rican vi athe n IT ~:~· ')' io r k , 1930) • 

. . ( 31) Fra nkfurt e r , The Pub J.ic a.nc1 its C-ovornm8nt (Ya.l e U ivt:> rsity 

Pre ss , 1930) . . 

( 32) I bid. , i 7 . 

( 33) Willis, OD. cit., g: "Th i s 8 ssP-r i s l"'l~ nly on r.8r'1Pd ,.,.,ith 

u r ocP. dure--tri vial stu;:f' , i t mi ght b o t h 0us.-h t . :But ~ con trov or s r prh i ch 

a t u r9 s ant r p.gos 0round dPJ.P.gf1t i 0n 0:;" l.~ slat iv P. 1') .,.., :::' i s n0t in e ssen c e 

conc <'! rne d. wi th rthi ng "10 r o <:! XCi t i ng thc:m n roc"!dur e . Tha.t s h l"'S r1n st 

b e:! clo.a.rt:> (l_ cl S8.r. at:r dt:>v ices made cnl11'0Ul so r y in f a r.tcri<'!s has nt:>vt:> r 

b t:>on in Utt:> • . ~ issu e is soJ ~ly by nrha t TJ O. ?:t:.S ::::'l ]Tl t shall c a r -

r y i ts d8 c l a rt:>d DO l i cy ~nto eff P.ct . Itust PP.rliamAnt i t s oJ.f d~fi nP. th~ · 

de tails-- and r~ cri be "'t . metb 0d s? Or shall a . subordina t8 auth ority b8 

c~a ged with tho s A du tio.s? How f 8 r shall · Arform e of t hos P. duties b a. d.ep a r t mAnt b e su p P-r.,ri sAd by the cou r ts ? Thus sta tAd , qu estions 

of u ro c edur o. b <=:!co'r:1e quP- s tions of 'I ~r. 11 

So.~:~ a l so, HP.'nart, Th o. l'- 0 ' ' Dt:> s- o tism ( No. n Y<?rk , 1929 ) ; All en , 

Bur8 ucra cy Triul'l'JTJhant (Nen York , 1931) . 

(34) Infra. III and IV. 

( 35) An Axtonde •i d i s cus$ i 0n of elP. g~ t i on of lo.g i slat i v t:> Po.,.o.rs 

will b 8 found , infra XI V a nd., XV . 

( 36) Bla chly and Oa tma n, ou . c it., ·!=13 : 

9838 
- 14:2-

.... 11 Its ~9 rincipal advantages are : Econom~r of t he time of the legisl&-

ture; ava ilability of e:l:pert ~-:no, dge; absence of narti san conflicts 

concerning cletails; fl ezibili ty; possibility of correct drafting; com:.>letion anct clarification of t he statutory law, and consequent avoidance of 

unnecessary litigation. 

11 Its :9rincipnl clisadvant a,ge s, under t h e system now existing in our 

federal government, are: Possibilities of inharmonious and inconsistent 

sub-leg islation; of s e cre cy; of -improu er · influences; o:f' failure to 

consider the general will; of lack of an adequate statutory basis, ending 

in the a ssum:9tion by the cqurts of important and inap:9ropriate 

sub-legi slative powers; and. of i nci dental sub-legislation by either the 

courts or the administrative au t h oriti e s, particularly the great 

regulatory commissions, in t h o :9rocess of cle ciding particular cases. 

·lf'The 1:1ost interesting t hing about these advantages and disadvantages, 

whep thus· s e t forth side bJr side, is the· fact that t he adva.n_ta.ges are 

gen·eral, permanent, and inher ent in the function of aclminis trat i ve 

legislation in any ovel~nment system organized with reasonable care; 

whereas the disadvantages are almost all dependent upon s:pecial conditions and lEJ.ck o;f careful organization. ·Th is means that due attention 

to the gove:rnment structure will eliminate, or .at lea.st minimize, the 

disadvantage s of .·aclministrati ve legislation, whil e all its advantages 

will remain." · · 

(37) Yillis, op. cit,, 52: "One of t he ch i e f reasons for delegatill..g 

p ower to mcl\:e rul e s to the department is, put shortly,. to enable questions 

of det a il to be r emoved from th·e consideration of Parliament•'' 

(38) Laski, "The Limitations of the 'Srpe rt, 11 Harpers, December, 

(1930). Groenvel t v. :Burwell e t al, Censors of the College of Physicians, 

1 L. D. RC?-~'Tn ond 454, 471 .(1691). The court re~ogll:ized the value of 

expert skill a nd .t:h.at. its findings in a technical p roblem be not 

disturbed. 

(39) Carr, Delegated Le islation (Cambridge U~iversity Press 1921), 

19-26: The Cas e for Delegation. The author mentions, l. the -time 

element rrhich has e:i:~sted in England. since 1832; 2. 11 the limitation of 

aptitudes" citing John Stuart Hill; 3. Parliament does not govern the 

c ou..'Yl.try in the s ens e of enforcing the law or policy. Therefore, the 

actual governing agencies can b est fill in the details of that p olicy, 

and in certain case s make policy t hemselves. Th is point is difficult 

to lain succinctly. Parliament is not a l v1ays in e>:istence, and even 

if it we r e , its p roc edure is sloTI . TL~is po int is quite similar to the 

reas on Profess or Comer assigns to t h e fact that so many exampl e s of 

delegation can be found in the first session of Co ngress. 

(40 ) Dickinson, Administrative Justice 2nd the Suur emacy ?f La~ 

in the United Stat es ( Harvard University Pre ss, 19?7). Tlle autlor lists 

advantages of administr ation : 1. Initiation by the Goyernment of ' 

efforts to p rotect the public interest; 2 . Prompt action of a preventive, . 

and not y remedial- nature based on techniQal knowl edge; 3. The 

protection of public int ere st in a way not' possibl e by laVi suits of private 

·par ties; 4 . Flexibility in determining socially hurtful conduct. 

9838 
- 143 

(t~l ~<'irli , 11 Adrnini,...tr ~tiYe Lc i lo.tion , 11 i 'i cl·ip-an Law :rt vicw 

181 (1930)- Ol.'. tlinr"r~ t :1e ac1Mini. ~~tri.' tiv rul e uroblt>r'l in . i elds of the 

gover·1r.1ent t G onn busillE.~"s or "'S"8llt i al i'nnct:i,ons. 

(42 ) o.r:.: , on . cit . In !:n--;land dc et; ted l c ,i"ln..tion can b e 

cue stioneCl judicially rril" r eCl.s Acts o:f Pnrliament con not be so que stioned. 

( 4.... wrt , I o.tionul .u.d11ini strati vc Qr.o-a.ni zntion (Urbana , Ill . 

1923) I . Sec also , Pe ou1e v . Tremaine , 168 F. E. 817 (H. : . 1929) ; and 

supra , n . 2 . 

( 44) :be r1~' c~S "' freely r e cog:1ized ac~D inistrativ e action. 

I :urrr.w Tq_ LQ; s .Je v . Hob kQn L .. n_d. ancl I .rpr ove .. 1en t . Corma ny , 18 Eow • 272 

(1855 ) . See also , GoodnoTI , ov . cit ., 24- 25 ; Dicey , 'J.1h e Law of the 

Constitution, 8th e d . (Lorden 1~ 7) . 

(45) 

?29 , 230 : 

the l egal 

istrative 

the facts 

Cool ey , Co nsti tution .... l Lini tat io ~ 8th ed. . , (:Boston 1927) , 11 The l ecis1at-ure must o.u cla re the -p olicy of the l aw and. fiz 

yl~inci~1 s r:hich are to contr9l in g iven case s; but an adminofficer or body m~ ~e inve sted ith the p oTier to as c ertain 

and conditions to ,-~'l ich the :p o1ic~r and ~o ri ci · ;~ply 11 

( 46) Sears Roebnc.c an0_ Co ._ v . Federa.l Trade Conmi ssion, 258 

F •. 307 , · 312 (c . c.A. 7th 191.9) . 

(47) Lo.ski , 11 Boo 1~ rt.evie1, 11 45 Harvf'..rd La•r rt. vi e~T '754 , 756 (1932 ). 

11 Parliarii1ent :1as been l e d to ez~c ri nent i th departmental jurisdiction 

because .j t:.cl..icial r evi eu of socia l u olicy has b een r eactiona r y in temper 

and ums~r in e~ecution . I t hFl.s fai l e o. to aplJr ecic>.te the e l ements of 

:policy TI ... :.i ch is invol v ed in, fL'ld.ing the facts wherever quasi - judicial 

o;> ro b1ens e: 12 1~ ge . 11 

(48) Uis~1ir:mra El::iu v . U. s., 142 _u .s. 651-659 (1 802) . 

(19) e~ t he discus~ion of court ' s revi en of a1m.inistrative 

c: ction , L:.frc:. . See also Di ckinson , 0 :9 . c i t ., XI; a nd 11 Rev1e,: of 

Ad:r1inistrc:.t i ve Determinations of Questions of ' Con stitutional Fac t 1 11 , 

.80 P.enn .. Lan Revien (1933) 307- 332 . 

( 50) T.L1 is is the traditional stc;.t er'lent . The ·or i nci:9l e , h oweve r , 

is not L:.:fle::ib1y adhered _t o. Dicl..:inson , op . cit., 50- 54 . 

( 51 ) S;Jitll v . itc co c1~ , 226 U. S. 53 , 58 (191 2 ). The case 

involved., so.i d the court , a ouest ion of lan nhether a pub1icat ion is 

a book or Jeri ic l. 11 We slwnl d. not int erfer e '.7i t h the decision of 

the Postmc.ster Gen3r a+ ur ..le s s . clear1 ~r of t l1e op i nion it pas m"ong . 11 

See also :::Jc.t e s a nd Guild Co . v . Pa. rne , 194 ~ 106 , 107 (1S04) , 

'"'here t he cburt · inje ct ed t :P,e sugg~ stion t hat a question of l aTI coupl ed 

with some c.iscretion in the Postmaster General exist ed. 

~8 38 
. - 144-

(52 ) 1aye i~, A Prelii?lillBr-,- Tre 2.ti se on t h- Lan of =:vi d.ence 

sto~1 , 1898), ~02 . See Dickii.~son , o:p . cit., n . 49 ; Dui;an v . U.S., 34: 

Court of Cl c;.ir:ls 4,58 (1 899 ), he l ci. t i;.< t the o.Rcision of t :1e Col!l!!lissioner 

of Int e rnal :?..evenue thr t a.n offi cer in char.:;e of 2- u '1st e:r:change is not 

a retail li :uor 0.ee..l er is a te c isi or. of fa.ct in h is juri-sdiction and final. 

The Secretc:•,ry of t ho Tr asur~· sub::1i tteCl. t h e ou8 st ion <:1.s one of 11 l an . 11 

The court t s rJ,ot clear nhe t '1er fL!al i t;y is g iven to the dec ision of the 

Internal . 2 evenue Commissioner be cause of jurisdict:on or b e cause 

11 oue stion of fact" Has i nvoived. See tr eat TJent of 11 q_ue stion_s of law11 in 

consider ati on of court's review of aili1 ni st~ tive a c t ion , infra, III. 

( 53 ) ' L1 nf,'..lad.am Co. v. lo'8c"._e raJ. Trade Commission, L!-2 F. ( 2d) 430 

(C.C.A. · 6th, 1930), t l1e qu estion of t l10 s_ci enti :fi c val~e and s c:fety 

character for obesity cure is a o_u.estion of opinion_, not f a ct. In many 

fiel ds :..~ q_uiring e~::9e rt knoHlsdr_"'e 11 fac ts" as apD.r .t from 11 0:9inion11 a re 

al:nost ')ossible. ~o finc1. A que stio!l i nvolving fizing of prices and 

lessening of competition in int el~ st [l. e commerce Tin ich de:penCl.ed to a 

g r eat extent 1..1p on opin ion is f0uncl in Federal Trade Corr1ission v. 

Pacific Coast Pa ')e r Associatio:J., 273 U. S. 52, 62 (1927) . l.ir. Justice 

Ilutler se,ic1, 11 Tl1e ,_-;e i ght to be g iven to the f a cts and. circumstances 

admitted., a s \"ell as the infer en ce s reasonably to be drawn from them, 

is for ~1 e commission. 1

1 (Underlining J!l in ). 

(54:) L;.t erstc te Comr1e rce Co 1mission v. Union Pa cif ic --• R. Co., 

2?2 U.S. 541, 547, 54:8, 550 (1912 ): 11 fin determining ~1e se mb:ed 

questions of law a nd fact, the court confine s itself to the ultimate 

oue stion as to nhether the Commission acted within its p ower. It will 

not consicler t he e::r.:pedience or nisdom of the order, or rrhether, on like 

testimony , it noulc3. h2-Ve made a similar rulin;::; . t The findings of the 

Commission are mado by la~? priua Facie true, and t his co11rt has 

ascribed to t l1em the stren th d:u.e to the judgments of a tribunal 

aDpoint ed b~r . l avr and infor::t1ed py <"Xye:J;ience. t Illinois C. R. Co. v. 

Int erstate Com;1erce ComL1ission, 206 U.S. 4:41. Its conclusion, of cours e , 

is subject to revim7, but, ,_-·hen sn:puorted by evidence, is accept e o_ as 

final; •. •• not t hD,t its cisio ~1 involving , D.s it cto e s, so many and 

suc~ vast ~)ublic i nt erests, can be su:9y ort ecl bJ' a mere s cintilla of 

-,;roof, b1.,_t the courts Fill not eza;,1inE? t he ff1,cts fi,lrthe r t han to de ternine 

whe ther t ll e:..·e nas substantial evidence to sustain t he order ••••••• 

Wi~h t hat so:..~ t of evidence 9efor e t hem, r a t e e):perts of acknow-ledg ed 

ability and fairne ss, . q.nd e9-ch a cting ii;.d_e·_)~ nd ntl Jr of the oth er, may not 

have reached ic1entically t he same conclusion. We do not .::non whether 

tho r e sults u ould }f2cVe b een a:o ro~:ima ly t h e same . For t h ere is no 

·oossibili t :r of solving t he que stion as t h oUgh it rre re a mathemat ical 

probl em to --~l ich the re coulo_ r b e one corre ct ·ans11e r. Still there 

was in this nass of facts t ha.t out of Hl1.ich e:::perts could have named 

a rate.nt Se e also North, Ge rroEm ·Lloyd v • . Hedden, 43 ?ed. 17 (1890). 

(55 ) i.ia:roue z v. Frisbie, 101 U.S. 473, 476 (1 879) : "The lanF,Uage 

of t h is Court in l.Ioore v. Ro.bbins, cited abov e , is :~a t equity will interf e re 'Who:. it is cl eet,r t hat t l1eso officers have , ~r a 1"1 istake of the l a\7 , 

g iven to e :·1an th·3 land wh i cl , on the nclis 1uted facts, belon6 ed to 

a:·1other. t The mf:-:;aning of t h is anC. t he sound. p r incip l e i s , t 1at v.rhe r e it is 

a mb:ed ou:::stion of l an and. of fact, a nd 1fThen t l1 e c ourt car1not so separate 

~1e m as to see cl e a r ly nhere the tribunal to rrJ.1i ch t h e lan has confi clecl 

the matter i s conclusive. 

9838 
"But i -~ it can be nrc.1 ntL. ~.T D1 nin to ~. court of 0oui ty t hat 

on fa ts c: ut rr~1i ch tl~"' re is no 0 i" u e , or no r e," soHnbl e doubt , thosr. 

offi ers ~10. -e , b~r n oistal-:e 0 .1 t:!c lD.\7 , deurived a JTk n of 1 is rif;ht , it ' 

wil l give 1 cl i ef. 11 

( 56 ) .vr:::m!::~u r er, nd Da- i sor. , ou . cit ., P ~,; face , n . vii , for the 

stateJTient , 11 Adninistra tive LDn is ~.:c ·o ·n ; it n8cess, rily is still 

crudely en:pirice.l , I t is r.c alin._, rri t l ne: nroblems , c..:.lling for nen 

social i::ve tions or fresh ad ..,~ '-l tions of old e:;:periences ,ll 

9'138 
- 146-

FOT;ES FO CRAFTER III 

( 1) Dicey, The Law of the Constitution, 8th ed. ( Lo i.1don 1927); see 

also DicJ.d 11son, Ad.rni_nistrc,ti ve Justice a;.1d the Su"Jremacy of Law in the 

United States (Harvard University Press, 1927); and Little v. Barreme , 

2 Cranch 170 (1804). 

( 2 ) Comer, Legislative Functions -Jf }Tationa l Administrative 

Authori t v (Few York~. 1927) '· 187: 

"A study of the Statut es at Larg e revea ls, however , that ['_lthough 

Co :c1gress has from the first demanded an occasional accow1ting to 

itself by its agents who wield legisla tive ~) Wer , this demand 

ap•!ears only spasmodically." 

(3) Radio Act of 1927, 44 Sta t. 1174 ; and Comrnunications Act of 

1934, 48 Stat. 1064. 

( 4 ) Blachly e..nd Oatman, Administrative Les islatio11 a;.1d Adjudication 

(Brooking s I n stitution, 1934) , 235 : 

"In respect to a n incr easing m.unber of administrative determinations, 

there is no statutory }!rovision for revi ew. For example, J)rovisions 

for any adequate review are a l mo st ent irely lacking in the laws 

estc:.blishin-.:, the liRA e.nd the .AA..A. · Some times no judicial remedy of 

any sort is a vailable, a lthough in nQ~erous instances an administrative review is allowed." 

(5) Act Barch 20, 1933, C. 3, Title I, 5, 48 Stat. 9: 

"All dec isions rendered by the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs 

under the ],')rovisiol1S of this Chapter, or the regulations issued 

pursuant thereto, shall b e final and conclusive on all questions of 

law and fact, and no other official or Court of the United St a tes 

she.ll have jurisdiction to review by mandamus or otherwise any 

such decisions." 

( 6) Infra, this chapt er and . IV 

(7) Willis, Parliament a ry Po\lvers of Eni.;lish Gover11ment Deuartments 

(Harvard University Press, 1 932 ). The l ast Chapter, 11Postscr i :· t ", deals 

with the Rel)Ort of the Conu;-d. ttee on · :i nist ers 1 Powers (Emd. 40 60 , Presented by th~ Lord Cha l1Cellor to Parliament i n April, 1932) , vhich the 

Author says come\'i a s a complete c:nswer to Lo rd Emr:r a rt 1 s su~__; est io ns of 

abuse. 

(7a ) Hum]Jhrey 1 s Executor v. U.S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935). 

(7b) U.S. v. Myers, 272 r;.s. r- ?. (1926 ). 

(7c) Pound, C. U., L1 The Grovvth of Ame r i ca n Administrative La', 

(Thomas Law :Boo ~ Co., 1923) 113: 

9838 

·, 

\ 
- 14:7-

"The' who l e subject of adninistra ti vc '~':1 i s , on thC; tLrcshold, one 

or constitutio.1ro lity, but 1:> yord that , it bclon~:...s to th field of 

st ·~ te m~nship i.l.nd not of la\'1 as adn1inistcrC'd in ~, he cou1·t s . 11 

(?d) Fe\~rart , mhc "cw DeSTWti m (L0!1 don 19?.9 ) , VI , Dcnartment 

Le islation, 83-104. 

(?c) Letter..; f:c·om Profc so1· <..nc~r L. i!ott of t'1c Ancrican 

Lct;islator 1 s Associati on , Ch icac;o , wri t ton in i'ay , 1931 and iir . Gcorbc 

C. S • .Benso:i1 of t he s a i1C or .~ c:.n za tion in Februar~f , ~36 . 

(?f) 1ctter s from th l'ew Yol'k Le(: i sl a ti\e Librari a n , Iir . \7illi am 

E. Hannai1 written to the writer in ·ay , 1931 ar:d February, 1936 . 

(7t_,) Ge neral Lc-.w s of t!assachuvctts ( ter. Eel.) 'ch:--pter 30 , 

sectionG 5 , 32 , 37 . 

Th is i nformat ion was f urnish8d by t he i ,assachuse tts State Libr'ariro.n , 

Mr . Edvvar d E. Redstd:t:e in l e t ter s v7:r i t t cn to the writ er in i' iay , 1931 a ;.1 d 

Februar y , 1936 . 

(?h ) Gen ·.,r a l Lav;s of I:as;;-; a.chusctts, ibi c't.., cJlc:'Jter 30 , section 32 : 

"All ar1.nua l reports 'required bJr lew:' to b e mc:.C:e iJy state officers a nd 

departments or heads t rH;reof sh&l l, e:z:.c ept a s otherwis e expressly 

:provided, cover t }.e _-_)l'e ce e·di n .. .; fi s ea l year and , oxce1') t fo r facts or 

~f ormat ion s::) e cif ica lly required 1;;./ l aw , sl1a ll 'oc a brief summa ry 

of the said y·ear 1 s work , tot, e t her with r e commendations for the 

succee di::s f i sce..l year. All such re~') orts shall, exce1)t as otherwise 

eX2_1 ess ~r provided, oe deposit ed with t he st 'a.te s e cre't a ry a.nd by 

him transmi tte& _to e General Court on or before the t h i rd 

Wednesday ii1 J anuar y ." 

(?i) Le tt ers f r om Dr. Edwi n..:, . ~i .,te , tl1en of the Wisconsin 

Legislative Referm1ce LPJrary on -~ay 1 a.:nd ::a~ T 1 2 , 1931; and e. l e tter from 

vir. Howard ? . Orilli of the V: i sco si n :G c.:_.i sl :::-1.t i vc Referenc e Library in 

Februar y , 1936 . 

(8) J a co·oson v . :rassa chus et t.s , 1_97 U.S. 11 (1 905 ) . The l ef,isla tive 

may choose one o{ OJT'1 0 si n_; medico.l. t heo:r·i es as t he '!J a si s f or a va ccination 

statute. 

(9) Al be::::-ts~ or , 11 J ud.i c i e l :!:tcviev.: of Adr.!LJ.i st :::El,t ive Action, 11 

35 Harvard Law Revien 1 27 (19.21) . 

(10) Pa;.1aoa RefL:in,;, om-)c :n~ v . hyan 29Z. U.S. 388 (1 935 ) . 

( 11) Car~: , Del 8;_ated IJ <:: ._islatior!. \Com' r i d,:se University· Press, 1931), 

5 . 

(13) L:.st i tut e of Pe.t e;.1t AF-,ents v . Lo ckwood, A. C. 347 ( House of Lo r ds 

1894:), But see , di scussi on of' u ltra vires -:-:En&chl ey a.nd · Oo..tman, ~1 . cit., 

VI ; where the < ..uthors }')OL:t out that <'.clrJinist r a tive E'.djucLice. don. has been 

forrna..lly reco ~n i z e ci in Fra:1c c , Ger many a ;.1d. o the r cou.ritri es, a 1J.d definit e 

ste::~s t aken to establish i t a.s a system 2. 1ar t fr om the Cour ts, which are 

1 i mi ted t o ~1 ri vat e l aw . 

9838 
- 148-

(1 3 ) The Fede ralist (Chi cago, 1894). Hadiso n , e.t pat;e 27 5 , speaks 

of t he l egisla t ur e as ~er io r t h;ous h circumst a nc es, while t h e judici ary 

is def ined by l an"d.marl:s less c ert a i n . Cor wi n , 11The j? ro gr ess of Co nstitutional Th eory 3et ween t he cl a~ n of L1de-pendenc·e a11d the J..' e-et i nt::s 

of t he Ph iladel :ohia Conv ention," 30 Ar.1. Hi stoi-y Revi ew 511 (1S2 5) , tr eats 

the earl y h i s tory of judicia l · r eview. 

( 14 ) Corwin, "The· 1Hi cher Law 1 Ba .. .Jq;r ound of Amer ican Co n sti t u t ional 

Law, 11 4 2 Harva r d Law Review , 149 - 135, 365- 409 ( 1928) . 

(15) Br cton, De Le2;i bu s e t Sonsuetudi nbus Angliae , (Tr a ver s Twi ss 

ed. Lo n do n , 1878), 1, .. 13- 21, whe r e a f ull di s cussi on of natura l law i s had 

(1 6 ) Corwi n , on . cit., 175. 

( 17) CorWi n , op . cit., 109. Pro·f essor Co r wi n ~, ks of Coke 1 s hop e 

•• ~ fl·to· restor e to Ent;l a nd the cons t itu tion of the ear l y a. astr s, 

cent erin5 about t h e i1ame and fame of La gna Char t a , where'"'f the ·courts, 

and esp ecially the High Co-q.rt of Par liament , we r e t h e chos en guardi ans n 

as b e ing 0118 of the 11 wel:t-s;;ring s of OUr OWn COl:st i t ut i onal theory " • • • 

11.A. current which has im:;art e d an ent i rely diffe r ent co l ora t ion to t he 

tradition" is found i n Monte s qu ieu ' s doctrin e of the s c:;_Jar ati on of 

p owers. 12 Coke Rep. 75; 12 Coke Reu . · 82 , · 84 ; 12 Coke Re-, . 85. 

· (18 ) 3 Dallas 386 (179£, ). Ma ggs , · 11The Co nsti tution a;.1d t he 

Re covery Let::;isla.tion ; The Rol es of Documer:t , Doc tri ne and J udg es, 11 

1 University of Chicabo Lq,w Reyievv 665, 669 (1934 ). Corwi n , "Basic 

Doctrine of Arne:c ica n Constituti onal . Law", 12 ll.iich i gan Law Revi ew, 

247 (1914 ), 250-252. . 

(1 9 ) Corwi n , ibid • .. · Willoughby , Constitut i onal Law of the Uni ted 

States "i ew Yo rk .l 929 ) 1 692-1693 ; . and Ritch i e , I·Za t u r a l Ri gh ts (I ew York 

1895 ). 

( 20) This is a l s o tru e i n Eng l a nd. Willis , op . c it., 68 : 

11They alone amon{:, :f::.'lglish courts, r efr a i ne d from standL1c: i n the way 

of administra tive decision of di sput es, from confu si ng the cour s e 

of Common Law l)r oc.edu:::-e with ' na tur a l j ust ic e , ' fr om sacri fic i ng 

r ea son a n d justice to ex popt f a c to te li li . Whe ther the ir 

· ab ility to s e e t hr ough t he bo ok s to t : e )r se t realit i e s is t h e 

r esu l t of occasi onal .,..,a rtici··la t ion i n de"uat e , or of a :r: acqua i n t a nce 

with othe r sy st ems or" l aw i~ · the J udicia l Commi ttee , i t i s diffi cul t 

to · say, "Qut t h ere can b e no tloubt t h.:-.t t h o foundat i ons of our 

mode rn sy st em of 6 0Vernment ha ve· b een p reser ve d U11sh..,t:en because of 

the de cisions of t he Law Lords. tt Boa rd of Edu cat ion v . Rice , (1911 ) 

A.C. 179 ; Ex pa r te Yaff e , (1931 ) A.C. 494 . 

( 21) Loca l Goverriment Boa r d v . Ar li dge , A.C. 120 (House of Lords 

1915 ). Frankfurt er a :1d Da.vi s'on , Case s on Admi :i.1 i str ativc Law (Chi cabo, 

1932) , 376 , 586 . Lord Shaw of Dunfe r line : 

9838 

11 I f i t (th e Administrat i ve 3 oc.r d) i s l eft wi thout eJq:lr e ss gu i dance 

it must st ill act h onestly a nd by honest mea ns ••• t he ss um ti n 

tha t the t.1e tho d of natur a l j usti c e are ex n ec essi t a t e t hos e of 
31G: 

Courts of Just i ce i s wholly fou d~d . hi ~ ia TlrPasl y -~ li c 

to st e11s or· 'Jroccclur e of :t'orm, of ·lJ ea din • 11 - . 

of 1.a '.;ur.:.:.l J ust i ce , 11 

"The jUl·ist s 'ho beli eve in :_a.t uTa l l CLw s eem t o r.1c to be i D tha t 

na i vc st'lte of mi n d. t ha.t a.cccpt s wha t has oe ei1 f anilia r a:nd a ccep ted 

by t h em a n cl their n e i t;hbor s CLS s ome thin;-., th .t r.lUs t be a ccep t cd by 

all men everywhe r e ." 

Of tho a rne philosor>hical basis, s e e "'ietzsche, 11 Jeyo nd Good c:md 

Evil 11 , (Translation by Hcl er· Zinunc rn, Few York , 1924. ) 

( '3 3) ·fab_;s , op . cit., ":'

1a tura l Justicell is still im-)ort a:nt in 

En.;land. Re,Jort of Committee on Mi nist ers ' Powers (Cmd. 4060 . Pr e sented 

by Lord Cha ncello r to Parli e~1t i n A:·Jril, 1932) '75-GO. 

(24) Willou6hby , . cit., 1683 : 

11 It is a very r emarkab l e fc::.ct that not until our w:

1

itten Constitution 

was more tha n half a c enturv old did the nhrase r e ceive an i nterpretation and a~1p lic tion which a:r:')roximates t ha t which it has toct.ay , 

and not, indee d. , until a hundred years had passed C.V·tay was r e sort 

had to it as the usual devices of those disap:;Jrovin;; of the acts 

of their leg i sl atures." 

(25) Ha nes , The Reviva l of Latur A.l Law Co ncents, ·(Harva rd Studi es 

in J urisprudence , ambr g, e~ 19.-0) V, Fatural Law . 

(26) Corwin, 11 Th e Doctrine of Due Process of Law before the Civil 

War ", 24 liarvard Law Review 366-385, 460-479, (1917) . 

( 27) i).l.rray 1 s Less ee v. tioboken Land and I m7lr ove!11ent Co., 18 How . 

272 (1855); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution , (1 847), 68 : 

9838 

"This clause (the due pr oc ess of l aw claus e) , in effect, a ffirms 

the right of trial, acco~ diTlG t o the proc ess anci ~)r oce din-"' s of 

the common l aw." This a nd a f ew other line s are the only ref er enc e 

in t his l arge and exhaustive work." 

Co r win, op. cit., 74, 95, 118-19 : 

!!Coke, in his L1sti tut es, defi nes due 21 rocess of l 8.w ~; ec isely as 

11 indictment or p r esentment of good and. l awful r~en • • • or by writ 

orig i nal of tr_c comr.10n lc-1.w," a t page 74. 

"When t he Fifth Amendment was added to the Co nst i t utior. i n 1792 , 

no one, so f a r as I am aware, hc.d ever suc~ ested that t h e term 1 due 

process of l aw ' had any other than its anciently est ablished and 

s elf-evident meaning of correct pro cedure ; not was such a suggestion 

to be ac cepted by any court, in any jurisdiction, for many yea rs to 

come." at page 95 , 
"As wP.s )Ointed out in the -nrevious cha·Jter, no one at the time 

of the f r aming and P.. d.oDti,on of the Constitution hc;,d any idea t hat 

this cl ause did more than cons ecrate a method of -p rocedure· aga inst 

nccused pers ons , ::md the mo de l~n doc trine of due 1Jroc ess of ~v1 , the 

mo-s t irrmort ant single b 2s i _s of judicinl view today , could never 

have been l a id down e:;:: cen t in defianc e of histor,:,r. 11 at Dac;es 118-

119. 

(28 ) ~l2[;.; , o ·,; . cit., 669: 

"The jud_;~ es h ave held s ince the lat ter •JP.rt of the nineteenth century tha t certain clauses of t he clocument (The Consti tutim1) 

authori ze the1n· to ·oronounce doctrines not· r].educible oy co::.1struction 

dr int er:;='reta ti9:.1 of the doc~nent. The due :;:>rec ess clau s es of. t11e 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, they ho ld, aut-1ori ze them to decla re inva lid s · '1,U1C onsti tutional an~r statute, not specifically 

author~zed by other claus es of the document, w:i.1ic_h they d eem 

2.rbi trary, a~?ric ious, or un:c eP.s one.b le. Und.el' t:_eL1 , ~1 e j ud5es 

u ronounce doctrines 2.s to Ullr P. ::;so nableness of st c.. t u tes rel 2tinb to p ro-

.. _ :.Jc eclure, to judisdiction to c. 1 to t l)-f; ec.:;v at io n of 0ublic utility 

rates, to ar..y c:;nd every subj ect - do ctl'ines con sti tutin6 in no s ens e 

of the work constructi nn or i teT"" eta t ion of an~;uc;c; e fm.md in the 

writ t e:1 do cwnen t. " 

(29') J!r§.<;i_Scq__t_t v. Sand:[Q.rcl, 19 Eo '!. 393, 4 50. Opinion of lir .. Chief Justice 

Teney· (1 857). 

(30) 12 Wall. 457 (1 871). :But se r: , the Sl ~~gh_~~~.J!Q."l?;§.~ _Q._~~' 16 Vlall. 

36, . 64 ( 1873') ~ .where the court r efused to c':nl y it t .o a statute invol~ing the St a te poli c e newer. 

( 32) Justice :Brm1cleis, in Whitney v. Cal iforni a, 27-1 U. s. 356, 373 

(1927) l. 11 Des,)i te arc,urnent s to t h e contrary which c: d seemed to me 

Dersuasive; it i s se ttled tha t the due nroce ss clause of the Four- . . . . ' 

t eenth Amendment a,...,p lies to matters of substc.:mtive law as ·well .::s 

to matters of roc ec~ure. 11 Th e Court unhelcl a Calif ornia Crimi nal 

Syndicalism .Ac t. -Hr-dnes, orJ. cit ., V. T"neorie s ,..,nd Due Proces of 

L0.w, 104-149 , '))articularly 2.t ·iJ 2-se 106 . Hout;h, "Due Proces s of L.'tw -

Today", .21. ..,'ilfll:.Y.P.rQ.._Ls.\!_:g_e_-y:;l§J:Y._Q.E].§. _(J.QlU. 

( 33) See o:1Jinion of Brev1er, J. i n Li_c~_h_igg,n_ _Q~ll"t:r: ) __ 4E -v. P OWEir.§., 201, 

u. s. 245, 295 (1 906 ). 

( 34) H~in~~ v . . :Q.Q..nn<m. • .385 U. S. 312, 326 (1932), annol<nc ed the doctrine 

t hat a statutory statement.. tha t a transfer of -,J roperty Hi thin t wo 

3'efl.rs p rior to death shall ·De deemed to have been m~-".de ln "contemplation of death" is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, either 

treated as a rule of e vidence or sub vtantive law. See a l so 

Schlesin,:;er v. _.Wiscons in, 270 U. s. 230 (1926 ). k:rQl y i ng the Fourteenth .Amendment, likewi s e, to a St a te statute. Ha ines, op . cit. , 

116-117 discuss~s Judt;e Co0 leys efforts to extend t :h.e I:1ean.inG of 

due ·o rocess . ThL, i s n<1 rticul -; rl noticeable in his v'o r k on "Law 

of Taxation" where he st e1 ted c e rt::- in fornmla to restrict legislatures. 

9838 
-,_ ~_ .... 

'iany of the se fon.uln nre nccentr<.l ·' ;, n )~rt of our l..,w today w· tl 

P•IT)~rrntl ·r no ,· r ·: ci e crlstit,J.tl '' t" J -L) is . 

( ~6 ) Bu 4:· :0- v. _;,i_ ~!.o .ri_, 281 U. s . '"36 , 595 ( 3:~0 ) . CorwL1, op . cit. , 

69- 70 : 

(37) 

' 1Thc t e rm ' due ,lrocess of l ow ' ::;inf)ly dro·,-:s out of t ne con3titutionc:l clause i'J ~1 en ·:n3r ic made in it f o J. t l e doctrine of 

est€'cl ri.;ht.., ; ,::nd , it ma~- ·oo c.ddcd , t he •horcls 1 life 1 and ' liberty' 

do li):eYtise ." 

nL.lin~.:.s , o· . cit. , 122-139 , suGgest fi t ha t the doctrine is used to 

'"'Ust cdn r eac t iona ry interests. Le rne r, "The Su l~eme Court and 

American ~ i t o.lism", .1£_:Csle __ L..~ q__.[o_\l:r:n. lJiQ.fl_(.l ~~); and CorwL1 , 

11 T-.w sunrer.1e Court t> nd the Fourteenth Amendr.1en t 11 , 7 __ :.iiQ.:}.i '<~}}._La.}:Y 

?:e~ie "Y.~Ei4.~_(.l_~.09 ). (r:uch of ~1 is rae1tcri a l is now found in his 

"The Twighli ~.)lt of t_1c SUiJreme Court 11 , op . cit., nnd h i s "Social 

Planning unde r the Con stituti0:1- A Study in ?ers2Jectives 11 , 2§. 

.@e_r_iQ.~TL-F_o_li t).G. l .. S.G.i_ellG.~. _=l~:.ci_i~.V~ J. _ll5F5.~)_._ 

( 38) .7i ll L>, o·) . cit . , 8 : 

11 To the snecic::tl ~T)e ct s of the Enc.;lish lJl•oble:n k'..Len up in this 

essey there c on be no Ame rican ·1 a r allel -- such i s the u ower of the 

F'Ourteenth Amendment. A rule of st a tutory finality is unthinkable in a country Vh1ere an Act may not even go so far a s to make 

the determinations of a commissioner final Oi1 questions of fact, 

but must 'go on to exclude 'jurisdictional f act' from tha t finality; 

any l egisl a ture ·which sought to n revent the courtco from p -?..s sing 

on the question of ultra vires would be told tha t by so doin~ it 

was deprivine; the individ.u...,l advers ely c;ffe ct ed of 1 due p roce ss', 

of . R constitutional ri;:;ht to llen e 1 illegc:l usurp p,tion of 

power' before the courts ." 

(39) Jlo_flr_<L.Qf E.9:.:ldQJ1t.i.QU v. Ri...QQ, A. C. 179 ~ou:> e of Lords 1911), Frankfurter :>nd De.v ison, OyJ. cit., 572, 574: Lord Lor e.burn, L. C. 11 The 

:Board is in the n P.ture of the nr-bi tra l tribu.Y1aJ. , and a Court of l aw 

has no ~urisdiction to lle<.;.r a•;neals fr om the determina tion either • .L 

up on law or un on fact. But if the Court i s satisfied e ither tha t 

the :Bo ard h a ve not ?.cted jud ici llJ in the ·,-:ay I h c ve described, or 

have not deterruined the question ,Hh ich tl1ey a r e required by the Act 

to determine, then there is a remedy by m;:ndc:mms or certiorari." 

This i s our p r ocedur a l d·J.e p roce ss con ceu t. See t he , Y...l~ and 

intra vires di scussion nnd di scussion on natural l aw , infra, this 

chapter. 

(40) RoJJXLfel_~t v. P-Jlil_l_iDs 35 T. L. £1. 46 , (Court of Apne a ls, 1918): 

9838 

Scrutton, L. J. 

11 A 172.r could not ·oe c o.rri ed out a ccording to the :)rincip les of L agna 

Charta. Very ·rid.e "'JO ·!ers had been g iven the Executive - - - The r es-

:oonsibili ty for (';iving those p oriers rested not vri th the Judges, but 

with t he re,Jresmlt a ti ves of the ~) eOl') le in P a rli P.rnen t. 11 
- 152-

( 41 ) Co r-ri n , op • cit . : 

'"Judici a l review in the ·sense of judicial discretion has devoured 

i ts prot;eny , cons ti tut i onc.l l c.w ; c.nd by the same sign , 1 due 

proc ess of ~wt is no Fra"u enstein s monster tha t rides dom1 

les i slation in defi ance of its creator 1 s ,~ ill-- it is the servant 

of the Court's let;islative judgment." a t n a r;e 86 . 

11 In spe2.k ing of t he i~terfere ce of the Court rd th st a te legisl a tion through the GUise of the Fourteenth ,Amendment, Professor 

Corwin says: lfThe result is· tha t t h e Court is able today to ai) 

p rO RCh the question of f a ctua l justification from either one of 

t wo O'J]JO sed ant;les, according 2. S it Wi shes to SUSta in a sta tute 

or ot overtu-rn it' and i s ab le ,to cite nn amole 2.rrc?..y or precedents 

in justification of either B.Tlp ro ach.- 11 a t nas e 101. 

It might be su ggested tha t t h i s a,l _so an.p li es to admini strative revie .v 2nd 

int erference ·with Feder2l c-.dminist r 2.tive les isl:-. tiol""L . . . . . . . 

(43 ) Corwin, op. cit., 111: P rofe ss or Corwin sug ests that ConGress 

has rep eatedly m1dertaken 11 to decLlre l pw Hi th t he definite intention of 

b L1dinG the courts. 11 

( 44) Dick inson, AQ.m:!-_J.1i __ $..trr!.-t_i_"l{.e __ J)! ~i_G.Ei Jill.q, _tl}~ _S:®.J.:.e_qs_c.x J:.J:.Ll~ _i..rt.the 

:Uni tt?.Q._S.t a t_es. (Ha.rvard unJ. ·/ersi t"y Press, 1927), 105: The author 

indica tes t hat the Jblt_r_§_ __ vj.res cloct;ci ne is a lih1ita tion oath U~ OU the l e&is· 

'lature and . the adr'ninistra tive bodies. 

(45) ·Ibid. 

( 46) lJcFa rl and, . J_w3:_i_c_i_a:,l_· _Q.o_nJ_l-:_o_l __ o~f_ )'!_ -~e ci~.:r:.~l ___ r:l;.l~.~ cle __ ITEI}.i_~ s_i_o.Jl. _-:'.:.U..tt. t;"L~ 

.Irtt_$_r:s_t?, t~_QQ.l.•1ill\2.f..G.~ _Q.OJ fl §.:h_o 1.. ~~Q-:.1_~ ~Q (Ha rvarc. University Press, 

1933), 28: . 11 rJhen the courts do mbre ·than hold t he commi ssioners to the out- . ' line s of their authority or demand the existence of evidence which 

justifies the e xe rcise of ~h t authorit y , t h en the leg a l e.xpert i nterfe res with the administra tive s::>e cia lists who cotn rise t he u ersonnel of the Interstate Cammer .ce Com.ui ssion 2 .. 1·1d the Feder al Tr ade 

Commis sion. II 

( 4 7 ) Infra, IV , . 3 . 

( 48 ) ·:r i 11 i s , · op . cit . , I I. 4 7 : 

9838 

"Owing to the exist ence of a great number of s emi-c?J,:ttonomous bodi es, 

the Gua rdians of t he Poor, the Enc lo sure Cormnissi o 1ers, · t:md the 

licensing justice s , for instance, whose discre tion wa s vithin its 

limits abso l ute, contl~ol by the courts he s a l r<:>..ys t t-l-en the form of 

defining those limits, c:tnd the judb es in order to ·put into f orce 

their ideas of how t he machine should run_....; and t hat is a ·f a ctor 

to be reck oned with, if we follow the school of lu~ch iurints r - -· 

have b e en for ced to 6orrect the decisi ons of thes e bodies on the 
ground that tl ey erred in law in mi stuking the lirai t s of 

t hei r powers. Th law of ultra vires is curious not only for 

the very di fferent uses to which it has been put, anything fro .1 the testing of a State statute by the standard 

of the Constitution of t he United States to the testing 

of t he issue of new shares by t :i1e corpora te charter, but 

al so because in ap~ ying it the cou rt s stand as it were 

apart from the body whose actions they ...:>'ass in review. 11 

(49) willis, op . cit., 2?-, 23 : 

In sea rching t hroue;h t he statu.t es from 1848 to 19 31, 

the Author states that he has discovered ov e r one hundred and fifty 

instances of this t YPe · 

(50) A. C. 347 (House of Lords 1894), Frank furter and Davidson, 

op. cit ., 513. 

(51) Frankfurter and Davi son , op. cit., 519 • 

. (52). Reg . (Cl ee land) v. Pha rrnaceu tical Society of Ir e land, 2. 

I. R. 268 (189 6 ). Although t he Court di d not decide t h e case upon the 

que stion of ultra vires, the p roblem loomed larg e, and t hree justices 

gave it considerable a tt ention. The st a tute was simila r to that invo lved in t he Institute of Patent .Agents v. Lockwood in that it provided -"all :re:;ul ations made under the authority of this Act" when 

p roperly laid before· Parliament become 11 of the lik e force and effect 

as if they had been enacted i n t his Act. ll rtrt ertain ~l is somewhat 

alarming tha t it should b e in t he p ower of any body of ~rs(fl8 , by 

means of an obscure and unnoticed forma lity; at t h e suggc stio:l, it 

may be, of private interest, to srrrw::;g le through Parliament illegal 

r es-ulations, affecting .the rights of the ·public, and to invest them 

with the force of law; and if we admit the answer g iven by Lord 

Harschell in his judgmen t, that the regulations in ·that case were 

made by a public authority, nrunely, the Board of Trade, in which 

the law would ·be sppposed to place confidence, yet this argument 

must be con fined to the question whether the r~ies ought to be 

considered intra vires., and yet the more general question a s to 

their effect assumes tha t in the instance under consicleration the 

authority was transg ressed. 11 See also Willis, op. cit., 70; and 

Comm ittee -on .Ministers' Powers Report, op . cit., 40-41, and at 61-62: 

11 We are of opinion t hat in delegating legislative functions 

to a Minister, Parliament should be careful to pres erve in a ll but 

the very excep tiona l cases, vvhich we describe below, the jurisdiction 

of the Courts of Law to decide whether in any purported exercise of 

thos e fun ctions the Minister has a cted wi t h i n the limits of his delegated 

power. The ru.le of law requires that all ·regu l a tions shou1d be open 

to challeng e in the Courts excep t when Parliament delibera tel y comes 

to the con,clusion tha t it is essenti a l in the public interest to crea te 

an excep tion and to confer on a Mi n ister the power of legislating with 

irrmunity from cha lleng e." 
- 154-

(53) 2 K. B. 98 (1930), A. C. 494 (House of Lords 1931). 

(54) Willis~ op. cit~, 82: 

"I venture to· suggest that words of this nature will protect 

any rule bona fide Dade to carry our the objects of the s ection which 

defines the rule-making power, and directed in the opinion of the 

Court towards effectuating the general r· 4rpo ses of the Act to be 

gathered from the terms of the Act as a whole. The same test would 

be appli ca.ble to a power to make orders·, except as reg ards orders confin1ling schemes. There the words would have at least the force . claimed 

for them by Slesser, L. J., and would validate 'a~ order legally intra 

vires but administratively irr.perfect; and perhaps an order made according 

to a course of procedure not strictly in accordance with the te.rms of the 

Act, but affording equally good protection to the individual owner. 

Beyond·that, in the 1ight ·of Yaffe's Case·; it is impossible'to hazard 

a guess. It 

(55) I. C. c. v. Union Pac=fic R~ilway company, 222 u. s. 541, 

547 (1912), ru1d Intermountain Rate Cases, 234· U. S. 476, 490, 491, 

( 1914). .· 

(56) Dickinson, op._ cit.~ 310-311, 315·. . , .. 

(57) A section on jurisdictional fact and c~nst:i t{iticinal fact _is 

included in the consideration of Administrative Final.i ty and the cases, 

IV. 

(58) Ma .... King v. Blair; 271 u. s. 479 . (1926 ),. 

(59) Dickinson, · op~ · ,cit., at 315 especially. 

(60) Dickinson, op. cit.;, 55: 

IIIn truth, the distinction between .; question-s a·f law' and 'questions 

of facti r;)c.lly gives little help in determin_ing how far the courts will 

review; and for the good reason that there is no ·fixed d~stinction. They 

are not t vvo mutually exclu'sive kinds of que:stions, . ·based -upon a dif~erence 

of subject-r:1!3.tter. · Matters b:{ ·= law grow downward into· roots of fact, and 

matters of fact reach· upward,. without a breaic, into ~atters· of law. 

The knife of poli cy alone effects· an artificial cleavage at · the point 

whElre the court chooses to draw the line . between public ;interest and 

private right. It 'would seem that ~hen ·t h e courts are 'W1willing to 

review, they are tempted to ex-plain ·by the ep.sy device of calling 

the question one of 1 fact'; and whe~ otherwise disposed, they say 

that it is a question of 'law'. · T~us, while the reasonableness of 

a rate is said to he a matter of fact ahd .' not reviewable, yet when the 

rate-fixing body has omitted to ·truce into 9onsideration some element 

or factor which the COUrt thinks ought to have be.en included, error of 

iaw is promptly held to· have been committ~d and the p ower to review is 

exercised." · ·· 

9838 
- l . 

(6 1) Infr a , I V. In .Ameri c,·m School _Qf ;< ~ etic H lin~; v . 

i1o ~l of ./nbn etic :ealL t: v . : Ic.Annua l tJ, 18 7 U. S. 94 , 109 , 111 ( 1902), 

spoke of t he p robl em as a question of law t llro'llgl10ut t he ~)i nio n, out 

at' one p l a c e sa id: "W'e do not 1. eun t o p r e c lude ~ e clefm dant f r om 

showi n€ on the tria l, i f h e C.?t11 , t l a t t ·1e busi ness o~ comp l aincmt s , 

a s i n f act conduct ed" was a v i olation o f t he. st atut es. 

(6l a ) 

( 62 ) Comer, Leg isla tive Functions o f n a tional Admi nistra tive 

Au t hori t y, (New York 1927), 137 • 

. (63) Thayer, Preliminary Treatice on t he. Law of Evi den c e (Boston, 

1898 ), a)2 : 

t "T . j udg es have alwa y s answered a multi t u de of 

ues~ions of u~timate ~t which fo rms part of the 

issue. It is true thf-:l t t h is is oft en disgu is ed ·by 

calling t :hem questions of law. " 1 

This can also be f ound quoted n .':cF9-:rl nd, op . cit., 25, n. 62 

(64) Smith v. Hitchcock , 22 6 1.: . S. 53. (1912). _·icFa rland, op. 

cit., 26, exp resses t h is vi~w 0-S r ec;ard s the I n terstate Commerce 

Cornmis~ion and the Federa l - Trade Co mmissi9n. 

(65) Federa l Trad e Comr;1issio·Jl v . . iVestern Heat Co., 272 U. S. 554 

(1926); Federal Trade Co rr1 is io n v. Curtiss Publisl inr~ Co., 260 U. S. 

5ca (1922). 

(66) Fec.era l Trade Commission v. Gratz. 253 U. S. 421 (1920), and 

Frisc:her & Co., v. :Bakelite Corp., 39 F. ( 2d) ?'??, 259 (Ct. Gust. & Pat. 

App . 1930). 

(67) Gegio'! v~ Uhl, 239 U~ s. 3 (1915)~ The· Court treated as a · 

"question of law" t h e decision t !mt nli ens -;v e re "li k~ ly to become public 

charges" where t h e Commission er's acti on wa s based on t h e condition of 

the · labor market at Portland, Oi.·egon, t h e Aliens 1 destination. Likewise 

in Hanson v. Haff, 291 U. S. 559 (1934) the Court reviewed the facts, 

reversed t h e admini strati ve det ermination (p resume.bly -u:pon the existence 

of a question of law), and held t hat on a lien woman who had entered the 

country and left it to go on a trip with a L1c?.Jl with whom sl1e wa s having 

illicit s ex relations was not barred .from returning under the statutory 

prohibition of entry into the .cou.11try ttfor the purpose of prostitution 

or any 'ot1er immoral purpose" where th~ facts indicated a paramount 

object of entering to follow a le6i tima.te occupation •. 

(68) 14. Pet. 497 (1840). 

(69) For the distinction between ist~ri a. l e.nd discretionary 

acts see: Ken da ll v. Stok es, 3 Eow •. 87, (1839 ); Br a shea r v . M,s.son, 6 

Bow, 92 (1845); Reeside v. Wal k er, ll How. 272 (1848); Commissioner of 

Patents v. 'Jhiteley, 4 Wa ll 522 (1867); U. S. v. Sea.J:Ian, 17 ·How; 224 , 

(1855 )'; U. S. v. Gutll.ri e , 17 How. 284 (1855); U. S. v • . Commissioner .. 

5 Wa ll 563 (1867); Gnines v. Thorrroson 7 Wall 437 (1869).; Secretary v. 

~-' cGarrahan 9 Wall 298 (1870); Marquez v. Frischie, 101 U. S. 433 (1879); 

U.S. v. Churz 102 U. S. 378 (1879); Bu tterworth v. Hoe 112 U.S. 50 (1884); 

and U. S. v. :Black 128 U. S. 40 (1888). -

9838 
(70) Kansas Assoc.iati<m . v. Wilder, · 2~ Pac. 1061 Kansas , 1890 ). ~---"-~- . . --- . . 

(71) N.oble v. Union River Logging Railroad, 147 U. S •. 165 ( 1893), 

involving the decision ·of the Secretary of I 11terior upon t he question 

whether a railroad was entitled to a land gran_t and whether this could 

be revoked by his successor. · 

(72) National Lite v. Nationa:r· Lir·e, 209 U. s. 17, (1908). 

(73) McFarland, op. cit.; 31-32; The Court 1 s review and frequent 

complete re-examination of the facts, the author attributes to the 

failure of the Court to accept or to ap reciate the merits of problems 

involvtng expert· knowledge. Qrane v. ichols, lF. (2d) 33 ( 1924); 

(74) Silver v. Fed·eral Trade Commission, 292' F. 752 (C. C. A. 6th , 

1923); and Florida and East· Coast ·R.R. Co., v. u.· s., 234 u. s. 167 

(1913). 

(75) Minnesota .Rate Cases. 230 u. S. 352 (1913); Interstate 

Commerce Commission v. Illinois Central R.R., 215 U. S. 452 (1910). 

. . (76) Rhode· Is~and Hospital Trust___QQ., v. Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue, 29 F. (2d) 339 (1928). The court required t bat evidence, made 

expressly prima facie by a statute, could not be ignored and should 11 be 

given substantial,' if not controlling weight. 11 

(77) International Shoe Company v. Federal Trade Cot.unission, 280 

U.S. 291 ( 1930). The court refused to sustain a fin9-ing that competition was substantially limited and commerce restrained where it was 

not supported by evid-ence •. 

(78) Chicago Junction Case,_ 264 U. S. 258 ( 192~), 264-265. 11 The 

provision for a hearing impli.es both ·the privilege of introducing 

evidence and the duty of deciding in accordance with it.--- to make 

an essential finding wi tho"ut supp_or.ting evidence is arbitrary action. 11 

Interstate Commerce Commission v. L·ouisville and Nashville R.R. Co., 227 

U. S. 88 .(1913);&· Chicago; M. & St. ·Paul By. v. Hinnesota, 134 U. S. 

418 (1890). 

(79) Yudelson v • .:8-n-drews, 25 F. d) 80 (C.C.A 3d. 19 28). 

. . 

(80) Southern Railway Co., v. ·· Vir inia ~ 290 U. S. 190 (1933). 

(81) Ibid at p. 197. · There was a strong -dissent in the case 

by the Chief Justice, concurred in by Justices Stone and rdozo, : 

based upon the fact that later review of the administrative acti'on 

before a court was afforded. ·. . : .. . '' ...... . . 

(82) U. S. v. Williams, 194 -U. S. 279 1904), ·in a de ort a~ibri case. 

(83) Federal Trade Commfssion v. Goo dE;rape a~ · .. ; "45- .F. '.\'2 d):-: ~q.: 7~. ·:-~- -- (c.- c. A. 6th ~930). 'rhe weight to be g iven t h e evidende _is fo.r the Com~ · · 

missi on to decide. 

9838 
( -.)!-) 

' 

.- Fee' Cl'D~- :J.'"'t.'::i,_o_§l:l~~~-i_q_r \" . ~·~PJ£>.9A ~ ·roth'i.'"'S , ?'"'C] U. S. 2:;1) 

(1 j))) . ~3~.1 --~~~~~~~~-=~ 

151 ?oc . 4 

v . Inc :ust ir-1 ~~ccid.c!'lt Con1ission, 

~""'5 ) U:v·p.r v . S'"' <'m~n , 4 ~ ( 2d) EO (C. C. A. :t. , 1;?h) ; ~hl:e1 v . 

_.;er.e r n1 Rc:.dio Cor··:1i~_c-,ion , 5-;;7 :::' . (20.) 5 35 (1 )31) ; .:m'. Gene:ta1 ] rcadcc,st i~1 '' S·rst er1 . I·'edc ... 2_l__;:';_• (io Con- i£_BiO.l , 47 :- . (2·L·.) ft2b (lS,31) . 

(S6 ) Di~l-:inson , o~-· · cit., 323 : 

11 T .. ~ c.if·'icl..'..1 t C£1S8S ;: r.., t:wse · -~li c:1 OCC1-:.: · Phen the C.oubt 

<:\.rises ~ot .L :..·o:.1 the lo{; ic<' l or ~~h~·s ic ,·1 il.i)OS:3ibilit:.r of the i nfe rence , 

no fro::1 the totc l C1'!Jse~.ce or eYi{_ nc~? , but ·fi·on i'ts n"e;--.c;e r and uns "-.tis: r.t ctor ' c: <'. ~. ct · :: . 11 

( g 7) 1 -. c.cc:;_· '"' 1 

_ c~' , :_ . c1 . t • , c:. ')9 -_; '0 • rn.dll? l A '.1 t' l10l' con" ~ __ . nue:s: 

11A1 thm.v;:i.1 t:1e deterni!1£~.t ,-:, o.c ~lG facts iR "-.r":li tteclly t he 

fu:.1cti o:i! o-'~ the .(' nini~t:rc::-t \·e con}issio·1s , e·:-oerience has 

sho n t, iL-.t. 0~1 j uc.iciol e::.:-:1 L:.,::.t i o:-1 o:~ t he c7 i ' .ence u:_)on ryhich 

ec'.n i nistrcti ve P.ction i s ·cr--:/. ic ::-t~C. t~ o co--:.:..·ts f r ec_u cntl :y ou st 

aC.ninistl·~t iv e ,j u c'I :nont 2m-:.. suostituto tl:e .-;-- c-: ol~ the o·o inions 

of juC.:;es. II 

( 88) Chi ef Just i co _:'J.: ·h ec , in the l·ie··· "fork Tine:-. , Fe bruar~r 13 , 1931, 

11 T'1e ·.)o:re:c o/ <'C~1iDistl· ;·t. ve bo( i es· to r:1::D;:e :!:'L1c.in._v·s of fact ~:hich 

may ·oe trec:.tec-;, ;-: ~ co:1ch:s ive , ~ hej~e "ue e-·i &.ence bo th '-rays , is a 

po,:er of enol!lous conse c_' L:.~n ce . 11 

( go) u., ,.er1a·n ,l.,.,"'~ .... r< "' \r 3al r,,.,l· "" ?9 -z u· c 1c J-· h5 Su··" Ct _) .:lc,......... .... _ c...L .l. •. h ..... .!. ~) V ... .J • ' • . ....._, t •• v .·..::, , '-. . J . • U e \.) t ...1 _/ • • 

7 (1934 ) ; Prent i s v . Atl ant i c Coc:.st. Li ne , 211 U. S. 210 (1908) ; Stanl eY 

et a l v . Peo..ooc.v Co21 Co., 5:~_, Supp. G; 2 (:'J.C. S. D. Ill. 1933 ); Ch i c2 r':o , 

.;_ .I. t; P. R;,r. Co . v . St ete Fi--:l]-"2'T Co!7'.ni ssio:o. or ~. li SSOUl':l,, 3 22 ~~o . 419 

(1S25 ); .:me. "J't:ite v . :'ecler <'l :2::·.o.io Co.r;ics i ob_ ~S . ( 2C.) 113 (19 28 ). 

( 91) Golr ~: i th v . U. S. J.9.§)::L~~:-.. ... ~ . .:-'.:: A-oner:-1 :;;_ ) 270 TJ. S. 117 ( 1926 ) ; 

J·cchol~c' v . LTl.:isvi lle :.,: as~1TiJ.le :_)___-r. lS3 t~ . S. l~C ~ ·(lS02) ; "-.nc_ ic on

c.ld_ v • .~..oa C. o·" St ::::-eet or::: is ::; io !e:.~?_ , 1'J7 :·. :::. 17 (: ss . l S29 ). 

(92) :::'inl:elstein . 11 J·u.( i c i a l Se}_f .:_L L1i tc-.t i on, 11 )7 H2 ~v rC. Lm-:r Revie': T38 (1<:"!24) . Ar.d. .: il J. :ho~ ' o~J cit ., :::r r, 53 , l327-1)3G . 

( 93 ) ~he DuJ:e of Yo l~ 1 s Cl a i n to Ll'3 Cro"n , 5 ~~otul i Pa r. 375 (1460 ) 

(94) Oetjen v . Ce:.tr Bl L9ather Co . 246 U. S. 2~7 (1918) . The Canst i tu t i o:n. , Ar ticle IY, Se c t i on ~. . The 6.oct :;.~ii1e c:.lso is a·o·:1ied i n 

E 1 " L- . ~- S - '- ~ '"' - ') (, ~ "1) 212: C?.nG.. . u:tuer v . .-- er , ) ~~ •. .J . J )c. "-) c:. . • 

( S 5) Lu t ber v . :Jol· c-:..en , 7 i~o· . 1 ( J. l~ ); a .:.d. P:1.cific Ste.tes Teleuhone 

c:nC. Te ·:~c:~::> :1. Co_. v . Oregon, __ 223 . S. 11S (1)1 2) . 
- 158-

( 96) The Constt tution , J.J'ticle III , · Section 2 . See Fin~'.:les ... ein, 

o·J. cit ., s1.1:9ra , Cho.:1ter II , :1. 17 . 

( 97) Keller v . Potomac 2lectric Forrer Co ., 26 1 'J. s. 428 (1922 ) . 

( 98 ) ·:.-il l il1g v . Chi cap;:o .AuC.itori ur1 Co ., 277 U. s. 274 (1928 ) . 

( 99 ) Pouno. , oo l~ ?.evi e1111 , 41 Earvan~ 1 . ,3. . 113, 111 (1927) , 

}~s o f adsni n i s trati ve l aw G.e c i sions a s 11 a "::i l cierne ss of single 

inst ance 's , am-bi guity abel. L1c.onsl. st en c:" of ··1rin ci·iles. 11 

(100) Willis, o~ . cit., 172-173 : 

11 :i.~ the :·Jr e sen. t s t~r: a -o e whi ch Parl ia -~ en t it sel f Ymuld 

neve:r have cJ.reoJ:1e c1 of auL1ori n:~ ,:nv ·continue· f or .~ren.:i. s unchallenged , 

if t e chnica lities or t he :J overt ~r of -.;e rsons agc.:r ieve G. ·orevents the 

iss ue . from be ir~g r a i sed befor8 a CO"Lll't , while a r ule rlh i ch t o the eu-e 

of somr,1on sen s e is -,.)l a i nl y r;!i t h i n t l1e ·Jurvierr · of the Act :1a~,. fall before an uns~r oa t h e tic or I::i sinforme d tribuna l. I t is s o haDhazard . 

\ihen a S'to,te rna :-/ force its. ib ject t o ob ~r r u l es mn.de :0? i ts exe cutive 

a r m, a n d lat e r through its . j uC.iciary mulet h i 1:1 fo .-. be~~ ~· w;hat 'Yas 

held out to h i m as binding law, sOP1e thing i s 1irrong . A. r ule r.mst be 

e ithe r legnl or illega l. \Thy shoul d t he i ssue :i.~e in in dGU bt until i t 

ha··? ens to 'Je r a ised in t he course· of · ·~ roce s ~' · an i:uC:::_i v i dual · l i t igo..n t, an<i t hen 'before a bo dy which , .a s I 7 )0i n teC. out· a-iJove , is unsui t -

e d t o t he de ci sian of questions of · g overn;·1ent? II" 

(10 1) "Jillis , o, ~ c:j_t., 43 : · 

11 But ,~ hen he" . (Lor ci' Hev7art). 11 assumes .. i n .i1i 1;? "'J.re.pise s tnat a ·court 

is com"?et ent t o :?as~ U) on ' a ll i.1atters i nv·oiv i :.:.g. the · a~T ·<li cat on of 

standa:ccls , M.d. t hat , beco.use i n the i.)ast co ur.t.s ha ~~~ rci ~ed -)ewers 

r ernaL1il'l[; to them f rora n .. 'l eriocl i n his t orJr nhen :JUS t,i ce s i n eyr e e xer- · 

c·i s e d t D.xinG ·:; owers, an cl j ustice s of t h e :-?eace •::ere i n substance i f i10t 

in form a ··Jart of t he ec t i ve ,-· he~r should. be Gran t ed the control of 

any new :9 oYre r s which ·re's.emble fho se now 'Controlled by the Ki ng ' s Bench , 

it 'iS i mpO ssi b},e .to agre e • II /-· 

(102 ) Uc]'a rla nd, ~J . ' cit., 1 4-15.: 

11 Il~i- sub je ting the comniss iOIJ. S to a sCi"·lltiny mot·e or · l ess in a ccordance Yli t h r ecentl y cl.eve loped . :9rincip l es and r :rendering decisiOn 

i n ::~ s of statutory author i ty and evidence , 1 due :9 ro ~ess of law ' and 

' private rich ts' h ave a l mo st disappear ed from the language of the deCl slons. I t i s not t h at the judges who test l e:;isl ati on i n ter ms of 

:9riva.te r i gh,t s are an.y less vigilant i n the censo:rshi -·J of administr ative 

or de:i.~ s ( the contr ar~ i s ·t o' be e:;o?·ec t_ed) ; there are mo,J.~e subtle P.ays of 

r eaching t he same r esuJ.t -- chi e fl:r tlwoU€ h 1 nter ret.c:- tion . 1 The c ommissions have been he l d dor:rn to a ·)roced:ur e and sco Je of authori t'r which ~ . nakes n.bst r e,c t consi deration of va l idi t "(r of their or o.ers unnecess l·~- . 

So far D.s the due :·J·ra·ce ss cl ause r el:lai ns , it is to be seen in the judi cial n~ 'bi ti on of' 1 arbi t:ro.r.- a..."'l:?.. ca·_ri c ious 1 a9ti~n , an, t h e r equi r ement of de r ·.Jro cess. 11 

(103) ~cFar cw.J.d , o·o . cit ., 22 

9838 
- 1.. -

(104) For ~efcr~~ce~ to thL 

clar · , 11 r'i'hc Cn1st it·ttio '<lit·r o 

LD.rr ~evi e 1 5S1 ( 10:::1 ) • 

.i t_rc. tur ~ on · . i !' ~ t") 'cct t c """;on-

:\.c l 'l" 1)1' r .1 , ~.,.;r• ts!l ' ' 1 ......;.::._...::.... 

c7or1~c , o • cit ., -1 . 

(106 ) Dickinson , 0 1 . cit . , :;·:1 : 

l iT' 

.. :1e c-.ct ion of 'O V 8 1'!1J1E.. lt J.." "'c-ui.re'"' in so· e ·~ ·; .. :ee to be 

bro\.\"h t to t11e o ,_, c to:1e of J 1J.C:. i c L:' l . cc.isio· if .-n·oc:i.·e i ,, s to 

be ur e rl ~- [.n. · C0n c·i<> ent . 'I " 

_,_ "71""'\ 
- 160-

luTES TG CHAPTER IV. 

(l) A gco d ge neral statement of t he f or mula is found in 

Pittsour gh C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. · Br1ckus·: 154 U.S. 4 21 (1894). 

( 2) Dick inson, Administrative Justice a.nd t he ·Sup r emacy of LaTI 

in the United States (Harvard University Press, 1927, 59. 

( 3 ) Di ckinson, ibid, X, 263-306; The subjeot is court revieTI of 

det erminC~·c ions made in t he administr~tion of t he busine ss of government. 

(4 ) Dick inson, op. cit., ·265, et seq. 

(5) U. S. v. Fisher, 109 U.S. 143 (1883) 

(6) Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920 ); and O'Donohue v. U.S. 

289 u.s. 516 (1932)-.-

(7) Humphrey's Exe cutor v. U. S~ 295 U.S. 60 2 (1935). 

( 8 ) Ex pa.rte He::1.nen, 1 3 Pet. 230 (1839 ). 

(S ) Act of June 10 , 1890, Chapter 407, 26 Str1t. a t Large 131. 

(JD ) Shurtleff v. U. S • . 189 U.S. 311 (1903). See also Reagan v. 

u. s., 1 82 u.s. 419 (1 0~ 

(ll) Ke i!n v. U.S., 177 U.S. 290 (1900 ); U.S. ex rel Redfield 

v. ~Jind m, 137 U.S. 636 (1891); U. S. ex rel Dunlaw v. Bla ck, 128 U.S. 

40 -(1888); JJ.S. ex rel Boynton v. ]3la ine , 139 U.S. 306 (1890); ;:md 

U. S. ex rel McBride v. Schurz, 102 U. s. 398 (1879). 

(1 2 ) Meyers v. U. S., 272 u.s. 52 (1 926 ). 

(13) Humphrey's Executor v. U. S., 295 U.S. 602 (1935). 

(14) Angelus v. Sullivan, 246 F. 54 (1917) , 57, Judge Ro gers; 

Bo itanc v. District Board, Northern Dist. No . 3, Sa c r amento, Ca l. , 250 

F. 812 (1918). 

(15) Blake v. U. S., 103 U.S. 227 (1881). 

(16) Cren sha1,7 v. U. S. , 134 U.S. 99 (1889) 

(17) Smith v. Whitney , 116 U.S. 167 (188 6 ). Dicl'" inson, op. cit., 

268 et seq. Se e FRirlie, · "AdLlinistrFJ tive Legisla tio n " , 18 ~-1ichi gR n 

La:w Rev i e r· 181 (1930) for a discussion of t he mp ort ~nce of t he a.dmL1istrP~ tive r1.:ue and the va st fields the3r cover. Profess c r Fairlie served in 

the Judge Advoca te C-enerAl' s office du ring the World War. 

9838 
(18 ) 220 u. s. 506 (1910 ) . 

(19 ) 18 He· . 272 (1855 ). 

( 20 ) I i d . , 277- 27 • 

-1 ' 1-

( 20a) Gene r All y , u;~ymen t of ta _ money unde r p rete st is t he nl~­

prr ce clur e eDen to the t Aa-paye r . I n the case of i nc t'T'l e, estate And g ift 

t ax!:>t ic n an appea l from t he determi nation of t he Cern· _iss ione r of Int erna l 

Reveilue tc t he Bo a rd of Tax Appeals lies p rior to the Assessment of Y31Yment cf t"l n tax m ey. The Re enue Act of 1924 , Secti n 900 ; and The 

Reve:1ue Act of 1926, Sec t ion 1000 ~.! · 

(21) Ibid., 280 

( 22) Louisia na v . _ ;cAdoo, 234, u. s. 627 ( 1914) . 

( 23) Eisne r v. a comber, 252 u. s. 189 (1920) . 

(24) u. s. v . Babcock, 250 u. s. 328 (1919) . 

(25) Bartlett v. Kane, 16 Ho11 , 263 ( 1853). 

(26) Auffnordt v. Reddin , 137 u. S,. 310 ( 1B90) . 

(27) LouisiAna v. UcAdoo, 234 u. s. 627' 632 (1914 ). 

(28 ) U. S. v. 200 Chests of Tea 1 9 Jheat . 430 · (1824 ); B8rloTI v. 

U.S., 7 Pet . 404 (1833); U.S. v. 112 c~sks of Sugar . 8 Pe t. 277 ( 1834 ); 

De Forest v . La11re nce, 13 How . 274 . (1851); Ha illa rd v. La re ~ce, 16 I=0 7e 

251 (1853) . . 

(29) u. s. v . Passavant , 1 69 u. s. 16, (1898 ) . 

(30) ;:~ rey v . Curtis, 3 How. 236 ( 1845) . 

(31) 1 37 u. s. 310 (1890) . 

(32) I bid at· page 324. 

(33) Dick i nson , op . • .l- ' 

Cl vo, 277 et se q . 

(34) Kni ght v. Un ited La ~1 cl Asso ciation, 142 U. ·s. 161 (1891); 

U. S. ex rel Riverside .oil Co . v •. Hitchcock, 190 U.S. 316 (1903); Find 

IVar ne:c Va.1le 7 Stoc::k Co. v ._ Smith, 165 U. S. 28 '(1899 ). 

(35) Ma rquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473 (1879); U. S. ex rel 

Internati onal Contracting Co., v. Lamont 155 U. S. 303 (1894); 

~Clung v. Silliman:, 6 -:iheat 598 (1821) . 

(36) U. S. e x r e l Ri~ rside Gil Co . v. Hi chcock , 190 U. S. 316 

( 1903 ). 

9838 
-1 62-

(37) 234 u. s. 669' 710 (1914) 

( 38 ) St. Louis Srnel ting etc. Co. v. Kemp, 104 u. s. 636 (1882) 

( 39 ) Burke v. Southern Pa cific R. R. Co. , 234 u. s. 669 (1914) 

(40 ) No ble v. Union Lo r;g i ng Co., 14'7 u. s. 165 (1893) 

(41) VFlnce v. Burb.gnl$:, 101 u. s. 514 (1880 ) 

( 42 ) Steel v. St. Louis Sine 1 t i ng e t c . Co. · 106 c. s. 447 (1882 ) 

(43) French v. Frya n, 93 U. S. 169 (1876 ); Ma rquez y. Frisbie , 101 

U.S. 473 (1879); and J ohnson v. Towsley, 13 'Ja ll. 72 .(1871). 

(44) Newhall ·v. Sanger, 92 u. ~. S. 7 61 (1875); rmd .DorilRn v. Cerr, 

125 U.S. 618 (1887), 1 7hich involves the ClUestion of. ry.he.the r certain le ~_d_ s 

vrhe re there exists. a claim of title · bEJ se·d · on kie xican or Spanish grcmts , 

are nlJUblic lands". 

(45) Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498 (1839); · and :Surfenning v. Chi., 

St. Paul etc. R. Co., 163 U.S. 319 (1896). 

(46) 138 u. s. 573 (1891). 

(47) Supra.,III. Decatur v. Paulding\: 14 Pet. 49 7 (1840 ). See also 

U.S. ex rel Dunlap v. :Slack, 128 U. s.· 40 (1888 ). 

(48 ) :Sutter::rorth v. Hoe, 112 U. S. '50 (1884). See als,o Philadelp:1i a 

& Trenton R.R. v. Stimpson-:-14 Pet. 448, 458 (1831). The c0urt said i n 

pa.rt, "It is not ••••• necessAry for the patent to contain any recitPls 

that the p rerequ isites to t he grant of it have been duly co m~o lied ~: ith, 

for t he }. a.w makes the presumption. n 

(49) MA rquette University v. F ....... eral Radio CoiW,lission 47 F. ( 2d) 

406 (1931) , ~-ihere the Commission refuses to increase a ·staticn's p oner 

"the ccurt ,-Till hesi t 0 te to set aside a finding (as to f.gct) of the 

Conr.1 ission unless it appears to be manifestly contrary to the eVidence. 

(50) Infra, this chapte.r, section 2 •. 

(51) SCJrlo v. Pulaski Co1.mt;v , 88 S.W. 953 (.Ark . 1905!. 

(52) :Sroughmh . v ~ :Slan ten Mf g . Co. 249 U • . S . . 495 ( 1919) . Po wer is 

limited t o admission, exclusion anc1 expulsion. Keller v. U. S., 213 u.S. 

138 (1909 ). 

(53) The ri ght to exclude was early r e co gnized. The Ch inese 

Ex.Clusion Case, 130 U. S. 581 (18.89 ). 

(54 ) Hurray v. Schooner' Cha rming Betsy, 2 CrRnch 64 (1804). 

9838 
-1 . ·-

( 55 ) u. S. v . Ju Toy, 198 U. S. 2k 3 (190 . ) . 

(56 ) ;.-ishimurA Ekiu v . ~' 14 2 U. S. 651 (1892) . 

( 57) i.i ilwaukee Pu'blishi p_LCo . v . B~ .e scn..L 255 U. S. 407 (1 921) . 

(58 ) l\l"g Fung Ho v . 'Jhi te , 259 u. S. 276 ( 1922) . 

(5S) an Vl e cl , Admi nisJcr ative Ccntrnl f Aliens , !' ~w York, 1932) . 

(60) Braune v. Zurbri ck, 45 Fed. ( 2d) 931 (C.C.A. 6th, 1930) 

suggests thpt Immi g r Atio n Act 1929 , 46 St!3t. 41, by mAkin a ttempt of 

deuorted a lien to return a f elony will cause gr ea ter due p r ocess of L'l.\7 

equire:~ent s. See "Regui sites of an Admi n istra tive Hea ring", 80 PC'! . Lan 

Revieu 878 (1932). 

( 61) Co mp ar~ U. S. v . Wi lli ams, 194 U. S. 279 (1904 ), and Tad v . 

WRld.:IC'In, 266 U.s. 113 (1934); Co r v. Skeffi ng'ton, 265 Fed. 17 

(D.C. i·flss . 1920 );and u.s. e:xrren Pana v • .J2a.y, 45 F. (2d) 435 (D. C. S. D. 

N. L .1930) . 

( 62 ) Eanson v. Haff, 291 U. S. 559 (1934 ). 

( 63 ) Dic inson~ op . cit., 27, i ndicates the i ncrease in the Government 1 s [l.cti vi ty in supplying pu blic services. 

( 64 ) Fairlie, op . cit., isl. 

( 65 ) Public Clearing House v. Coyne , 194. U. S. 497 .(1904). 

( 66 ) Bates and Guild Co. v. Payne, 1 94 U. S. 106 (1 904 ) • 

. . . 

( 67 ) .American Schoo l of MR,.o:;netlc Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U. S. 

94 (1S02 ). 

(68 ) Leach v. Carlile, ~58 U. S. 138 (19 22 ). 

(69) American Schoo l v. McAnnulty, 187_ U. S~ 94 . (1902) See t he 

di ssent i ng op inion. 

(70) i tilwaukee Publishing Co. v. Burle~on, 255 U. S. 407 (1921) 

w~s lJrc 0.- bly an ;unusual c ase because Qf .the v:ra r cir ~umst::::m es colori:ng 

the fects. 

(71). . r Did. 

(72) Na tional Life v. l'Jaticnal Life, 209 U. S. 317 (1908) . · 

(73 ) Alberts·.7c rth, 11Judicial Review of Administra tive Action_!_" 

35 lia.rva rd Law Revie · 127, 153 (1 921 ); Wtfuen the governme nt is dispensing 

a bountj;, r·he n it is admitting aliens, a p rope r ba lanCii'fg of t he nte:;.~es ts 

'i nvolved. lea.ds. the Supreme Court to g ive re;:~ter liberty to · the executive· 

offici::1l; uhen vested rights, or perso na l liberty are i nvolved , a no r e 
-1 64-

rigid con trol is kept over executive officers. This results in having 

rules of cne kind for the exercise of the police power, of another for 

taxa.tion , of another for aliens , of still a.nother for the operAtion of 

va.ricus k inds of .pu.nlic business. n 

(74) Blackly .and Oatman, Administrative Leg islation and Adjudication 

( Broo:: in[;s Institution, 1934) 7: "When, on the ot her hand, the state 

attemp ts to exercise a da.y-by-day regulation over privr:Jte economic ente rprise, it is confronted wit:Q very difficult administrative p roblems, 

Inste,q.d f·f agreeing on terms, or controlling the internal rnanAgef!le n t f 

its C\Tfl business, it is regulating and controlling a bu siness which it 

does not onn, the internal mana gement of· 'Ivhich is entrusted to ~o riv te 

individuals, the fiscal relationships of ':rhich must meet the necessities 

of priv~te p rofit as well as the re q_uirements of publtc ser'£ice," 

(75) Dickinson, op. ci-t., 216: "A sufficient e xcuse for distrust of 

the operation of law in fields of cl,gshing social op inions is afforded by 

actua.l . eJqJerience of the fAilures of the law in· these fields, or wha.t is 

worse, r its occasiona.l perversion into an instrument of injustice. 'rhe 

trouble, it is submitted, does not go so much to the applicability of la11 

as to the improper manner of its applic.ation·,ll 

( 76) Frankfurter and La.ndis ,. The Bu,sine s.s of the Supreme Court 

(New York, 1927), 173: "Co:urts are less than ever technical expounders 

of technica.l provisions of the Constitution. They a.re arbiters of the 

economic and social life of vast re g iops and at t.imes of the nhole 

count~r --The wisdom of debBtable policies, like the proper scope for 

competition or for mono poly, policies. never susceptible to qua.nti ta ti ve 

judgments, is for their ultimate decision. n 

(77) Texas and P~ci~ic R. Co. v. I. C. c., 62 U. S. 197 (1896); 

Frankfurter and Landis, ibid., 164 - n. 86. In the first t wenty-three 

c21ses the Interstate Commerce Ccm;n ission sough t the aid of the cou rt, it 

Wc:JS reversed in t1'1enty-one; and Sharfman, The Interstate Commerce Cor -

mission (:r:eD York, 1931), Vol. II, Chapter X. 

(78) 34 Stat. at L. 584. 

(79) Interstate Commerce Co :,lP ission v. Dela'?'are, Lacka iYanna D:: 

We stern R. Co., 2~0 U. S. 235 . (1911); . Interstate Commerce Co n1issicn v. 

Illinc;is Cen tral R. R •. Co., 215 U.S. 452 (1910 ); U~. v. Louisv ille 8. 

Na.shvi1le R. Co., 235 U.S. 314 (1914). Dickinson, op. cit,, 159-167 

(80) Avent v. U.S., 266 U.S.· 127, 131 (1 924), c~tes U.S. v. 

Grimaud. 

( 8 2) 222 U. S. 541 (1912): "l'l'ot tha.t its decision, i nvolv i ng e s it 

does sc !71C~ny and such vast public in t erests can be supported by a mere 

scintilla of proof, but the courts 1:vill not examine the f a cts furt:1er thF~ n 

to deter:::1 i ne whether there vva s subs t r:m tial evidence t ·c sustain the order. 11 

9838 

·' 

·o 
- 16 ' -

(83) I. c. C. v. Alabama ~H el land R. Co ., 1 8 U. S. 144 (1897) ; 

I. c. c. v _Illinois C ntral R. .£·, "'15 U. S. 452 ( 1910) ; Texas and 

Pac ific~ . Co . vI. C. C., 162 U. S. 197 (1896); Snuthern P cific Co . 

v . I . c. C., 219 U. S. 43S (1911 ; I. C. C. v . Delaw~re , L. and W. R. 

. 220 u. s. 235 (1911) . 

(84) I. C. C. v Union Fa if~_g_J_t~~ ·, 222 U. S. 541 , 548 ( 191 2) . 

(85) 227 u.s. 88 ( 1913) . 

( 86 ) Florida East Coqst R. Co. v. U.S., 234 U.S. J67 (1913) 

(87 ) Dickinson, op . cit ., 175. 

( 88) i\icFarland, Judicial Control of the Fede r a l Tr:::tde Comrni ssion :::tnd the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1°20-1930 (H~rv rd University Press, 1933) , 167-168: The sparing control of the courts is 

undoubtedly one of t he more important factors which ha.ve made the 

Interstate Commerce Commission t t1e foremost example of administrative 

justice in the United States." 

(90) Wisconsin Railroad Commission v. Chicago B .. & 0 R. Co., 

257 U.S. 563, 589 (1922). Congress was see in , t hP court declared, 

"to make t he system adequate to the needs of t he country. 11 See 

Sharfman, op.cit., Vol.I. 

(91) McFarland, op .cit., 170-171. 

(92) This does not me an that no remedy existed if the expert 

was clearly wrong, or if t he re w.g,s a ques-t ionable statutory basis 

for the p roposed application. 

(9:3) Handler, "Jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission . . False Advertising , 11 31 Colu:nbia Law Review 527 '(1 931). 

( 94) Comment, 11 Judicial Review of Ad!T\~ni strat i ve Grders under 

NRA and AAA, 11 43 Yale Law Journal 599 (1934) , 600 n. 9. Of 719, 

cease and desist orders between 1915-1928, 22 were sustained by the 

ircuit Court of Appea ls, 2 by e Sup reme Court, and only 17 were 

reversed. In regard to new standards e stablished by the Commission, 

it has not been so successful. vf 97 orders over the same period, 

3 were sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 2 by t he Sup reme 

8ourt, and the Commission was reversed 26 and 11 times respectively. 

rhese fi gures a re t aken from t he National Industrial Conference Board, 

?ublic Regulati on of Competitive Practices (Re v.ed. 1929 ). See also 

cFarl , op .cit., III, 93. The a~thor summarizes the ·Qilfair methods 

)f competition treated by the Commission in t he Courts, r'a lse or misleading advertising , misbranding of products, or other misleading 

3ales pract ice s. In t his field t he Commission has done its greatest 

work. 

(95) McFarland, op.cit., 94-97, states t ·:1a,t the commission has 

lad little success wi t 11 commercial bri.bery, although this p ractice often 

art ake~ of fraud and unfairness. The orders concerning interference 

.n the channels of trade and distribution have been sust a ined only 

9838 
- 166-

where associated or concerted c=tct ion wa s shown, which e lement 

probablw came from the common law doctrine of conspiracy _and its 

weight in making a practice unfair which mi ght not otherwise ~ be so. 

Re-sale price maintenance orders were freely o.modified. and the Commission finally gave up attempting to regulate. this prA.ctice. In 

this field particularly, the Court evinced a desire to establish the 

law as against any disposition to let the Commission establish it. 

Gther pr actices were imitation of competitor's trade na.me, misre-presentat ion of competitor's proCl.ucts or ability to serve price fixing, 

time contracts, price discrimination, and full line forcing. 

Handler, op.cit. See table of cases on this uoi~t cited at the 

end of the article. 

(96) McFarland, op.cit., 8, 96: ''The Federal Trade Commission 

has been restricted to the exercise . of a preliminary investigating 

power by the decisions, while the Courts do not ordinarily interfere 

with tDe authority exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission ....• 

"In connection w1th all cases, the courts deterrYJ ine the sufficiency of the pleadings (although this appears to have been the sole 

ground of decision in only one instance), what shall constitute proof 

and what conclusions shall be drawn from the evidence, when the matter is of public interest, what amounts to interference with competition, ru1d when monopoly exists or is fostered. If an order of the 

commission is successful in passing this minute scrutiny, in some 

collrts there is still the troublesome question of enforceMent." 

(97) 253 u.s. 421 (1920). 

(98) 260 u.s. 568 (1922). 

( 99 ) Supra, n.94. McFarland, op.cit., 178, suggests that the 

inadequacy of the Federal Trade Commission has probably been partly 

responsible f or the fre q~ency with which t he Commission has been 

reversed... · See also Di cJ.:J. nson, op. cit., 24()-250; comment- "Judicial P.eview of A.dil1in i Gtrati ve Grders under NRA a.nd A..A...A, 11 43 Yale 

Law Journal 599 (1934}_. 

(100) Ibid., 580. 

(101) Now 8p8 cial Assist nt (in t he Anti Trust Division) to 

the Attorney Genera J. of t h,; Un j_ ted States Bnd some t i me attorney for 

t he Federal Trade Cu:JJmi::.,sion. 

(102) McFarl::t.nci, O'J . cit. , 29. 

(103) Ibid ., :<:"l, 

(104) I bj.d ", 1.' , ~?il- .80 : 11 111e orCl 0rs of the FeC."'rc=tl Trade Commission are subj9 ct L r.., jnit: ::. . <.'a '."!.~i ""' e:·:-cJ~ ~on on ti.1e rcc-Jrd taken befo re 

the trade comra i ss.;.c18:C.' s , ·v·lh::.J e th~: v1'll2. l:::: of the Ir. -cersta te Commerce 

Commissi on a re suuj 8c t t o be set aside only for exce ss of authority or 

9838 
di s·ep·p.r d of inc:ufii iE>n ;r of 

t nE>mselvt=-s h.; vP 1' llt~l i.y t1.tc ' n 

i nve st igat ive b dy p1 d o 11 

-1 7-

f' Vl den .e . The r u.de com'Tl issicnP s 

t. ne v ic·n t •1,t. t . e commi s ion is a n 

), o- f><.: ~ or 1.!1 n. c•,Jecial f iC' l d ." 

See a lso Ht=>n e rcon , .:'hf' Fe rkr:·.\ .'l -.'1"· 0 .G2_!11_::

1

}.£"'jon (Yal e Uni ve rsity Pre sr , 1924 ), 7'1 , ~ r LJ.1'' " prCl ' flC d.l' t c t11e Circuit Courts 

of Appeals. 

(105) cFar , op .ci t ., ...,. , 170-J BJ , n. 2 ; "Accord ingl y , 

wno. t ext ension s wi 11 bP m . e f r om t.:1P evi d nee dep ends 1.mon t he j udici a l a t t itude towar d t he le gi sl 9.t.ion adTTJini st ere d . UlJviousl y , 

without som conceryt ion of t.ht=> purpo se s and dPsired le gal situat ion, 

R t.re ::ttmt=> nt of t nt=- evidence must meander into ineff ectivt=-ness. 11 

(106 ) Ibid ., 175 . 

(10 7) Ibi d . i 176-177. 

(108 ) Ibid., V: 11 (Jnt=> item of trade commission process, however, 

has be en singl ed o-...t for particular criticism-- the inA.dequacy of the 

ooinions an& findings of t he commissioners. Although t he courts 

themselve s have not remarked the absence of argument a t i Tre opinions ::~.nd 

even flhere finding s are made h~ve either i gnored them or have subjected 

them to an a lmost metaphysical considera tion, the absence of an extended admi nistrative re"9 ort on ea ch cn.se confirms wna t, in some cases, 

is a judicial conviction that administrative recess is 9A.rticularly 

open to t he suspicion that ca reful consi dera tion has not been given 

the evidence . Where the courts -p oi nt cut a lack of find ing s, they 

have no hesitancy in drawinr: t he ir o~~ n conclllsions from the record. In 

comparison, the decisions or repo:ts of t ne Interstate Commerce Commission ar-e ca refully drar·n nnd. treat t hP evi dence fully, although 

tne Supreme Court has oronounc ed t tlat t .t1e courts hFtve no concern with 

the soundness of t he reason1ng , t t1e ap9 lica t i on of administrative precedents, or t he wisdom of t hP ction of t ne Interstate Commerce Commission. Gn occasion, ho pever, t ne comme rce c ommiss1on has been 

admonished to state in its r eports t he f a cts and. reasons for its conclusions to facilitate judicia l r eview. Apparently, while the courts· 

in their regular course of p rocedure may render decision by memorandum 

or deny relief "for want of eqllity, 11 administrative decisions must be 

clo t ned in the garb of judicial opinion before they will be acce-pted 

·oy the bench as bona fide adjudications. Herein the federal trade 

commissior1ers ha ve undoubtedl y been remiss. 11 

(ln9) Ibid . , V: "'I'he form of the legislative ch~ acter of 

authority for each com~ission is much the s~me. The delegation of 

authority is in terms of legal stA.ndard such as 'reasonable rates' or 

'tending to create mono~oly . 1 So~etimes the standard, thus clothed 

with authority of law, is given a moral color-- 'unfair competition, 1 

1 undue prejuQice, 1 'unjust discrimination. 1 But thPse standards, as 

between t ne two commissions, differ in scope or particularly of subjec-t matter. The standards which the Interstate Commerce Commission 

must -appl y are more specifically related to--particular situations--

9838 
- 1 68-

r ates , se rvice s , facilities, ~nd so on. But t he standard entrusted 

to the Federa l Tre.de Comm ission -- the maintenance of competition 

or prevention of monopoly --· embra c·e s the who le commercial field; 1 

(110) See discussion of the Interst ate om~ erce Con~ issio n, 

supra, thi s section. 

(111) .Supra, n .. 94. Hq,ndler, op .cit., stat e s t hat the statutory standar d s in the :Ii'ederal Trade Cornmi ssion Act, 88 St::tt. 719 

(1914 ) was pur9osely m~de indefinite to insure fle xibility and ~dantation to new situations.· 

(112) . i;. cFarland, . op.cit., 20, 21: 11These stand rds, if such 

they may be called , are not the l!laterials of coJTlr~t ~n .~~; e.dra inistration of justi~e; nor is it tha t the legi.slature h:id a definit e legal 

order in mind-- rather, ~uthority has been grant ed to the administrative agency to work out the 9roblem thus specified. 

"Nevertheless, because of this very ch::tracter of the Federal 

Trade Commission Act the courts assume complete authorit: .. If, as 

is the case with the Federal Trade Co~ ission Act, it i s : or the 

courts 'ultimately to determine as a matter of law' wha t ... .. J.e standard 

~'unfair methods of competition' means, then the courts an=- either exercising the dele gated authority or, by fiction, convert a gene ral 

expression or specification of delegated power into substantive law. 

Although t he proolem has been deleg,_ted to a specialized. tribunal, 

the courts of law have set themselves in the place of t he administrators, w~1ich means to many people t hat the "':)UrpOsP of the entire 

scheme is set aside -- the classical politics anQ economics of judges 

prevail in full. " 

(113) Ibid., 185: 11The field of trade and commerce regulation 

is no exception to the rule of e.:x--perience that there are no sharp 

turns in government. 11 

(114) In the narrow fields it has been observed in this study 

that finality extended to a field such as alien determinations might 

be circumvented by the courts. 

(115) McFarland, on. cit., 188: 11 To vit alize the regulation 

of trade and industry, Congress and the executive have ye t to nrcvide a capable body of administrA-tors, and now the statutes must be 

revised. In the substantive nortions of such l egislation a policy 

must be stated and maintained as administration progr esses. On the 

procedural side, if the regulation is to be administratiye and not 

judicial, the determinations of t he administrative R.gency must be 

made eff ective without resort to t he courts. Thi s was the legisl a tive program which revived the regulation of interstate transportation in 1906 and 1910." · 

tll6) . Federal Trade Commission v. Royal Milling Co., 288 U.S. 

212 (1933 ). See also, Federal Trade Commission v. Goodg r ape Co., 

45 F. ( 2d ) 70 (C.C.A·. 6th, 1930). ·For '·an earlier case see, Federal 

Trade Commission v. Pacific Coast Paper. Ass 1 n., 273 U.S. 52 (1927) 

9838 
-1 

(11 '?) Federnl 'I'r .:td Com·,is .... lon v. Al~ bama L mber Co ., 291 U. S. 

67 (1934 ). 

(118) Federal Tr ade CoP'lnist· lon v. Ke:nJ•:> el , 291 U. S. 304 (1934.) . 

( 119 ) Ibid . , 3n9 . 

(1 20 ) Ibid., 3.12. 

(121) Ibid ., 314 . Note esnecially t he citation of a case involving t he Inte rsta t e ComP'l~rcP Com~ission. 

(1 22 ) Dickinson, op .cit., 67. 

(1 23) Lawton v. Steele, 152 , U.S. 133, 140-141 (1894). 

(1 24) North Germa..'1 Lloyd v. Hedden, 43 F. 17, 25 (1890): 11 It 

was pe rhap s unnecess~ry . . • that I should have done. more t han acquiesce in the do ctrines ... announced, and support the validity 

of the Act ..• without further discussion, but the large amount of 

money involved in the prPsent actions, and the earnestness and force 

wit. which t he plaintiff's claims have been pressed, have induced me 

to m.::tke a more extended presentation of t hem than was at first desi gned. 11 (Underlining mine). 

(1 25 ) Davidson v. Federal Radio Commissi on , 61 F.(2d) 401 

(1932). See also, 11 Power of Federal Radio Commission" 28, III. Law 

Review 409 (1932); Chicago Federation of Labor v. Federal Radio Commission, -41 F. (2d) 422 (1930); Strawbridge & Clothier v. Federal 

Radio Commission, 57 F. (2d) 434 (1932). 

(126) White v. Federal Rad io Commission, 29 F. (2d) 113 (1928). 

(127) Great Lakes BroAdcastin~ Co. v. Federal Radio Commission 

37 F. (2d) 993 (1930). Certiorari deni ed, 281 U.S 706 (1930); 

Journal Co. y. Federal Rad io Commission, 48 F. (2d) 461 (1931). 

(128) Dickinson, op .cit., 67. 

(129) Citv of Knoxville v. Knoxville Water Co., 212 U.S. l, 

18 ( 1909 ). 

(l3n) Me rchants Exchange v. Missouri, 248 U.S. 305 (1919), 

held a statute prohibiting weighing 6f grain or hay by private weighers where public ones are. present is not a denial of property without . due p rocess of law. 

(131) Infra, XIII 

. (132) State v. Gullatt Cleaning & Garment Co,; Same v. Garfield, 

C. P. CT., Hamilton Count y , vhio, Nos. A-4216607, May 5, 1934, (Mathews, J.); and 

9838 
- l7SUni ted St at e s v. Sut 1Ar 8. d e t. al. (D.C. W. D. Mo. ) Dec.. 27, 1934 , 

Eq. No.2552. !Otis D.J.). 

(133) Hegeman Farme r s Cor u . v. Baldwin, 29 3 U.S. 163 , 55 Sup . 

Ct . 7 (1934) . 

(1 34) People v. Nebbia, 291 U.S. 502 (1 934). 

(1 35) See infra XI-- discussion of U.S. v. Sp otle ss Dollar Cleaners 

e rs, 6 Fea. Su9p . 725 (D. C~ E. D. N. Y. 1934). 

(1 36 ) San D1ego nd and T~wn Co. v. National Ci ty , 174 U.S. 

739 (1889 ); Sam Diego Land n.nd T .. 'n Co. v. J a sper, 189 U.S. 439,441 

(1903); see also Dickinson, op. cit., 177. 

(137) This is self-limitation under the separation of powers 

doctrine. 

(138 ) "It (the statute) dep rives t he Company of its right to a 

judicial i nvestigation, by due process of l aw, under· the forms and 

with the machinery provided by the wisdom of successive ages for the 

investiga tion judicially of the truth of a ~at er in con troversy , and 

substitutes t herefor, as an absolute finality , the a c t ion of a Ra ilroad Commission which , in view of t he powe rs conceded to it by the 

State cou rt, cannot be re gar ded as clothed wit11 j udicial fllnctions 

or possessing t he machinery of a court of jus tice . . .... The ·question of t he re a sonableness of ~ r a te of char ge . for tr ns orta ti n by 

a railroad com"9 any, involving as 1t does the element of re A-sonableness both a s regards t he company and a s regar d s t he public , is eminently a question for judicial inve stiga t ion, req u.iri ng due ·o roce ss 

of law for its determination. 11 

11 If t J'1.P company is dep ri ved of t he p ower of char gi ng reasonable 

rat e s for t he use of its property, and. such depriva tion take s ~l ce 

in the absence of an investigation by judici a l machinery , it is deprl ved of t .ne l awful use of its property , and. t hus , in substance and 

effect, of t he p roperty its-elf,. wi t hout due p roces s of l aw. " Se e 

Willough"by , Constitutional La.w of t he United St at e s,, (New York 1929) 

p . 1703. 

(1 39 ) flmyth v. Ames, 169 U.S. 466 (1898); St . ·Louis & O'Fa llon 

~v. U.S., 279 U.S. 461 (1929). 

(140 ) An extreme c a se is Un ited Rqilway of Bal"timore v . We st , 

280 U.S., 234 (1930) which sugl:!e sted t hat a re t urn of l e ss t hR.Il 7. 44fo 

wa s confiscatory . 

(1 41) Ghio Valley Wat e r Co. v. Ben Avon Borough , 253, U.S. 287 

(1920 ). See cont ra , New York & Q,lleens Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U.S. 

(1917 ). 

(142) Di ckinson, op .cit ., 195 . 

9838 
-1? 1-

(1 4~ ) Gh i o Val l y W~te r Co ., v . }e~ Avo n Bo !o u~h , 103 At l . 744 

(Pa. l -:1 18 ) . 

(144 At ~e 89 . 

(145 ) Georgi a Ry . 

625 (1923 ) . 

~we r Cq_., v . Pai l road Comr.i ssi on , 26 U. S. 

(146 ) See Wilcox v . J a ckson, 13 Pe t . 498 (1839 ) as t o u se of 

doctrine in ca e. of di sput ed jur i d1c tion be t ween Sta t e and FPde r a l 

courts. 

(147) Crowell v . ~e on , 285 U. S. 22 (1932) . 

(148 ) 259 U.S. 276 (1S22 ) See also United State s v . Ju Toy , 

198 u.s. 253 ( 1905) . 

(14 ) Gr oenvelt v . Burwe l l , 1 Ld . Raymond 454, 46 7 (1691 ) . 

( 150 ) Phi a<ie ph i~ & ·ead ,~ Ry . v . Di Dona to , 256 U. S. 327, 328 

(1920) , involved t _le qu.est ion whe t her a flagman at a r ailway cr ossing 

whPfe bot h .i nters atP.· ~J.d. uitrasta-t P t ·r aing p8.sse.C.:. wa s engBf.ted i n 

11 inte r st a tP cornne r ce . 11 Dic!dnson, op . c i t ., 52: "To allow an exe cut i ve body t hus to dete r n i ne concl u sive l y the limi ts of i ts own 'ju r isdiction ' looks ·suspiciousl y l ike allowing i t to dete r mi ne a ' ma t t e r 

of l aw. 1 11 

(151) stern Indemnity Co . v . Pillsbury, 151 Pac . 398 (Cal. 

1924) . The court a l lowed finality to t he board 's determinati on, · but 

apnarently onl y because t he cowt atn roved it. 

(152) Emp loyers Insura nce Co rn. v. I ndu st r ial Accident Commission , 151 Pac . 423 (Cal . 1915) . 

(1 53) Kansas Associati on v . Wi l de r , 23 Pac . 1061 (Xan.l890) . 

(1 54) . . 1 ill er v . Hort on , _26 ~i . E. 1n0 ass · . The decisio~ wa s handed down by1 Justi ce -EolmPs; who l ate r r efused t o 

re cognize t he doc t rine a s urged upon t he court in U. S. v . [ u Toy . 

(1 55) Peopl e v . Pub l i c Se r vice Commissi on , 195 N.Y. 157 ( 1909 ). 

(1 56) Br ougham v . Bl ant on Mfg . Co ., 249 U.S. 495 (1919) . 

(1 57) 198 u.s. 253 (1905 ). 

(159 ) Van Vl eck , Adminis trative Cont r ol of Al iens (New York 

1932 ) . 

(1 60 ) 259 .u.s. 276 (: 1922}; se e a l so Va n Vle ck , op . c i t . ,189. 

(1 61) Ge~i w v. Uhl , 239 U. S. 3 ( 1915) ; als o H&J.son v . Hof f , 

291 u.s. 559 ( 1934 ). 

9838 
- 17 2-

(1 02) 253 u.s. 287 (1920). 

(163) Supra, section 2, this chapter. 

(1 64 ) Dickinson, "Review of Administrative Determination of 

questions of 'Constitutional Fact'", 80 Penn. Law Review 1055 (1932), 

1072: "The doctrine of constitutional fact is the doctrine of jurisdictional fact in a special form. Cons i tutionali ty is a question 

of power to a ct, and when it is held to depend on the presence of a 

fact, the situation is the same as when what is called t he 1 jurisd.iction' of an administrative body is made to turn on a fact issue. 

The difference is only that in one case the limita tion is deduced 

from the Constitution and in the other from the statute cre ating 

the body whose power is in the issue. 11 

(165) Dickinson, ibid., 1061: "It is well settled t hat when 

there is provision for a proper administrative he Fuing , t :le individual aff ected is not entitled to another and second he a ring in 

the revie1N proceeding at law. 11 

(166) Dickinson, Administrative Justice an.d the Supremacy 

of Law in the United States, op .cit., 200 et.seq. 

(167) Dickinson, tfRevie'"l of Administrative Determination of 

Questions of 1 Constitutional Fact, 1 11 op. cit. , 1059-1060: "It (the 

_doctrine) holds that when statutory authority to decide de oends on 

the actual existence of a fact, then the existence or non-existence of that fact must be independently decided in Court in order 

to enable the Court to determine whether or not as a matter of law 

the Administrative decision is ultra vires and void. What the doctrin~ means in practice is that ~~less, on those facts which are 

held to be !jurisdictional, 1 the administrative tribunal reaches a 

finding corresponding to that which a Court will later reach on different evidence, the administrative decision will be over-thrown 

as in excess of jurisdiction. 11 

(168)285 U.S.221\(l932); see Wheeling Corrugating Co., v. 

Mcmanigal, 41 F.(2d) 593 (C.C.A. 4th, 1930), whicn was overruled 

by Crowell v. Benson. 

(169) This does not mean to suggest the doctrine had never 

been -1-pplied to federal agencies. See discussion of Ng Fung Ho 

v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922). 

(170) Ibid., 60. 

(171) Ibid., 93. 

(172) Dickinson, Review of Administrative Determination of 

Q.uestions of 'Constitutional Fact"' op. cit., 1058 , n. 12. 

9838 
-1 ~) 

(170) Dickin on , ibLa ., 1081 ; A.lso Comm nt , "The Federal Long 

sharemen 1 s :.md Ha-·bor .ior'~r>!"' 1 Com):Cll"'l~io Act , 11 4' Y lE" Law 

Journal 640 (1934 ; s f' Vocil i• . Jnd_mnl tv_ In.)U!'!mc, CoMpMy of 

North .Ame ica., "'88 U. S. l ·2 , l Go (l J' ~-) . 

(174 ) St: .t Col1__ge v. Chittenden, 

107 N. '.f. 500 ( 1 06 1Vi c .) €Mpl o;yers 1 In ''Ur'1nc e Corp or at on v. Industria l Accident Co:'lmis ion, 1 : 1 . 4 ?3 (192o Cal.); 'ivestern Indemnity Co . v . Pill~~.-:1 1 Pac. 398 (1926 Ca l . ). 

(175) San Diego L;md a nd Town Co. v. J1.spe r, 189 U.S. 439, 441 

447 (1903) . 

(176) Note, 11Due Process Requirements of 1\lotice "lnd He.::tring s 

in Ad-ministra tive Proceeding s, 11 34 Columbi a L !3X! Review , 332 ( 1934 ). 

(177) Brown, "Book Review, 11 41 H;uva.rd L::>w Revie 111 113 , 114 

( 1934 ). 

(178) Consider t hP confi denti a l r eport in Local Government 

Board v. Arlid~ A. C. 1 20, (House of Lords 1915), and the lnxity 

of requ ireme n ts in t he R1?0rai sal of i mp orted goods ; Origet v. Bedden, 

155 u.s. 228, 237 (1894) . 

( 179 ) North Ame rican Col e Stor9.ge Co. v. Chicag o, 211 U.S. 

306 (1908); Neff v •. Fad.dock, 26 Wi s . 546 (1870). 

(180) .Sup ra, 1is chapte r, section I. 

(181) v ri get v. Hedden 155 U.S . 228 (1894). 

(182) Palmer v. tfcMaho n, 133 U.S. b6() (1890); Phillips v. 

Commissioner, 283 .S. 589 (~9~1); Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land 

a nd Improvement Co. 18 How. 272 (1855). 

(183) Van Vleck, "Administrative Justice in the Enforcement 

of Quasi-Criminal Law, 11 1 Geor ge Washington Law Review 18 (1932) 

45-46. 

(184 ) Van Vleck, ioid., 46. 

(185) Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86, 100-101 (1903); see 

also Nishimura Ekiu ~· U.S. , 142 U.S., 651, b59 (1892). 

(186 Chin Yow v. .S.~ 208 U.S . 8 (1908). 

(187) Gonzales v. Zurbrick, 45 F. (2d) 934 C. C • .A. 6th, 1930)_ . 

(188) Ex ·o arte Bun.ii Une, 41 F. (2d) 239(S.D. CaL., 1930). 

(189) Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U.S. 53, G~61 (1912); see also 

the op1n1 on in . the lcwer court, 34 App . D. C. 521 ( 1910) ; Not.e - liTh~ 

Necessity o:( a Notice A.nd Hearing in Administrative Det~rminations," 

80 University of Pennsylvqn ia Law Revie~ 96 (1931) •. 

9838 
-1 71: -

(1 90 ) Communications Act of 1934, 48 State. 1064 . 

':. ;;1 ~ (1 91) Radio. Act of 1927, · 44 St~t. 1174. 

(192) Courier Journal Co. v. · Federal Radio Commission, 46 F. 

( 2d) 614 (Ct. of App. D. C.'l931). 

_(1 93 ) 'Southern Railway Co. v. Virginia, 290 U.S. 190 (1 933); 

$abre v~~tl nd R. Co., 85 At1 . 693 (Vt . 1913). 

(1 94 ) St a.te Railroad Tax Gases , 92 U.S. 575, 6fl9, (1876), in refusing to ·lA.ke such requ irPments said: 

"The main f unction of t 1:1is BoA.rd is to equali ze these A.SSPSSments over tne wholP State. If t hey find. that a county hn.s had 

_its propert y a ssessed too high in reference to t".'1e gene r B.l standard, 

they may reduce its valuation; if it has been fixed too low, they 

raise it to tha t standard. When t hey raise i t i n aiq county , they 

necessarily raise it on tne property of every ind ividual who owns 

any in that county. Must each one of t he se hr-we notice and a se'!)arate hearing? If a. railroad company is by l n.w ent itled to su ch 

not ice, surely every individua l i s equally entitled. to it. Yet if 

this be so, the expense of ivin ~ notice, the delay of hParing e{)ch 

indiviclue.l, would render t he exercise of the mt=dn function of this 

Board impossible." 

Accord see: :Bi Metallic Inve stment Co. v. St ate Bo9.rd of Equ ali zation, 239 U.S. 44 (1915). For case s m~~ing the req irement 

see Kuntz v. Sumv tion, 19 N.E. 1 (Ind. 1888); Londoner v. Denver, 

210 u.s. 627 (1914) 

(195) Lanaer v. Mercantile Bank, 186 u.s. 458 (1902); San 

Diego l·and and Town Co. v. National City, 174 U.S. 739 (1899) ; 

Pittsburgh etc. R. Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 (1894 ). 

(196) Erie R. R. v. City of Pa terson, 76 Atl. 1065 (N.J.l910) . 

(197) Supra, n. 195. 

(198) Huhli_gg v. Ehrich, 55 IJ.E. 636 (111.1899) . 

(199 ) Supra, 194. 

(2no ) Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701 (1884). 

e201) Bi Metallic Investment Co. v. St a te Boa rd of u~li zation, 

239 U .. S. 441 (1915); and North Ame rican Cold Storage Co. v. Chicago, 211 

p. s.. 306 (l 9ns ). 

. ( 20 2) In Chi _cago Junction Case , 264 U.S. 258 (1924) Justice 

Brandeis 'lists notice of hearing required under the Hepburn Act of 

1906 and the Transportation Act of 1S20 . In the cases of .unreasonable rates, discriminatory 'r ate s, switching connections , division 

of j oint r a tes, pooling ,· railway control of 'Vater carrie rs, V~? luation , ex t ension of time for new on str ction and abandonment. Notice 

of hearing 1J1ra s 'not necessary, however, f or the issuan ce of securi t ies. 

9838 
-]7:--

( ?03) Joto - 11 1 £, · ir-i t . ..., J:;,' " 

R . 878 (19'\2) . 

( v04) ....rQ l cl s. it~~ ' . TT • S. -:g_:) . ...:.'__,<-=--~c.'.-o.....;•:.::\.~ rr.,..o,_~.....:"~..=. l , :'70 U. S . 117 

(19 26 ); Stoeh1· v . __;;_ll. •\" .. """ ' "" ::;,) ( ~.' )1); U. S . ex r e l ::loop v . 

Dou .. -la , 19 D. C. 9.1 (lf91)). 

(~05) SEn Di e-~ L0nd ~ Town Co . v . Nat ional Ci ty , 174 U. S . 739 

(1899 ). ~ere conferen e m,y be'~ he, ing . 

( 20o) Fit t, bur 2:11 S tc . ] . Q~ v :Back us , 154 U . S. 421, 426- 4?.7 

( 1894) : 11 A hearint; b e for _; judgment, -,i th ful l o:h9o:..·tuni t ;,r to pr esent a ll 

e vi d nee and t he ars-uments which t ile p:~. rt~ · deem3 i!"lp ortant i s a ll t hat 

Cf'n 1 e c".djncl.t;:c d vi t al ..•.• • If t3 sin_:;le he·tring is no t clue p roc ess , 

doublinb it ·aill not m::1.ice it so ..• 11 

(207) .. ~f'\1/ :ar k and ,.uee~ l}..aU.o...!.. v. I!tc CA.ll, 24E U. S. 345 (1917); 

Chin ~, v . UJ!.., 208 U . S. 8 (1908); Kwock J an Fat v. White, 253 U . S . 

4 54 (1920 ). Dic 1{.inson, Adr:1 inistrative Justice n.nd. Su·orernacy of Law in 

_:the United. St-:_t8:;, op . cit ., 106 , n . ::, . 

( .:.:08 ) :; _,.. w:i :"'n rT itro .:::~m Pro ducts Co_. v. p. S., 288 U.S. 294 

( 1933) • 

171, 177 (19 13); 

107 N. W. 500 

4 77 ( 1913). 

(210) :Br!i:t.J;_::m v. Ch:·mr:Ue r, 260 U . S . 110 (19 22); Gage v . Censors 

of New Hamoshi.r e ~::;:!.ect:c :.:efi.i a l Soci e t y , 63 N. H. 92 ( 1884) . 

( 211) 3-:=J r f'islci. v. U. S. ex r e l S~ r~ lin:)' , 32 App . D. C. 153 (lS08). 

(212) :r·o c~:: J ,m Pat v. Vv:"l it e, 253 U. S. 4 54 (1 9~0 ); U. S . ex rel 

:Bilokums .. cy v. To~, 263 U. S. 1·:9 ( 1924); Federal Trade Commissi oll v . 

Goodg rap e Co. , 45 ?eel . (2d) 70 (C.C ... -.• 1 1930). 

( 213) Chamber of Comrr;erce of !\:!inn. v. Federal Tr ade C01:uni s sian, 

280 :?. 45 (C. C. A. 8t·1, 1922) 14S : "A he :~ rine~ is .:;r anted. b efore t h e 

Commission, and ultima te r evi ew by t 'i1e Circuit Court of Appe a ls is p rovided; therefore there is no deni a l of due p rocess . The Federal Trade 

Commi ssion exercise s admini strati ve , not jud.icia l, p owers. The act p rovides no f enalties, nor has t he Comnission p owe r to make mo re than a 

finding of f ac t s , v.rh ich re quire s confirmation by thi s court b e fore any 

burden is c a st upo n the :parti es subjec t ed_ to inquir~r. 11 

(213a) No te- The Necessity of a l'"otice r:·nd Hearing in Administrative Determina tio11s , 80 Unive:rsity of Penns~" lv rn a Law ~ev ie w 96 , 97 

( 1931) : 11 Notice and hea :.n:3 , h owever, detr a ct to some ext en t from administr a tive eff ici ency . T'ne~.r i nvolve de l ay and exrense . Publicit:r may 

deter gover::.L!lcmt in estibcd~o:!:"s frnm frankl y repo::ting a harsh truth , or 

disturb t he relati onsh i p ~ confid nee and d i scipline between i nferior 

and superior f:::~ice 11 T'ne J3o l~ ' of Tax .Appeals and the Court of Custans 

and Pat ent Appe c. l s c:: 1~e excellent examp le s . :But see, 

9838 
-17 E,-

( 214 ) :Frankfurter and Landis, op . cit., IV: 

ill-fatea. Com:ne rce ·court were. not so go.od as· tho~e 

courts. 11 El a chly&Oatman, op. cit., 11. 

'' Tl:te fort.11nes of t h e 

of other SI·~·i:a.l:i...z.~d. 

( 215) ~epo rts of .American Ear Association,· ~eport of the Committee 

on AdministTative L'aw , (Ealti.wore, 19'33, 1934) :.LVIII, 203- 204 , LIX, 539, 

sug 0 est t h at rule making and the p rosecutions functions ·should be in 

separ a t e hand.s c>nd speaks ilighly of sp e .ialized courts such as the Board 

of Ta"< :A.pp·e a ls. Blachly 8: Oa tman, ~':l · cit., 215: 

11 6 . '\tYhere administrative adjudica tion is separated from active 

a.d.ministratton, it .. is· possib1e to br e~k away from the control of the 

ordinary cou..i'ts over adnli:nistra tion a11d to substitute a system of ·control 

by administrative courts. In case administrative adjudic a tion results 

from ·the c::.·dm.inistr a tive p rocess , t wo obje·ct·iona:bl·e ·fe a tures app e a r. ·. 

First, the administrative process is· n:ot· surrounded by t he s a feguar d s 

necessar~: ;for prqper ad.jud.ication. Second, the a ct of the administration 

is. not ~On trolled b;'/ an' impart ·ia.l· out side au thGri ty • 11 

' • • ' ' I 

.. ' ' .. 

9 838 
-1, ·.- -

v 

(l) :Uickin-~on, "Poli tJ.c ·t.l :::,occ ts f t ht. ~i w Jeal", 28 Am. 

Pol. Sci.Rev . l97 , ~~~l ~~j~ · 

11 the ~e ( I ar-d _ . 'lre t. •1e most extreme 

and striki ng illustration of the de gre e to 

which admi ni strati ve au.tho;·i t y ha s -oeen 

expAnded i~ conn ction witn the reco ve ry 

progrrun. 11 

Fr a~kf~rter and Landis, Business of tne Supreme Court, ~ew York , 1927 ), 

at 9age 173 e:xpr esses the doubt t hat Cont;resa Wt'~u d ever entrust to f ive 

men the er given . the Comme rce Court. Its short existence (Februa r y 

1911- Oc t ober 1913 ) r esulted from t he shar p rebuffs handed it by the 

Sup-reme Court. Blachley anQ. vatman, Administrative Le gislation and. Adjudication, (Brookings Institution 1934 ). 

( 2) The state ~e nt ~h t such wa s the ca se comes from ~ person _in 

high offici al nosi tion throughout t he early ·9art of the Act 1 s administration. He h? s not given his ··)errni ssion to be quoted. 

( 3) Brookings Ins t i tut ion, Tile National Recovery Administration -

an Analysis and ~l Appraisal, 47, sugge sts NRA as a matter of organization had. broken with trn.d1tional "9~ ttern. 

(4) \Iillis, Pa rliamenta ry Pomre rs of Englisl:,l Gove rnment Dep.q,rtments, 

Harvard University Press 1922). IV,. deals .with p riv.q,te bill legislation. 

(5) Jbid. 59: .· ..• -

"Delegated legislation in England fails, like 

parliamentary legislation, into two main classes, 

that which:corresponds to . a p~blic genera l Act, 

the rule-naking pov1e r, and that which is in the 

nature of a p rivat e Act, the :p ower of confirming 

schemes by order." 

( 6) This entire procedure is fully dascribed, ibid.,l33-135. 

(7) Ibid.,IV. 

(8) The in ~ ister of Health (ex parte Yakke), 2 K.B. 98 

(1931J), ancl A C 494 (1931). 

(9 ) Willis, op . cit., 137: 

9838 

11 vnly after the World War is this procedure by ~chem e 

moulded to the task for which it se.ems destined, t he a:glllica tion of adoptive socialistic mea,sures to the groups 

or Areas illing to try t he ex9erime nt. The Electricity 

Supply Act permits L1e Commissioners to divide Engl.~.nd 

i nto districts Rnd Pst .q,b lish electricity authorities in 

t hem; t he Mining Act 9ro vi des for cases where the ~ajority 
(HI) 

-1?8-

of owner.s in r:J, d i st r ict wish to ::unal gRma te but .q,re 

unable to bring in the small minority whose coo~era tion is essential f or success ; the ric lt ral 

Marketing Act enable s trading boar ds to be se t up 

by ord r . . The re i n the underly ing principle s of 

~ublic and private Acts a re reconcil ed . 

Sup ra, 8. 

' 

(ll) Henderson, The Fe eral Trad e Commission , (Yale Unive r sity 

Press , 19_24). 

(1 2) Flexible Tariff Arit, _42 Stat. 858 , 941- 943 . 

(13) :Brookings Instituti"on ; op . cit., 4, sue-,gests t hat the -orecedents ava ilable were to be f ound in the Intersta t e Comme rce Commi ssi on , 

Public Utility Commis~ions, l abor l B.W S, trade -or a c t ice confe rence agre ements, anCi. the corp orate bodies of t he wartirae. Tr ade u."rJ.i ons , coo:9e ratJ.ves and trade a ssociations had all been variou sly used by t he Ame r ican 

:o 

'I 

., 

•' 

public. :

(14) Infra, VI 

(15) Title I, Section 2 (a) and (b) . 

(16) Cochnower v U. S. , 248 U. S. 407, 408 (1919). The creation 

of offices and assi gnment of compensa tion is a legisla tive function. 

Although denying the p ower cla imed in t he case , the cqurt recogni zed 

that such a power could be delegated by 11 clear exp ress.ion or i mp lica ti on. 11 

See also Childs v . . State, 113 Pac . 545 (Okl. ,1910) ; and Carson v. MeLe ad , 

148 S. E. 584 (Ga., . 1929). 

(17) Brookings Institution, op . cit . , 43, 162: 

''The machinery t he President ha s set up is a b.q,lanced 

sort of executive-legislative-judicial tribunal. It 

is not a bureau and it ill not come one. It is 

rathe r a ·forlim f or coope r ation. It will duplica te 

no existing government machine r y. It ha s the ac t i ve 

and vi tal guidance, coopera t i on, and sup ·)ort of every 

gove rnment department, and on i ts boa r d of direc tors 

sits every Cabinet office r whose depa rtment i s affect ed or can he l p. 11 NRA Re lea se No . 11, June 25 , 

1933 . 

(18 ) Brooking s Institution, 09 . it .~ 96- 97 outline s three st ep s 

in code- making : 

l. ' The prelimina r y che ck i ng, c l assifi cation nd a ssignment ; 2. Prelimina ry conf erences qnd hearings ; 3 . Fi nal negotiat i ons 

l eading t o ~up oval. 

9838 
-l 7 -

(1 9) Johnson, The Bl e Eaele. from Esg to Earth, Sa urday 

Evening Post , J an qry 2G , (1 9r 5) . P·-i£ e 85 : 3. "i i thin 'ffi.A i ff' lf 

we re aepn rt me ~ts m3de uu of qccredite epre~entatives of the hree 

conflictino interPsts: (a) Ind stry; (b) Labor; ( c) Consumers. 

'It v' s to be their business to po int out eve r y Code pto-posal which 

they t hought mi ght bear harshly or unf a irly on t he inte r e sts they 

reoresented . They voiced a ncl sup oorted their -p rot est and , be assured, tney did it. "The Bo:.l.rds not only were to do this themse lves 

but t hey were t o activate And as "' i st all public or u rivate ,groups of 

simil a r interest to esP~ t the ir cases. 11 

(20) Field, The Effect of Rn Unconstitutional Statute, 

tMinneapoli s 1935) 305. 

( 21) Brooking s Institution, ou. cit., 31. 

( 22 ) Infra. , XI I 

(23) Norwegian Ni trogen Products Co. v. U.S., 288 U.S. 294 (1933). 

( 24) Legal Memorandum No. 54, July 30, 1934 directed to the 

Le gal Di vision from. Blackyvell Smith, Acting General Counsel, quoting 

a memorandum from Robert P. Reeder on rrNotice and Hearing:" 

11 In l egislative matters the requirement of an opuortunity to be heard rests upon st~tute ·and not upon the 

Constitution. Yet, as the Supreme Court held in the 

flexible tariff case (Norwegian Nitro,e:en Products Co. 

v. United States, 288 U.S. 294, 321) data may be plRced 

in the record otherwise than at public hearings and 

may be treated as confidential; the record may include 

letters, reports of confidential. investigations, other 

government a l reports and trade joQrnals; and the ri ght 

to a hearing coes not include a ri ght to have ac cess 

· to su ch data or the ri ght to cross examine witnesses . 

In that case the court said: 

'If .it was under a duty to give the kind of 

hearing that was fair in all the circumstance s, 

it was free to shape its course within reasonable limits by its own conception of the 

promptings of policy and f a irness. It '~ould 

have kept within t he statute even though it 

had made the hearings private and had refrained 

fron t he publication of anyt hing , either the 

recDrds of its agents or t he t estimony of witnesses. 1 11 

This last sentence, on its face, is dictum. It is also interesting to 

no te t hat this is t he earliest statement of t he precedents the Legal 

Division felt NRA was acting under, that the writer ha s .found. This 

st atement is dated over a year after the NRA be gan ope rations. 

9838 
- 180-

( 25 ) Tariff Act of 1922, 42 Stat. 858, 941-943. 

(26) Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. U.S., 288 U.S . 294 

305, ( 1930). 

(27) Tariff Act of 1922 , 42 Stat. 858, 941-943: 

"Investigations to assist t he President .in ascertaining differences in costs of production under this 

section shall be made by the United States Tariff 

Commission, and no proclamation shall be issued 

under this section until such inve st i gat ion shall 

have been made. The commission shall give reason-

. able public notice of its he arings and shall give 

reasonable op:o ortuni ty to parties interested to be 

present, to produce evidence, and to he heard • . The 

commission is q,uthorized to adopt such re.q,sonable 

procedure, rules, and regulations as it may deem 

ne ce s s.q,ry. 11 

(28) Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. U.S. 294, 

303-315 (1933). 

(29 ) Ibid., 318: 

11 It is very different, however, when orders are 

directed aga inst public service corporations 

limiting their powers in the transaction of their 

business." 

(30) Ibid., 321; also 307: 

"The statute does not ·say that t hey a re to have .q,n ouDortunity 

to produce evidence A:nd to be heard to whatever extent they 

may desire. It says that they are to have a reasonable 

opportunity, and this subject to the power of the Co111rn ission 

to adopt such reasonable procedure, rules .qnd regulations 

a s it may deem necessa ry. Nothing in t hA statute suggests 

a belief of the law-makers that every 9roducer or i mp orter 

is to be viewed, like a party to a l a.1111 suit, as the ad ve rsary of every other., with the privilege of examin.q,tion 

and cross7'lexamination extended through the series. 'There 

must be a limit to individual argument in such matters if 

the government is to go on. 1 Ho lme s, J. in Ei- etallic 

Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 445. 11 (1915) 

(31) Ibid, 312, and see 317: 

9838 

"The answer will not be found in the definiti ons of a 

hearing lifted from the~r setting and then applied to 

new conditions. The answer will be found in a consideration of the ends to be achieved in the particul ar cond·itions that were expected or foreseen. To know. 'wh;at they 
- 1" 1-

a r e , t he r e m st bP recour se o a l l th qid s Avai l -

abJ.e i n t he ro ces · 0f constr~ction , 0 hi ·tory ~nd 

analogy and pr:1c l. ce as we l l 1.s to th diction8.r y . 11 

( 32) Su r . I V, l. 

( 32a) When t hi e!1 ire probl em wn.s st a t ed to ~ Tq.ri f f Commissi on 

attorney , h·r . F. G. -~ , he i mTllediate l ,, fP lt h~ t a gr PP t diffe rence 

betwee n t he probl em of the NIRA ~d the Fl exi ble Ta riff Act ex i st ed 

in the underl in ~ conc e1Jts. Wh ile it i s conceded t nat no one hA.s any 

ri e;ht in a rate of duty, it is not li"kePise conceded t h8.t the "ve sted 

intere sts" of an established industry will not de!TI.::lnd both procedural and 

s b tanti ve 11 due process. 11 

3~ ) 137 u.s. 310 (1890) . 

(34 ) Supra N. 2S . 

( 3 5) T i t 1 e I , Section 2 (b) . 

( 36) Executive Order No . 6543-A, September: 30, 1933. 

(37) Hampton v. U. S. ,· 276 U.S. 394 (1928). 

(38) American Stores Co . v. U.S., .58 Tre.as. Dec. 6 (1 930) . 

(39) Glassie, 11 some Legal Aspects of the Flexible TAriff," 

11 VA. Law Revi ew, 329 , 442 (1 925): 

"Litigat ion iJ;l.volves the conc8n t of actor qnd reus, 

and of a right infringed or a duty broken. But an 

investigation by the Tariff Commission is not for the 

purpose of ascertaining whether somebody's right , 

w1der the , has been infringed. It is for the 

purpose of ~sce taining whether the r e shall be a 

change in the law." 

(40) Harriman v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 211 U.S. 407 

(1908); Infra VIII. 

(41) Luce, Le ._ islative Procedure (Boston & ~ew York, 1922), 142-

148. 

(42) Yates v. Yilwaukee, 10 iVall 497 (1870); Hamme r v . Dagenhart, 

274 u.s. 251 (1918). 

(43) Freund, Administrative Powers over Persons and Property 

(University of Chicago Press 1926 ), 84 ; 

9838 

"If uublic policy r equires the exercise of a medi a ting 

discretion whic11 cannot be turned into an expert discretion, it seems on the whole t hat it shoul d be exercised by a politically constituted authority , i.e., 
-182-

normally by the legislature; from t h is ~oint of view 

the delegation by Congress to t he Interstate Commerce 

Commission of the power to fix ·a f air re t urn appears as · 

an anomaly." 

( 44) Dickinson, Administrative Justice and the Suprema cy of the 

La1117 i n the United States (Harva rd University Press 1927 ) 18 . 

(45) Freund, op.cit. ~ 84. 

( 46) Ibid., 154-155: 

"Provision for some kind of notice and hearing, wh ich 

in the case of a rei?;Ulation is at best a matter of legislative requirement in the interest of equity and intelligent action, becomes in the case of an order a constitutional requirement under t he C:.ue process clctuse of the 

:E'ourteenth Amendment. 11 (And the Fifteenth Amendr.1ent). 

(47) Frischer & Co. v. Bakelite Corp ., 39 F (2d) Z4~.Cct~.cust. 

& Pat. App . 1930); Federal Trade Commission v. Curtis Publishing Co., 

260 u.s. 568 (1922). 

( 48) Freund, op . cit.;. 108: 

"The combination of e.. provision for hearing with a provlSlOn 

for competitors becoming parties. to the application p receding, may thus 

turn the l a tter into a contest of a semi-judicial ch 1. cter. The hearing 

requirement is however, the exception r a t her t han the rule; and ordinarily competitors have not the requisite locus standi to contest the 

grru1t of an apulication. 

"It remains to be seen whether the hearing reauirement will become 

a pe rmanent feature of licensing 1)rovi sions; it may be appropriate a s a 

prerequisite to refusal; but the re is little urpose in mruc in~ it a p rerequisi "te to a grFtnt u..n.less a definite right to contest the a"?ulication 

is given t o other interested parties, and t his is no t "d.onP even by the 

Transportation Act. 11 See also Chicago Junction Case, 264, U.S. 258 

( 1924). 

See also Freund, op. cit., 108: 

If in the absence of such a substantial showing and finding the 

applica tion is nevertheless granted, there is a technical illegality 

which may remain remedi~ess. The Supreme Court ha s, however, held 

that a competing carrier may be permitted to intervene; and, thus 

becoming a party to the proceeding , it may contest the consent order 

(Chicago Junction Case, 264 U.S. 258; see also Pe ople v. Public 

Service Commission, 195 N. Y., 157) 11 

(49) Title I, Section 3. 

9838 
18

(50) Pan a Refinin Co . v . R. All , 29~ U. S. 388 (1 935 ., and 

Souther~ Railway Co . v . Virginia , ~90 U. S. 1 0 (19 . 

( 50-}A) "EXECUTIVE u1 D.B;R. Nu 6205- B 

11 CuDES uF FAIR CulVlPETITION 

"Pursuant to the a thority vested in me by Title I of the 

National In u strial Recovery Act , approved June 16 , 1933 , 

11 I hereby prescriof> he fo llowing regul1.tion, modifyin any 

revious order inconsistent therewith: 

11A..r1 code of fair competition apu roved by mP shall. be deemed 

full force And effect on the effective date as stated in the code; 

ut ··f t·e r the ano roval of a code and as an incident to the immediate • 4 

enforcement thereof, hearings mav be gi ve:n by the Administrator or his 

desi gnated r ep re sentative to persons (hereby defined to include na tura l 

persons , partnership s, a ssoci a tions or corporations who have not in pe rson or by a repre sentative participated in establishinb or consenting t o 

a cor e , but who a re directly aff ected t he r eby , and who claim tha t 

applications of the code in p;,rticulA.r instances are unjust to them and 

who apply for an exemption to, or exemption from, or mod i ficati on of the 

code. Such persons so applying, within ten days after the effective 

date of the co4e, shall be given an opportunity for a hearing and determination of the issues sed prior to incurring any liability to 

enforcement of the code, and t he Administrator shall, if justice require s, stay the application of the code to all similarly affected 

pending a determination by me of the i ssues raised. 

"The ifui te House , 

July 15, 1933 . 

Approval Recommended: 

riugh s. Jormson. 11 

"FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVltLT" 

(51) Blachley and Oatman , op. cit., 8- 9 ; spea_'l{ of NRA and AAA 

legislative but do not havE=> t his problem in mind. 

(52) In Louisville & Nashville R.R.Co. v. Garrett, 231 U.S. 

298 , 305 , 307 (1913), Mr. Justice Hughes spoke of the rate-making power 

as legislative . Ho;~<Teve r, he continued the p rocedure may properly 

conduct i nquiries, giving notice and hearing , even "Necessarily" 

(underlining mine) doing this. 

Brookings Institution, op .cit., 33, U.S.: 

ThE=> a ...tthor finds a strong resemblance be t vvee n NRA Rnd the 

Interstate Commerce Co ~m ssi on and agencies of t hat ch cter . 

l. The notion of business affected ,,i tl1 the )Ublic interest 

is i nvolved, and it is a r esort to general concepts of 'fair', 'reasonable', etc. 

9838 
-184-

2. The administrative r egulations havP the force of l aw and 

effect of l aw. 

3. The authority has been extended over the whole a rea of 

trade a,nci industry. 

4. The power is based upon the federal authority over 

Interstate Comme rce Commission. 

(53) Berle, ''The Expansion of American Administrative Law ," 

30 Harvard Law Review 430-440 (1917t, points out how Interstate Commerce 

Commission exercises all three powers. 

( 54) Dickinson, Adninistrative Justice and the Supremacy of La 

in t he United States, op . cit. , 19-20: 

11 'I'he whole discussion should go to demonstL'\'bethe futility of 

trying to cla ssi.fy a particula r exercise of administrative nower as 

either wholly legislative or wholly judicial. The tendency of the 

Administrative procedure is to foreshorten both f ·unct ions into continuous governmental act. 11 Se e also Blachley and Ga t man, op . cit .• , 167, 225. 

(55) Blachl;¥" and Gatman, op .cit., 256-57: 

"In respe ct to agencies conne cted nith or laced under the 

NRA which, during the fi1~st ,year, have acted almost exclusively a s 

administrative, mediating, and conciliatory .authorities, there was at 

first a dire confusion ·. of functions, with little recognition of the 

fact t hat there is a separate and distinct function of administrative 

adjudication. This f r1.ct now seems to be recognized, ~ncl. it is probable 

that the 1~A will soon provide for bette r organi zed administ r ative 

adjudication agPncies. 1

•

1 

(56) Southern Railway Co. v. Virginia, 290 U.S. 190, 197 (1933) . 

( 57) 264 U.S. 258 (19 24 ). This case was earlie r than the 

Nor1rJ8gian i:h trogen Case, supra, n. 26. The case is referred to above 

indic ting its requirements where the statute rlrovides fo r a hearing. 

(58) Chicago Junction Case 264 U.S. 258, 264-265 (1924): 

"Congress by using the. phra se '~henever the Commission is of 

the op inion, after hearing', p r e scribed quazi judicial a ction. Up on 

ap plication of a carrier, t he Commission must form a judgrnPnt whether 

tne a cquisition proposed w;i. ll be in the public interest. It may form 

t his juqgment only after hearing. The provision_ fo r a hearing i mplies 

both t he .pr1 vi l ege of introduc ing evide nce and t he duty of deciding 

in accordance with it. To refuse to conside r evidence introduced or 

to make an essentia l finding vv i t hout suppor.ting evidence is arbitrary 

action." 

(59 ) Executive urder No. 6202-A (Administra tive for Industrial 

Recovery). 

9838 
( .:59a) Inf r a , Fo r cin g I ssuance or i1es ~)nt-of 8ooe • 

( 59b ) This .1.l'gumen t he.... ~ oeelt nci. vanceC. by Dr. R. }1, . Bl a ch ly i n metlor:-J10.'U.iil :.L o:n-:1 and in c onve r sat ion s ··i th the rrr ite r . J'hi c; i r also t h e 

vim·r e::•_J r es e d oy th Let:·al Div:i ~on , SUT) r a n . 24 . But sec Legan t;emOr :'nd'lU!l , j.Jo . 7 , r e ·Functions of t he Legnl Di vi sian , January 4 , 1 934 , 

r'hich a:Jp l i e s o r d inary conc epts of aom i n i str ative 1 ':\.r: t o the co de- mak i ng 

p r ocess: 

11 ( b ) As to· Con stitutionul it;r: 

11 l 1

l1e questi on o.t constitut i ona l va Jidity of co des comes do'/lll p r i ma rily to ...., Q_uestion of due p roce s s. I f t he p r operty of a membe r of t he industr y or a l abore r i s t ken v•i thout du e p roce ss of l a• · under t h e t e r:.-..1 s 

of the code , J..t i s su bjec t t o a t t a ck on Con stitut iona l g r ounds. 

11 I n de t ermining this qu estion the ma tter d.enend .. s up on the · int :.:o~~e

t at ion of the fects rel a .. t i ve to the eme r gency of the p a rticul a r i ndustry 

"9 l u s ree sonc;.bl en ess in me eti n._ the need. If p rovi sion s 'Tfh ich VI'Oul d no.rmally constitut e a dep rivat ion of pr peJ.~ty " i thout du e p rocess a s to a 

paJ. ti cu l nr member .of the rJ7 a r e e s s entia l t o mee t t he erner genc:r of 

the .·rhol e country, then they can probably be "Ustained , i f not arbi trflr y 

in foriJ, me t h ods of .adop tion. 

11 Thi s a.g a in r equire s evi denc e of f a c ts i n t l e r e c ord upon ···hi ch the 

Admin i str ator can rea sonably find t hat the mer,~; ncy demand.s the ::;n~ ovi sions il1 c_u e sti on . 

11 I t e1l s o r e qu i res a f ull opportunity for an~r pot en ti ll ~r aggri eved .. 

pq ~- t o b e heard so tha t if t h e r e a r e f a c ts c ont rary t o the ot her evidenc e i n t l1e rec or d he may bring it out. If a£ t e r ful l :o ortuni ~.r t o 

a ll i nt e :test ed parti es, to be hea rd such a p:covis i on s eems nece ssa ~· and. 

the lX· .. ::.~ t icu l a r one s eems the mo st r easonably devised t o me e t the n eecL, 

i t u i l l ~J rob bly stand. 

11 Hc re again l egal a dvice i s very rr. an t~ 1 

( 59 c ) Sup r a , Pa r t I . 

( 596...) Sup r a , I V, 11 .· 

( S9e ) i.urrav ' s Le s s ee v. Hoboken Lane. and L:nn rovement Comp a.n:,-, 1 8 

Ho11. 272 ( 1853 ) . 

( 5Sf) See par ticularl y Carr , De l egated Le . ..., i sl a tion (Cambridg e 

Uni ve rsi ~· Press , 1921 ). 

( 59g ) I b id. 

. ( 59h ) Dickinson , Adm inis tra tive Justice and t h e Sup r ema cy of t l1e 

La ·, o:J. cit . , 21. 

bi ~, 19- 20. 

9838 
- 136-

(59j) Sup ra, IV, 11. 

. . . 

(59k) Inve stiga tion for the purpos e of l egisla tion is a proper 

function of the Congress. cGr in v. Daugherty , 273 U. s. 135 (1926 ). 

But see Kilbourne v. Thomp son, 10~5 ·u. S. 168 (1880). 

( 591) Infra, VI I I. 

( 591i1) In fact each field is treated indi vi d.ually. Precedents c..re 

useo_ fror,1 other fields when the courts feel they are helpful. Supr , 

IV. See also, Stephens, Administrative Tribunal and the Rules of :=::vi- ~ 

dence (Harvard University Press, 1933), 101: "Discrimination must be ct 

made oet,.-,een the commissions themselves. The proceedings of the Inter- r.

state Commerce Commission are clearly the most dependable." 

(59n) Dissent in Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 

277 u. s. 189' 210-211 ( 1928). 

(59o) Supra n. (27). 

(59p ) Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 76 Fed. (2d) ~12 (1935 ) 

which interestingly limits the President's reliance upon evidence not 

gathe:..~ed in conformity 17ith the statutory·procedure. See also r. D. 

45673 to 45677; and T. D.46086. 

(59q) Pacific States Box and ~asket Compeny v. Tihite, 80 Law Ed. 

( Adv. Op s ) 133 ( 1935 ) • 

(59r) Ibid. at page 139: 

It is urged that this ·rebuttable presumption of the existence of a 

state of facts sufficient to justify the exertion of the police po er attaches onl;y to acts of legislature: and that nhere the regulation is the 

act of an administrativ8 bod.y, no such pr8sumption exists, so that the 

burden of proving thA,justifying of acts is upon him who seeks to sustain thB validity of thP. r"'lgulatio.n. The contP.ntion is "Vi thout sup:port 

in authority or reason, and rests upon misconception. Every exertion 

of the police p0111T"'lr, either on th"l l"'lgislature or by a!l administrative 

body is an exercise of delegated pow"lr •........• But where the regulation is within the scope of authority l"'lgally delegated, the pres~­

tion of thP. exis.t.ence of the acts justifying its specific exercise 

attaches alike to statutes, to munici:pat ordinancAs, and to orders of 

administrative bodies. 

11 Here there is ao_ded reason for applying thP. presum:ption of validity; for the regulation now challenged was adopted · aftP.r notice and 

public hearing as the statute required." (UndP.rlining mine 

(60) Mississinni v. Johnson, 4 Wall 175 (1867). Willoughby, op . 

cit., 1497-1500. The author p0ints out that in Harbur•r v. Madison, 

the court stated that the Secretary of State ould b"'l subject to 

mandamus in the performance of a purely ministerial ctut;r, but when 

acting as the agent of the President in carrying out his discretion, 

that such a writ ~ould not issue. At the trial of Aaron Burr, Jefferson 

9838 
-l c7-

rP.fu P.d to an .,o a surn P.na dur.P.s te urn . Chiof J ustico ... ':l..rshall i s 

rPp ortec1 t0 hr o sa i d , 11 I n c 'ls"' 0f thi 1:.i n '~'.' . ho court bo 

r equired tc n r0r. l"l od a 0-i st thP. r esidPnt as a a i nst C~n 0rdinar individua • . he o j Actio'l"ls to such a cu s~'> a r A so stron and obvi ous 

tha t all l"lUSt a .lm 1'!1 l ndg "l t !1P. .•.• In t h is ca s A, ho w"'v8 r, t he 

Prosi ~nt ha s assi ned n rea son wha t RvPr f0r mithhold ine thP. pau er 

callP.d for. The u r u riot;r of withholr i n i must bP. dl=l r.i d8 d ' ' h imself, 

not bv another fC'r h im. Of t ho TI 0 i F'ht o_ r~ ns for a nd agains p rC'-

ducin it hP. hi "l s~lf i s 1 P. udg o. 11 Couns l arguP.d. tha t thP Prl'lsidP.nt, 

becauso o his office , a s "above t h o p rocess 0f c:tny r.ourt, or thP. 

juriscliction of an· C urt, to bri'1P: bin to account as PrAsident. 11 ThP. 

court bAld that the act-of t ho Presi P.nt <"S e x:RcutivP. and as such vras 

not su j~ct t0 judgment of thP. Court. 

Dickinson d..m iniRtrc:tti rP. JusticP. n thP. Suurema.cv of Lam in 

the United StatP.s, ou . cit., 2 62, N. 22 and SAe aJso, PP.onl~ v. 

BissP.ll, 19 Ill. ?.?9 (18 57) t here r.itod. 

(61) A. L.A. Sr.hochtP.r Coro •• U. S. ~95, U. S. 495 (1935). 

(62 ) KendPll v. U. S. ex rl'l~ .. StokP.s, 12 Pet. 524 (1838); 

Butterworth v. FoP. , 112 U. S • 50 ( 18 8 4) ; !L__ S. I'! x _r ~ 1. H cB rid A v . 

SP.hurz, 102 J. S. ~78 (J.879); soe also tho cUctum in Ma:rburr r v • 

. J.B.dison, 1 Cr .• 137 (180:3) . 7illoughb;v, ou. r.i t., 1501. 

(63) Int"'rstate Commerce C0mmission v . FumbP.ldt S. S. Co., 

224 u~ s. 474 (1912). 

(64) An interesti"lr- sit1at·i cm arosP. 1n thA Inland TI'ater Carrier 

Trc:tde in tho Eastern Divisi0n of th~ United States operF~ tin"S via the 

- e,..,. York Canal S, st~m, a uuroved CodA No. ?66 . In thP. Suring of 1934 

the Code (Art. VIII) all~~ed the industr~r to p r opose a tariff schedulP.. 

This the industrv did. The schedulP. propos8d included an 11 arbitrary", 

,..,.hich is in the naturP- of a differP.ntial~ It 'was the understanding 

that if there were no objections fro·m the inr.ustry or Administrati0n, 

that the schedul~ TIOul d go into effect ten davs after it was received. 

Later a represente..tive of the Legal Division orally stated that the 

scheQule becamP. Affective the instant it 1'!1~S nut into the mail box Tiithout any ~ossibility of prior Administrative review. 

Th8 industru is corrrposed. of tMo elemP.nts: the tow boats and b2rges 

and the motor shiDs. The motor ship peoule felt that the p roposed. 

tariff ? s unfair- to them and asked to havA it suspendP.d. The Deputy 

Administrator's. officP. drew up a suspension oraer which was forti'TardP.d 

to General Johnson for action. Shortly thereafter the. Deputy Adminisrator called a mePting o: interested nP.rsons in NAIT York City, attP.~

ing to get the diver ~=:.mt elements 0f .thl=l inc.ustr~r to agree upon a 

course of action. ~ilo. this meP.ting was in progress GenAral Johnson 

sign~d thA suspension ordAr. The D~=!puty Admi-nistrator ur8fe rred to h~we 

the tariff schedule rP.main in P.ffect , si:ncP. the various elements of the 

industr~r had P.greP.d to r.rork cut some amicE!ble arrangemP.n t. To prev~nt 

he publir.Btion of tho susn~nsion or er tho Detmtv b. teleuhone- told an 

assistant to ke~p it fro~ being made public until he arrived back in 

cshington. According to the procedurP. then in P.ffect , the DP.put. 
. -188-

.Administra tor was to notify the .code authority of t he ino.ustry by telephone immediately 1..1p0n the i ,q nce of any ad.mini strati ve orders 

.R-ffecting it. This the Depu~y f <;t-iled to d.o. In add.i t~ on, h e p revailed 

upon Co de Record Section to delay publication of t h is ord er for nearly 

fifteen cLays, app roximately nine day s more than t hG delay which nould 

have been entailed due to the pressure of ork then upon Code Record . 

Duri,n.g nll this time the industry was going ahead chart;i ng t a riff, uhen 

in f o..ct this tnriff had. be en susp encl ed .. . Finally a Ca.l'lcellation order 

was clr a rm up and plac.ed with the sp.spensi on orde r in some NRA file. 

The f a ct remains that neither of these orders V-T<J. S ever published, ano. 

the e x traorcUnary thing was· the flagrant violation of publication proceclu:ce. (This information w.2..s furnisl1ed me ·by r~ K. B. Fi.tzgerald in 

a conversation in the . latter p a rt of 'J ov mber, l93b). 

(65) Chicago," Rock Island. t: Pa c.ific Ry. Co. v. State. Highway 

Commission, 17 S. W. (2d) 535 (Uo .l929). Injunction 11ill not lie 

wheTe t h e petition can get · a remed~r by orCI.er of t he Public Service 

Comraission which has already orclered ad~ ersely to ·him. Also see Pe..dgett 

.v. State High1:1ay Commission, 148 S. E. 548 (Ga.l9.29). Injm.ction will 

not .lie because the Commission proposed to complete the :project before 

the court·can pass on the validity of the bdnd issue. 

· (66) Dickinson, 11The major issues presented .. by· the Industrial 

Recovery Act, II 33 Columbia Law neview.l095 (1933) 1095; "It is an 

interesting commentary on the past half-century of our history that 

legality should. have come to be so widely associat ed m th governmental 

inaction. 11 u.s. ex re1 Dunla~o v. Blad , 128 U. S. 40 (1888). 

( 67) Harrril ton v. Dillin, 21 . .Wall. 73 (1875). The Act authorized. 

the PresicLent to license commercial ;i.:q.terco11rse rri th the South during 

the Civil 'War. · A regulation ; the Secretar r of the Treasury charging 

a feTI Has helCL not prope~ despite the fact it had · no statutory 

basis. War conditions, then existing, probably go far to explain the 

case; See Freund, op.cit., 113; See also Interna tional RE'.ilnay Co. v. 

Davi0.SOl1, 257 U. s. 506, 514 (1922). The statute authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue special . permits for lading or unl adL.1g 

of vessels, etc., and to fix the conpensati9_11 to be p a id customs 

officials at ex~ense of licensee. This could not be extended to 

incluo.e a brid.ge company's acti vi ties in .k$,eping open on Sunday. Said. 

Bra .. ncleis, J., 11 .A regulation to be valid mu~t be reasonable and Ti1ust be 

· con.si.stent \7i th the law." 

.. (68) Dickinson, op .cit., 1095. See also Brougham v. Blanton 

Mf g . Co ., 249 U. S·. (1919). The Secretar~r of .Agriculture could 

wi th0.rarr his approval o.f a trade naine where the ingredients were so 

chans ed as to mc:Uce the name misleading . · 

(69 ) Freund., . op .cit., 113. Board. of Education v. Rice, A. C. 

179 ouse of Loras 1911). 

(7h) Wahrenbook , "Federal Anti-Trust a~t and· t he .rT. I. R. A.., 11 

37 Eich . Law Review 1009 , 1030 (1 933 ). 

9838 
-1 o_ 

l C/J::S S TC IAPT2. VI 

( 2) Blaclley and Oatman , Adninistrativ :J L0r;isl t i on nnll Adj udicat ion , (:ar ookinbs I psti t u t i on 1~34 ), 203 : 

11T-1.e deci sicns of t _e autl1o r i ti ~ conn\;c t cd v1i t l1 t :le 

:rational Recov r y Admi ni str a t i .)n almost of n ec essi t y 

mu ;t b e made in harmony wi t h t:i.1e ah1s c f tl.e p r ogr nm 

of indu strial r ecov or y . Such au.thor i t ies a r o not 

acl2ninis t c r i ng an ab stra ct lavv , bu t a r e admi n i st er i ng 

a so c ial and ec onomic po l i cy ." 

The d iff iculty i n cbin; tl1is can be reac.lily s een , with t J.1eorie s as 

numer ous as t :,1ey v1ere . 

(3) An am~-.; le of trlC f lexibilit y w~:i dmin strati .:. n can 

furn i sh is il lustra t ed by t he N.3.A Of f ice Lla:nual . 

3838 

"Code Administra ti Jn III-4000 Enfor.c ement III-4113 .• 7 

11 (g) Re stitu t ion t o Al l :Smpl oyee s 

"A r e sponden t mu st or d ina rily make r e stitution to 

all h i s e,npl oyee s en t i tl ed to r estitution and n o t me r ely to those v{no made compl aint or who a r e t l'l e subj ec t 

of t:1 e eviden c e of f i nding o r v i ol a.tis n ·· i n t1l e :v ~rti cular case . In many case s, _le '-~ , an examina ti c-n 

of t he es~J den t' s bo oks , ac count s , r e co·rd s or em2)loyee s 

by ei ~e r t he Sta t e Dire ctor's Of f i ce or an accountant 

will b e n ec e ssary t o cle t e r mine t h e amount of r estituti on." 

( 4 ) Bri ef f 'Jr A. L . A. Sc~1e r Corpo ration, in Sc 1e ~1 r v. U. S. 

Brooking s In stituti on , op . cit. , 37. 

(5) Brook ing s In stitu ti on , o~ . cit., 37. 

(6 ) I b::.d , 46; su gt;est s t:1at t v!O me t hods pres ent ed t l1e:nselve s to 

R. ; t hat of 11 slow a cademic stucly of all t he complications 

and c ontingenc ies t o b e ;ne t in code drafting punctua t ed by 

eX}_)ert t estimony and ori ent ed i n t he l ong-te r m ef fe cts of t ho se 

cl1anges i n economic bal a11c e t hat 'i1ould· i nevitabl y r esult from 

t he n ew r ec ov e r y s e t-Ul) -- t hat is, in t he opinion of men who , 

howev e r r ich in a cademic l earni ng , n ever knew t he we i ght of 

a busi ness r e spop si b ili t y in t heir whole live s . 
-190-

"The e t her was to ge t t he codes in, mee t ing t h e unemploymen t 

situation after some fash i on, cl eaning up the wo rk of t he economic 

abuses, putting first things· first, letting tlte minor mal adjustments fall whe r e t h ey might, and dealing wi t h t h e l ong-t e rm effects 

as t:ney b ecarne evicien t. 

"The cho ice was b e tween academic conjecture and acti on and the 

dec ision was for action. Now accordi ng_ to plan, NRA steps to take 

stock of its shortcomings, to deal wi th the complaints. Th e work 

of r efinement begins." See also HRA Release No. 2993, January 25, 

1934; address of Recovery Administra tor • . ' 

(7) Johnson, The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth (Saturday 

Ev ening Post, Janua ry 1.9, 1935), 15. 

(8) Brookings Instituti on , op. cit., 89: 

"At the v ery outset of t he NRA some trepidati on 

was felt as to wliet 1er industrial groups would embrace 

the voluntary scheme of fe r ed by the government, involving,' as vvas supposed, some initial sacrifice en t he p art 

of the co-operating groups. r: 

(9) Brookings Institution, ibi<?., 92, 95: 

11 The positive incentive s we re: (1) r e lief from the anti-trust 

laws; (2) the authoritative enforcement of price-control devices; and 

(3) relief from competitive practices deemed to -be ruining t he market---. 11 

"Sinc e t here was little· d isposttion on t he :part of t '1e Administration 

t o use the power t o impose codes, a.p)l ican t group s 1eld t :._l e key to the situ a ti on. 1ey could appear with proposals or not, as they ) l eased. Since 

most of th em were little interest ed i n negotiating wi th t he i~ on t he basis 

o·:f t ne initial limited objectives, t he NRA quickly adjust ed its ideas to 

the situation, and t h er eby implicated itself in t lle immeasurably comp licated 

task of d ealing in short order with the whole r eal m of business p r ac tic e s 

for each of the hundr eds of gr oups." 

See also ibid., 93- 94 , for a furth.e r statement of the motives that 

caused industries to a pply for codes. 

(10) Ibid., 6. See also 86, co enting t ha t NRA was no imparti a l 

r efe r ee . 

( 11) Hearing on 1e Telegr aph Co!TITilunicati ons Industry , Februar y 6, 

1935. The bargaining charact e r of the fair trade pr Actice p rovisi ons is 

indicated by a statement of Mr. Kern, a memb e r of th e Industry, who s aid 

at pa ge 11: 

9838 

"If tha t means a substantial or add.i ti onal commitmen t aft e r we go back to the f orty h our basis, w~1 a t additional provisi on will b e made in tl1e fair practice to 

enable the companies to do t hat?" 
-Ln-

(1 1~ ) Brooki ng s In stitution , o). cit. , 85 . 

Tl1e ideal unse;. fish sacrific e in J1 rulno ting ein_)l oymen t 

soon gav e way "to tl e r eal itir' S of an out and out bar gaining p r 1cess in w~1ich selfish int e r est s we r e ~layed against 

one an oth~ r." 

(12) John son, op . cit. , (Januo.ry 26 , 1 <J35 ) 91. 

(13) ne rica's Recovery Prog r am - (Oxford Press 1934) 72: 

II • t he 'code will contain unf r .. i r trade 

·!;)r ac tic e prov5. sions .•.• Her e industry obtains 

its quid p r o quo fo r its effo rts in b ehalf of labor 

and fo r its oo~~ ra ti on with the c ountry . . . • 11 

(14) Iron & Steel Industry Code #11, Repo rt of ep~ ty Administrator 

. M. Simpson : 

"It is to be observ ed t h a t in ~) rtial c omp ensati:::m for increased labo r 

ost.s, t he steel i ndustry seei1S likbly to de rive substantial marke t advantges from tlle p ric e- st ab ili zat ion pr ovisi ons of 1e code . While l eaders 

n t:1e 1nQ.ustry indica t e t l1e.t t hey wcul d gain no advantage by · raising preent p;ric es, they evidentl y r ef e r to ublished officialy base prices. 

embers of t .. e 1ndustry have not, a s is c onceded, b een able to secure 

:J.ese prices uniformly unde r t h e compe t i t i v e conditi ons recently p r evailing. 

n the ~1e r ~l and, it s eems like~y t h at t l1e se :pric e s will be firmer, and 

esul~ in substantial increa ses' in p rofits, unde r the influence of provisJnS requi'rinb pu bli cation '.of p as e :Jrices and }')rohibi ting concessi ons conained in the code . Furti1er , :t 1e .nG re el i minati c.n of cr edit abuses should 

r eatly help the industry. Stabilization of pr i c es may :w.ve a favorable . 

ffect on employ!'nent and. ·bus•. ness generally." ' 

Later, Mr. im )son frankly state s t hat th e 1ndustry ·is being given 

rice stabilization in order to enable it fo compen sate the additional 

abor burden it 1L~d rto k as a r esult of t h e code. 

(15) Transcript of Hearing for the Telegraphic Communicati ons Inustry, February 6, 1935, p . 100-105, Deputy Administrator Fuller: 

11 I t h irik t hat it would b e well to put into the record an estimate given 

y members of t:1e different units of the i ndustry as to what t hey antiipate it is :9ossible to rec qver from thes e fair trade practices, and the 

ffect of the cod e . - - ~ -

"Deputy Full e r: You are overlooking some of the simpl e r r ecovery posibilities, are you not, which .mi&1t be set up v e ry definitely. We will 

ay, the charge f o r call boxes. Qur estimate was that t l1ere are some 

00,000 cal l boxes from wl1ich you m:;.gh t coll e ct 25 cents a month on #3 a 

ear r ental. Perhaps it is not pos·· ible to do so, but the thought of the 

esearch . . and Planning Divisi on was along that line , and on the que stion of 

here you put teletypwriters, that you charged him fixed r ental for the 

achines, plus the service charge. Things like that are rather definite, 

re they notr - - - - - - -

838 
- 19 2-

"Deputy Ful ler: I woul d lik e to have t he v i ew of t::,.e industry 

upon those subjects. Ar e they going to pa ss th em up enti r el y or are 

f our or t hree units inter est ed in ge tting r entals for mach ine s or 

servic es that t:1ey are furni shing, if any, or is that a compe t i tive 

situation that no one wants to give up? 

II Mr. Kern: May I ansvv er tl1at? 

"Deputy Fuller: Yes. 

"il1r. Kern: We are discussing realities now , Mr. Administrator. 

Our desire to obtain benefits is always t emper ed by a de'sire to maintain a competitive position. It is di fficult sometimes to wo rk out a 

formula that will no't have repercussions from a competitive point of 

view. 

11 .Deputy Fuller: ~ite. 

11 Mr. Kern: It is obviously impossible to put in some 0f the charge s 

on particular facilities when ·you have a competitive situation, on a basis 

which makes it to the interest of the customer to only have the services 

of one company. A formula has to be devised, if ;>rou have a compe titive 

situation, v~1ich will not make it to the intere st of the customer to use 

the service of only one company. Otherwise, one company or t he ot her 

will be sacrificed by the customer. No matter how sinc er e t he i ndustry 

or the Board or the competitor is in 'trying to work out a formula, we 

do not always see eye to eye on it as to wha t the r e sult will be. Unquestionably benefits can be obtained in the industry, if we can find a formula 

t hat will not hurt one company or the other from a competitive point of vi ew 

and if the Commission will ap;>rove what ever is recommended by t h e Code Authority. 

".Deputy Fuller: Even if th e Commissi on should not approv e of a me rger, 

I suppose it would pe rmit you to abandon some duplicate f aciliti e s, if you 

could work among yourselve s a proper division of t he income from those 

facilities. 

11 Mr. Kern: That can be agre ed upon now without violati on of the 

Anti-Trust Laws, under N.R.A. Code Authority , wh er e it could not have been 

agreed upon before. Again, it c omes down ~o a compe titive basis. One co~ 

pany may give you a diff er ent amount t han anoth er company ." 

(1 6 ) Bro ~in s Instituti on, op . cit., 131: 

"Had any depU.ty administrator b een so unrealistic a s t o . _lave attemp ted to functi on in a judicial capa city duri ng t he code- making pr ocess--

t ha t is, first impartial l y taking the t estimony off er ed ·by all ·cont ending 

pa rti e s and advis ers, and th en, by an unint er ruped study of the r ecor d , 

f ormulating a f inal de cisi on -- he would have found h ims el f in an embarrassing position at the end of the code pr oce ss. 

"In a ctual practice tile d eputy never evaluated the en tire code i n the 

light of a compr eh ensive and di gest ed r ecord. ~ code t ook f rom, provision 

by provi.si on, out of bar gaining and lin . Even in the att empt to s ecure 

agr eement by th is proc e ss, the deputy f ound h i ms elf i n posse ssion of a r emark abl y flimsy s e t of mat eri als to assi st him in de t ermi ni ng and defending 

hi s own posi tion on proposals of far-r eaching economic and social con sequence 

9838 
- J <J

I (17) Brookinr;s In stitutlon , op . cit., 36 , suggests that NRA was not 

an im.::>artial ref er ee , out ra ti1cr · n active prop onent of c e rtain nds, and 

I tHat ·t:1e barg ining )rac ~ i. arg ly a ~ul t of .the fact t l at such indefinite standards wor e st . ..:. t ed a .. to t i1o s,, ends.. But SGe , Nntiona1 Recove ry Admini stra ti ) 11 Rul ea s e o . 131 in rcs.._Je c t t o t J.lG l)O si ti ' n of thu 

r:· ernmcn t in the code ma1.cing r r ocess: "I n order to explain tho Nati onal 

Recovery Admini ~ tra t::i c.n one might co:.1pn.re it t o. a t h r e ;.;- c .J r n Jr ed grune in 

w icl1 J. -=tb o r, indu try and the consur.1er are playe r s . Tho Naticnal Recove ry 

Administration is not involv ed in any a ttt::mp t t o dir ect any ·;?layer, r ather 

it occupies the posi ti on of a r ef cr 0e , insuring the cst abl i shme:n.t of p r o:9er 

rul e r.f' :play, and to see tl: a t no payer achiev t: s an unfair advantage ." 

(18 ) Presiding Of icers chd not V.wF.~.ys feel th f! ne ed fo r a r ecord 

h0\7eve r, See Eearint; on Tel e(;r aph Comrmmi cations Industry, Feb ruary 6, 

1935 . Pages 10 to 105 indicat e .t }1e a ttitude of the Administration towa rd 

codes and code pr ovisions: 

11 e~1u ty Full e r: I do not thin'k ~1a t the fair trade p r ac tice s are anything thc..t we should c onsider :i1ere . TJ1a t is a matt e r f or th e industry to 

agree upon, that .is, a ssuminc- t l1at t! .. ey are legal , Mr. McConnell, 

"Mr. Mc .. :;onn ell: All I w n t to l'::now is t o 0·3 sure t hat I know exacting what t h ey me , t o b o snr e ~1a t lat e r on , w~ n we try to enforce ti1em, 

we won t be ~. linking about d i f feren t t h ing s, because t hC'.. t is t he troubl e . 

~1ey l ook all r ig2l t a t t he t i::ne ~ e code is ap_:'r vv ed, and t :1cn s omebody 

gets mad at ano t:1er f ellow ancl :.1e come s r

1 0\'Jn e and. wan ts us to enforce 

them , ancl we don't agree en wi.1at t hey ;nean . 

"Mr. White : You don 't ~1i nk: t:utt could b e po s!?ibl e in tl1is industry, 

do you? 

"Mr. McConnell: Ye s , I do. 

11 r. Kern: I thhik we ul d ask you to give a thorough considerati::m 

t o the fair trade pr a ctices, -b ec aus e tha t is t he only way tha t we can do 

thi s th ing ('1. t t he p r esen t t ime and we e link t h;:;.t b y o~er enforc em .. nt of 

t ho se 1e industry will b e able to do what the Admtnistra tion is a sking 

in the matter of wages and hours. 

"Division Administration Peebles: Tha t is t:1e r eason tha t we wan ted 

~1em inter:p_ e t ed pro::!e-rly . II 

(19) Ibid. 

(20) Fl ~o r a nd Wall CJay Til e llanufacturing Industry Code, No . 92, 

Codes of Fair om~e ti n, II, 445: 

11 Secti on C - No :r1 mbe r of t :1e Industry si.1alJ. sell second-grade tile 

in an amount in exces·.:; of t h irty-five perc ent of t he total square footage 

of glazed t ile sold by :1im, nor in excess of .fift een pe rc ent of t he t otal 

square otc,~e of 1-mglaz ed tile sold by him, or such other r easonable perc ent age as muy he r eaft er b e decided U)on by a maj o r i ty of t h e Industry , and 

a:9prov ed by the Arlministr.ator, .fr om t ime t o t ime ; p rovided, howeve r, t h at 

the Administra t or on petition and aft e r such :1e aring as he may p r e scribe may 

9838 
-194-

mo9-ify. t h e Je r~ ntages 1~erc~ in es ablis 1ed; and ) rmvideo. furth er ~1a t any 

member 0f the Code may parti ci:ya t e in t b.e ~· ovi sions 0f Section · D ~lere

inafter: 'set f f)rtl1.. The pr~ si s of t h is Sec ti.:.n C all no t apply to 

unglaz ed quarry tile. 11 

The ~l ng test :.;r 0vided i s majori t y vo te not a te st by t l1e Administrati o~ ·for es irabili~y • . 

(21) Brqok ~n gs !nE?titution, op . cit., 116-117, indicates the great 

pressure brought not only upon NRA officials, but other persons in the 

gov e:rnmen t,. to secure desired cod.e provisions. 

(22) Ibid., 119-129 discusse s the ~1 ree Adviso ry Boards. It is 

sugge~. d t hat the Con slirnert s :Soard did not hav e t he :pressure group~ 

behirtd it t h at the other Boards had. The me thod, it emj_Jl oyed, was to 

col le c.t hasic economic data, then analyze proposals and evaluate " in 

terms of t h e general public intsrest. 11 The opinion is expressed t h at 

the method was~ ill-adapted to t:ae code - making :proc e ss ... 

(23) Jobnson, op. cit. (February 9, 1935), 81 • . 

,; 

t! 

"It is true that business descended on NRA fast er t han we could ru 

man t he organization to handle it. It is true tllat I could not ge t 

space to house the people I had, and that mad congestion. It is true 

that' many people carne to Washington with r eady-made Code pr o vi si 0ns ?1 

written in their own interest and expected to rush out with an }RA 

signature on the dotted line with out waiting for 1e other follow to 

be heard from. These thing s made· for del ay , but it should not have been 

othe rwise." 

(24) America's Recovery Program, o) . cit. 

A. Heath Ontha.nk (Ass t. to the Executive NRA) sai d, "Haste at this 

t i me will pc obably mean waste at a later date. 11 

(25) This is formation is commonly thought to be true in NRA , although it is not capable of documentary pr oo f. Every statement has b een 

made only after careful consultati0n wi th pe rson s in a position to know 

t h e facts. 

(26) Oral Argument of Hon. Donald R. Richberg on Behalf of tl1e 

United St.a t e s in t he case of A. 1. A. Sche 1 t er Corporati on v. U. S. , Friday 

May 3, 1935, Mr. Richb e rg made the foll ovnng statement indicating the limita 

tion of Congress and t he Courts despite ~J.e fact t hat the Recovery Administration in many instances op erated as if t her e was no such limitation 

placed u pon it: 

"Congress and the courts canno t know whe re to draw 

t he line until ti.1ey can survey a comprehensive record of 

t he actual coperati 0ns of each trade and the character of 

business transac t ed in diff e r ent parts of tlle country. 11 

(27) Brookings Institution, op. c it., 96 , suggests e extreme confusion 1ich existed in tl1 e code-making ) r ocess. 

9838 
l9t -

( 28 ) J o •. n on , Of? . ~.,;it ., (Februa r y · ... , l~l~~- ), H1 : 

~~ ~\~ rv 'S \!en:: st_ct .'.d. so t · u t t a t ·t: ~.:: l' e wert.: suve ~.l expl osions. 

:3;v t_;n t wo- fd. ~.xl Ji 1 l • 1 vn one i 1a.p •uared lor t .vo duy in n :imf f . T11e 

Dudl "Y Ca t · 8)i o·te was njn"'-t0n t .. 1s JVC.cwo11: . i.:ost ast onisl1lnt.; c~f n l , 

Al v l. n Br o·.m :::mc o II von t ~. im~ - cl onna on 1ne 11 ancl I .mel t o s Jnd. t wo of t . te 

youn ,or m~n away t o l_;r ev vn t ')} y j. cal and n !rvou s col l apse . Cn c m:1n clr o 1 J8 d 

d ,•·1.cl i n t.t\j coal ne o t i-::tti cn s . Earl ro ~' '1.I d co l l a-psed in · Ft gar ment .l.Jrtr i ng . 

Sov ,na )f my p r inc ipal assi st ants had t o leav e b oc au ::;e t he si 1n .. 11 y CtJUld 

no t st · n t.~e P-wsica l strnin . 11 

( ~3 ) Cfi i c ' anual , 

(T·.,e folloni ng quo t ation in ica t es t:1e :1uri·y .~ t ..,J r ev.:;.il ed in 1 .R.A. 

w: er •b y a dv i se r s we~ e exp8c t ed to :nal-e r ecom. , ende:1.t icn d c spi t e tl1e fact t 1lat 

t:uey :0.1ad no informati on :) 

(?) T::•. e d esi gnat ed ad.v J.so r s wi l l su·0mi t t _ .. e ir pr eliminary r e:'}c rts 

to t:!e De~"·u. y d.:u in ~t ra r VJi f .,in 7::?. .1our s aft ,.r r e c Gi p t of _;r c)o s ed c ode 

and lette r 0f tran sr.1i ttr l . 11 

(30 ) S ;e CoLle :rte.v . sion , Liemo r c.ndum :ro . l, Evolub. on c. f Trade Practice 

Po~ cy , i,. C. ars~lall , inclu1l:r.n;; all ac coun t by :2::dwin C. Georg e . 

( 31) OL e lAanua l , 11 CoCl.e !11aJd.ng Rn(.L .ArJendmen t I I I-1000 Sub stan ti ve 

Guide s II- 1002 

(3 ) 1i s Lloe s no t :·:1 ean ~lD. t ev r;r y c e d e in ) T'.; c ess ~nd no t a ) -

prov ed a t t h e time of ann unc r~~e t of a g ene r a l 1_)0 l i cy must conf orm- i n 

e sence ·)f 1ncJ.ucU.nt; t he t y-:; e 0f 1r ov i sLn favored -o'y :)ol icy. Under c ertain circumsta nces, i t mi gh t b e manif estly unf a ir t o ui~e sub stitution 

of a new c lau se a f t e r l eng.thy n --go ti a ti ons l1.ave f ina l ly r e sult ed in a ssent 

by the industry t tJ a sup ~)os d f inal fo r m of t lle cod e . It would be equally 

U..Ylfair t o e 1.1 en1oers of an i :1dustry t o a:) )r ov e a )rov l si on and tJ.1us cause 

t l1 em t o adjust tJ.1ei r ::.)r a ctices t o conform t he r e to, when t l1e :O_) r ov isi on is 

so framed as t o r e quire sub soqu ent cl an ~e or eliminati0n ." The adrninistrati on of Administ rative Or der "'Jo . X-36 suggest s L1e h a stine ss without du e c onsiderati :m of fac ts bec ause of t h e wh olesal e exeml)ti on s w:·lich we re mad13 f r o·,·n 

tl1e provi.si ons of t his Order. 

( 32) 

dustry and 

30 , 1934. 

Transc ri:._Jt of He a r i ng The Traf:Li c Control Signs Be Signals InThe Ad.verti stng r.'e t al & Display rAanu f a c turing Indus try - IAarch 

11 De::_m t y Brady: If ~1e e is no t h ing el s e to c o1 ne before this hearing, 

I am going t o ask t l1e t wo c o1n<n i tt e~ n t o ge t t oge tl1er wi t ll J!,rab r ica t ecl 

Me tal 211d wie1 e advisors, aml i r on out al l the U.ttle d iff iculties, so 

~ f:'.t we will ge t ou t of ti.1i s wandering in t he d. ecert t:1a t ;{oU h ave b een for 

til e last few mcnt:1 s , .and ge t t:1is clea n ed U J) . I wan t t o turn it ov e r and 

have i t signed an0. c ampl e t e , and not half done , and I wan t to turn i t over 

next vyeek: , 2~1 d if you will p me by all ge tting t oge ther so u. t n e can 

have t l1e matter ironed ;)ut, I \7ould e.IJj? reciate it. 

9838 

• 
• - H36- -

t ·•her::-.u:- o·r. I. - ~- c; .L- ' .~ . t 10'•50 o' ' c 1,...,r'- · n t'.1o ~'C'"'- "1 . . , ... ··,rr-s • v \J- - - .. • ,_ • t - - - .... - ""'w 

·:.o os~ . subj e c t + v o t'1"e .... c .1_1 or ~ .... ~, ' ... 1e -"""'" ' 1lnls"Lr · · · . t ) or " · ~ 

~'lc· '.r·ing ·nec~.:-.n ::.:, t 10: L_) :-.• n . 

(; )~; ) !.!c:J'-':1- r l .;-.ncl , Judici--.1 Co!:trol "Jf t~r :? oC::.o ~. 1 1':c · C:•c Co :... is ~:lJ:: 

r'.J.l.~' tho L1 t E: r st.'.'.; ( COJ"C".i~l erc o Cor.l is s i o :Cl ' l ~~~0 -1 ]:-;:Q ' (?:.-..-"1:-T- r ::. . -_;;:n 'C E; rs t~

Pl" ~Ss -19 3'~ ), 17-~n. 39: - ---· 11 3 e (the burc:::.ucr ".t ) ::~1 0n s best :r:v.'.t is. to be ~-r; cc ".LC. the r~os t 

coi1ven i e::t :er-..~1s 'Jf :.'.o ·:.;lC it' ; he is ~'l~ c ::·JOTt, ·ri~~: :.:· c ci ".l ·e:-.::s of 

.:: ,_ ;, : e ·-. t h i s co;'ux~: C" ; ~.l ~_,,_ Ylllei.1 :1 rin.cip 1e.s Oi 1.:-. ..-: ·-.::.·e ··n~.t L. }').is w-::"::f , 

he is ~:. t to be i m}Y'.tiont of thon ~·.s ne r e IJer1:~:;.1t c obscruct i'1::.so 11 J-:.~-len , 

::..nrc ~-'- UO l':_::l9.L.. J: i ·: r; h· n t , C; o -, Yo r::, 1 C? 31) , 59 • 

Sec ·ll so Brook i ngs nstitutio~ , op ~ ci t ., . 

11 'i~le Co c:.o str 1.tcture - - ~ - 1 just c;revr ' r :'.tl:o r 

t h:'.l'l ei: c~ :~. 2).' ;rt of ".l ~' cont er:r ---. oc.~ :"'l i. _ .. :;: , :r 

(35 ) ;.! O. 

1.:1 

16 

'18 

~;8 

,.. .. ) 

L). ".J 

50 

::<;.;1 

*3<: 

60 

~ate 

,Jo.n. 4 , 

J c,n . 12 ,. 

~8.,80 . :3 ' ' . 1'. ['..r • 31, 

Apr. 16, 

I.it,Y ' 

il f , .. \T 1·lc •rJ ')t 

. ' -" ' 

Ju:;,1o 2 ' 

Ju:nc .. n , 

c.,.uly ...,, 

! ·:.) ' 

Ju1J 2·~ ' 

July ' 

Ap1 ~ ' 

• ":- ' 

3:~4 

·1934 

9~ ~1 

193·1 

1934 

19 3~~

9! · 

19 0~'-

1934. 

193-1 

1934 

1934 

} Or' ; ..lt.'I..J 

True P.EFn'c sc:.~ ~.o~. t :,_ o:r.. . 

Stc.:..'.rl...:- .r c,_ c1 ~.us e fo r Uniform Cost 

Accounting . 

Ef: cc t of Co lLe Provi sions on Co:.1trc .. c ts. 

Coc:es Lcs i s1·..., tine fer rou s re-nre -

se:.n t;cl by t l1c ~ll ic2.nts . 

Tio~ Associ ti on ~o~re at tio~ o~ Co&e 

Aut~1o ri t:: 

COl-_ tr·.ct s for Fut v .. :ce Deliv:c'r;T in Ooen 

Price s.-st eJ:'<> . 

~~o tice 

U 0 ti Cv .::,ncl :i:o rin , 

Abuse of Pormrs of Co cLe Autho:ci t y . 
-L~-

7 7:~ ~f.-, ~1 '") ,- ,_ ,) ·;ot icc . 

( ... ,. ) I"birl . · .~ ' i ~ t , c" , ; * 

( ~ N 

'J I 

(08) Src Of. ic l' :mor'"' l'...''1Y. !io . ;..328 , J uno 7 , l 'J34 . 

('"8::-.. ) . '1 i : tc c..sL.,;_.r; · .1:..' t1Cl' "l l 1.1 l d0cu• ,_.1 t ·~..l.i)')J~ Chi n ~ro lom is 

Sc:cl"t<.; ~~CU! It• :1t 164 , ~l on~.., rcs •: , -~i'ld S.os i 0n , Let !.;or from tho rLtiop.nl 

Rc- c 0"10IY A•:tr. · .l j.st 1·"tor erlt i tlc , 11 EJT· l Oj"t?' ' )I t l.., lT """tionr,l Ro c ove:: y 

L.m :.istr~·~i·~ •• u 

(39 ) 

11 0;:1o :Jf t h -. 1 ' l T :o.blc :s e re· c~< . fo:r: t"lG ~::: A ort~"l1 i?. ~~ t on by tno 

c0d e c' e l U£"' .'''!::' '.;h:.t o:;: . i s c o'"c.;_ i :::.:; L~8Jll.J ~, ~. c oq1e t cr!.'c to c :-1.::. ry on t he 

ex:1.ct i:::..:: no;::: of c 0"'.o .. ct,J t i -. ti. )ns . ·r hc YRA FtJ.~l';JS5 ··:r· .. s to c cJnmr>.:1t ti1e 

scr.ri c cs ~f ·.:or.·-·~:.··· ~1- ·-- C..f t ;.).!ishoci. ::·e;m t '"'.ti. )~1s in t he ir fi c lC.s , .r~i19 V19 r c 

t m-J me:r t~'-:J)y ::'.1'.\.' i:.tc .l ect~..::. Ll ;,: c ··:·J ·:ul(.) of r c7i o::in::; ~.:; robl e!T'.s L1 t e r ms 

of t ho b1·o ·.L ll~~l- lic nt~. 8st r · t.',1: r ~'l;,.n fran ~ie "~.n , oi n t o f t .I1e . . . .... 

n ·" rT01'/8 ,... l· ., "~ -·stc of ~,-,.1 '"'-,.., ., l. ~1 · " '•'011" lr rco·1e' t i- c, "C .fl.C """ ~r:n "' J. . . - J \,;;1 •' _..., · '_, l j_ ' iJ f::>- "':1-' . ·-0 • ·, ' J .ly .: v .L ,), ,) 

c<llod. f or :1cn "':th '1. ·n·;- cti c l tur1: ;f u i n\. .. . A:".6. l.·,s t mc .. tt:::; r o f po ·~ y 

no cLe~· ut y -- - t o )~ ~ss o1ec'. .to ::\nJ c o,'..c c o·1c ri.'1.C .-:.n ~"lC':untry in wllic: 

he ·~.n:b s t ~:.~ . ti ''.l i L t o rc t "' . uc 1 s pGcifi c -:.ti o~: s mi :;h t ~"£'- ·1c 'been 

p ,rtio.l ly I!l.ct i:1 ~" ff ~: .::. :-,_ ·~:r: i. or gn:niz ' ti o!:t , s:uch :..',S Wt'.s orig i no.l l:r 

nt ('L1~) e( . i'To -'oubt r·.urLlG t:1e for~ J:'..ti ·l e :le ri o~~~ of lT?.A the y :;e re ·.:~ et , 

i n s ou o c'.ccrec , oy 11 clr ;,:L't Llt; lc~ ci. cr s in v:1ri ous f i e lds for tours of G.uty. 

But r·it;1 ··woo;:i: essi·r(: '"'-~ ' itic,:s t o tile v ol urno of y;o rl: , the N/._4. vJ;.s f orce d 

to i. jus t ~=' ers oL~c l i de""" l s t o t.J.lG :.v ilit~r of PlC' ~·i rL l. Fot.·;o ti -, tions 

on t11e fi s t .. 1r.jor cu,;~ ·,·e;:~c SiX~"~e l·vis d.. by de· u tios se l e ct ed .:\CCOl' c'.i ng 

to e ori·;in:::.!. :·•erso:1:::..e l :p l o.n . Aft <:H 'l~;·. t c odes ' '!C-l T G L1 g en e r a l clistribut ec.l t o t 11e 1 l o:-.st ·nu.T G..8 :1 •"'( 1 0.o:•ut y n.:..1c' ,.1G i n t ur::-1. r v!".s signec-:. them to 

su ch ~s! st- n. s ~~: "Cl' e .:-·.c :r:·j.J.:. . .::J2. e . 11 

"It h:::.s 'ucen ::.l l e .3;o::.. t~: t s•J'··s 0:f t :: :.·;'a ''ej'.:' L :.1. ::-, oci ' to -Jrot e ct 

the 11t r~ _,. ,.. of r:;r ou:_J s o r l ·:.r c;e ~J iscs . Tl1is of course is h """.rdly 

subj e ct ,to ·r r ific· ti o:.1. I t ~ tr~J.e t hc:.t r:Ot.lO Jf them , ~s vJ,:) l l !".s hi ::::~he r 

off i c L1l s , :·.! r e OI'. t er. -) 0r· .. : : lo::'..n fr om IYG.s i i1C s s cr:r.9 l o. 'Y'le n t s , C. t }r t 

most of t l.1er ::~ ct ec' t o rcturl1 to ri ·1 2.te r:ll') o~".mG nt ~:. ft r c.. t cm11 or:-:.ry 

tenure ":~. t t l1e l:RA . Tllec-e :Z:-·.c ts , hoviev cr, ".r o .1c r ely ~ p :'-.rt of t he gene r-'.1 

pe rso1re l ~.wo b l er.'1 ~1.: cl c .r. b e c_: i ·1cn :c:. o L:.7iri i ous nt o t r:. ti on otl1e r tron 

t l:.C' :::;e t.O r ;" .. l offoc'- li ·bi.:-:.s Cl.e Ec :c i 'becl i n t:ne t • 11 

A .:lemo:r-:-.. ;ldl.Lt b;:.~ E:.1:L c-;, =,- :: ~ to Con1i n D. Ec1YT\ '~-s , Octo · J.3 r 29 , 1934 

re ·..,_c!.s L1 ·) ·~ rt : 

II I ~1C.c}·.:g(."_ ,..,.::_ t~1 t i!C Per so~'-~:. l o::i'i c e ·- : Lnu.C. t :"!."' .. t Ass ist "' .. nt Deputy 

Aclmi :c1 istrtor Fr 'Lcis Lo' ..... thr o') u._ f ·1 it:.:1 t':1.:: lrv; f i rm of '.1is e , '!lliit y 

rud. 2. r bcf o:. v ~.~.o c .. '.r.Je t c :H:3 P::-•.y::r Di ·ri sio ~ of t :1e ~ 1..:\. . 

'Tis e , i:J:1i tn e~r '.:'l'·. ;: r~::: r 2.r e Gcne r·. l c om1s o l for the P:J..per Ind.us t ry 

9838 
- 198-

Authority , :-:',S v1e l ~ :.s for the Pr',j_)er nd Pulp Associ ",tion. The y ~)art ici p"',t e 

very d ir e ctly in the ~o roce e0. il1 c;s of the Co C.. e Autho rity through .1 r. Vlhi tney 

<:>,i.1l·- Mr. Pn r Le r • 

. Hr. Po,rl.:e r, h i ms e lf, i s .man::>,gL1g dire ctor of t he Boo"k P:'-:per ."cmuf ,...,_ ctur e r s 1 Asso cL tion , o,nd. r epresent s the Bo o}: 2..pe 1~ Division - one of 

t h o most i m}J Ortf'.nt di visions - L1 :-,ll e..Wn.in i s trD,t i ve r e l C',ti ons . He evidently succ eeded George H. Mec:,d , who wa s formerl y m".naging c.i re ctor of 

t h is group b e fo re ~ne b e came h:~, irr..un of t he I no. us tri2.l Advisory Bon.r cl . 

Mr. Me c-el is still vice-cha irm::m of t he Pn:per Indus tr~7 Authority • 11 

No ffici l st eme nt in the f orm of nn Administra tive or Office 

Order h;.s been found which co7e r s t his sub·j e ct. 

(40 ) R. D. Pa6.c.: ock, Cotton Gc:1rment M,",nuf :·.cturLv:; I :nrlustry ; We1rd W. 

Picko. , Paper Indus try; Til!Ik'\!1 B. C<".ntr e ll, Ice I~dustry; W. B. l£,\'7s on , 

Cotton Textile Institute; H. 0. King, Co~~~ er Industry; W. 1. Fin::;er , Rub· e r 

Associ a tion; Mo.x l'Icyer , Millinery IAdustry ; Emil Kekich, ~". tch Institute; 

H. B. Li!1.dso.y , Ab r 8.sice Gr:::.in GrL1C.ing '.7hee l; E. G. Mont gomery , CEtn:1ers 

Indus try ; John ME', the vvs , Jr., Ameri c:.n Glasswa re Indus t ry; A. B. Dicl~L:son , 

Cotton Ga rment; Wo..lter Mitchell, Furniture Manuf;:',Cture rs; Reed k,ne , 

Ret c:.il Mo tor Vehicle Trs d.e. 

See U. S. v. Wi £\ms , 19~ . U. S. 279 (1904) . 

(41 ) J ohns on, Ol' • cit., (Feb• 9 , 1935), 83; 

11 0f course the ch<\rg e t h::>.t we sold out to big busiYless. or u:!lduly 

f n.vored it is the p r e cise reverse of the chc..r ge of bullcLozing it, a :1d 

is e quc.LLy untrue. There is no doubt thz.t some deputies and e..ssisto.nts 

could neve r r e conc ile thems e lves t o the l a1)or provisi ons af the l <'..w 0-nd 

·were not c ·w rying them out in the spirit t h0.t nnimat ed them -- not cons cious l y, but bEJ ca use of l ong h£1.bi ts of thoug!1t i n ::1.. c ontrn ry C:. i rEJction . 

Whenever I f ow1d tho.t .this was true , I l e t such :nen r e sign. 11 

BrookinGs Institution , Oj) . cit., 136-13 7: 

"One f ::..ct was of pecL l i moort :>.j_1CG. Mos t deputies 'HeTe C:.r.",Vffi from 

t h e r- '. ~:s of business occup o.ti on s. By virtue of · tTo.ining .:>,nd i ncli n<,tion 

they were ther r fore sylll~) o. the tic wi t h t he busiae ss point of view. This fc:>.c t 

undol...ibt e d.l y colorecl the ir vi ews of wh: .t the p r o:p 8r content of ''- code vm.s 

t\n d o.ffected t he dire ction in which their influence W[',s exerted durL;,g 

c ode :ncgo ti a tim1s . The we i .:;ht ing of sucl1. bi;:' .. s ['.S deputi8 s 11".0.. is, hov1ever , 

l ess to be ch<'..r g od D.g<:tins t them t l1Li..n .::1.g~:. nst the es~)ons ibl e higher of f ici.:-.ls 

of the NRA. The .)Jnlw1t of definitive e:;uic-..o.nc e g i·r en them \V['~s slight. They 

weTe to oxc.ct a s much <.s possi ·ole in the c~ ct ion of r e - emp l oyment; were 

V'i.gU:.EJ l y i.nstruct ec~. c.g<-:>.inst pri .c e fixing ; were l e f t to a ssume th.:.t f'. n .s.~)· licn.nt grou:;_) b1ew rnoro n.bout t h e eJ:~echos for its prob l ems t h:m .:~.ny Oi.1G else ; 

;:'.nd. vve:•:a instruct ed i n n.n y c a s e t o go t codes c omple t ed . 

11 11

he one r t.:f',l gui de vrhich deputies l1.1.c~ •:r['I.S \-.rhc. t \7P.s [' lready in 

o.p J!I'ovect coG.es •. The S['.me guid8 wa s 02,1en to "',p:> lic2.nt groups . Since in 

the 8o.rlie s t code s tho }l.RA h:>.d gone f :•.r in grc.nt i n g collectives :poy;e rs 

ov e r p rices t:.nd·j') roduction , pre c ondent gra nted wide scope for concessions 

9838 
-1 ~·.

of pon 1 . 11 

~ . .,.,. )'_ , . 

( - " ) --r '1.'..11 r; t ~ :l .... 

b~r Pr csi·,_cnt Roos· 'vel t t 

Feeler .ti )ll :)f :7ecl 'r ~ l E r.11 

, St.- •tJ . .'o~..; · .. ! , l ' .- 1 • .A .~~.;tt·.:: ,;r·itt.c n 

~le r vrr , Prosic.<·~1 t ·•f the I,,_ti :nql 

l J;'c s is quot(>C . 'ille "rtic1e r c· / .. s in J)·"'..rt : 

11 I'efclc.dnc; L1, .:::e11:"'ti n 'Jf tl1e l~o"' Dc"'..1 m<'..c:lLlery fror. the !"'e rit 

r.· -s:.2.-1, -: .. ~s\...~,;"'\Jt ~ 1. te c.~ O"' .. t c.~.-.L'"!.t i :1 -~ rc:1 , 9~~~ , J~i'le elil;i blc reGist e rs 

o.i.~ ~-l ,"' i~,dl Scn·vicc Co"'t i s ior1 VJere :r1o..;.12- ;-{o".rs old . Lx::unin:'.tions :1-."'..d 

not ·occi: ~ e2.c. for ~- COi.!sider.:'l.1.)2. e ·.) criocl fo1· m:·.Ey Gf the rec;istcrs f~or.1 

,.,11 :. ~1 h~ cmor6 enc? ·".f;Enc i c s · •o1·1d :1 ·.re !1-..r~. to dr "'..w pe rsou.:e 1 , h ·.cl they 

b ·c:1 lc\ ... r Cj_vil .S e r7icc . 

""t:uncreC.s of th' ·u.s·· :;:~( s o~c rot c~ --.lifie( ·•er. ons ':vho lost the i r 

pas it i :)~ls ~urL1 t:w c:e,"~ ssi O!l "Q.d ·0ee:c1 ; i ·.r c il .o ~J.,.) ortlli1i t y to qu--.lify , 11 

~oose 7e t eJq_') l .ir:ocl. ~1o v·.-::; n~ ti n v:·'.s duo , 1 e s--.i r' , to red 1c ec. Civil 

Sc:rvioc ·.~"- T0 fH ~.tio::1 . 

11 T:1e Conl ssi ·~ n ric:.s not L: "· T>ositi.on to su;,•Y ' 1Y ir.rr ecl.. c. 1y the 

perso11::el n ::yuirecL ~1 ti1e ouer,;e;.1c~: -·.c;e:'ic ·.G s . I t vr :.s obvious , of course , 

t~l t these --.,6i1Ci e s , J..I the y Tel~c to Do effec t ive , vJOu1d. :'1".ve to begin 

Ol)Cl"c .t i J:lS :'..t ':ll'J.C O • 11 

( 1_1. _> ) 3ro J~ :L1~~;s L1s t i tut i ~1 , op . ci t . , lT . 27 . 

( 46) =-i e;' rL~G o:1 PrOJiOsecl .A:.:o:,:/· ~e nts t o chc Ce1nel:t L1c

1

.ustry Code , 

h .:•:Eovc( oc~e l- 0 • 1'::!5 , Co Ci.e~ o: ai r or~p etition , 7ol . III) , Ju1 ;- 11 , 1 934 . 

Jivisio::. k'1:1L isf-.:;:· _, o:.~ L·t.ITr,'.y : 11 Ym.1 ~"L'.JC r -.ised 1. q_uest.:..on vrhich I 

thiri!..:: sho1.1.l c1. b .: ::.:,1c ''G·. c C::. :1ore ·:rhile the cucst:'.Oi1 is cle2..r ir: the mii1ds 

of those of ~hc inc~uc:t:cy v1ho --~re ~')rcse:1t . Yo·c. h .vc m~~ p crso:c1r.l Cl.ssur:mce 

thr.t :noth .dl~ wiJ.l ~l::> "l_l ell to t~10 CGJ71 0!lt code , so f r-.r ''.s my es~;o nsib 1i ty 

extends , t'1·--..t c:oes 1:ot :r,·.re t~ e co:.:plote -.:-~sr:en t of the ::~ember~ of the industry 

Yiho lr.ve be011 ue l t.- f;':'.tec-:_ b:r tle inc-;_-,;:_stry to dmi nist r t he code . 

11 The p r opos2.1s ~c t ~~O"-.l :c•Jfe:. t o o.s 11·- vi ::J.L.~· '!JeC:!l m l.cle by Ad.vi sor~~ 

group s i :1 t he Ac'.mL1istr".tion :-·.:·e -Jre sen t cc. fo ·· discussion just ::..s thos e 

Vlhich .e.re the ~JrO~JOS".ls of ~i) UT c :c oup ' '.l!.G. L·. no ·ro.y clo they l1(. (~ t ho 

s c:t:lct .. JT: of the .Ad.mL1istrc:.tor ot:1Gl' t-:12:.1 t .lr t :1e ~~':l s CLl_r oi ~ter'\. n.;1d tk'l.s 

seen fit to c·i ve 

Ad·.ris o:c~ :'?o::.rC:.s . 

advisers , ~rrC i~ 

co1 s iC.or 'j l_c t:~),_lt)1t to tl.1e :rocon e~ .l ::.-.. ~ i o:1s 'Jf the 

The~~ .:' v:h:~ t their t itle rrou1c lc-.c~ o:.1e to beli:- v e , 

no yJ·.y ·.a t,.i: .l e~; T.:·.'l:e t ' 2se ~J o~oos .1s in o.n y other ~~po. city 11 

(~7) ~it 1e I, Sect1. on lO (b ) . 

(48 ) I :1fr:-> , I X ,"lltl . .~: . I n :"'. ·.:emo r 'l.:'lC.'.un , C.2 t cd :Uecombcr 15 , 19'33 to 

the onsuT~lers AC::.risor:- 13o ·· r ,- f:..·oL1 2.11 .•. cv ~-" , re b~1e Pu~) ic Heo.ring of 

the S•_:> r D.y Pa intii1g 2.nc'. FinishL'lc; ~c:ui~)mc t iiC:.!lull.cturi:lg I nd.ustry a n .J.ccute 

ex--unp1e of t~1i s f es lL1[" is i llus t.-..~ -- ec~. . 1c pre siC Ll[; of: ice r showed 

extre ·1 e c..:1;.o::-·.:t:ce· ~~ t t~1e <'fv i se1· ' s sU("ges t .:. o" s . 5e interrupted h i m 11 with 

9838 
- ::;Gvsqu o l chL1g but not a ng r y quest i o:as 11 , a11d. fi n·;.lly 2.s !ce rl him t o ::_Jut 11furt ' _e r 

SUGGe s t i ons--- in ·-.. or t t o b e sub . .1itt eC:. t o h i m ~. ft r t he l1e-.ri:r>.g ." 

o.t cl~ the :;, dL1€~ off i c e r t ol d the. adv i s o r t h.1.t his ::-.cti ons mre 11 embo.rras L1C t o h i m ('"1.:t1.d t he Adm st ~. on ." 

(49 ) J ol.mson , op . cit ., (J"'.:i1U"'.ry 19 , 1 ?.05) 74 ; 

11 o i n0.u str i o.l _~ ro c!.lJ.c r 7h o 1-:nows r.l l o:oou t t he pri c e 2.nC. i nventory 

si tu:--.t i on i n h i s i ndu s t ry- i s [:;oii:c t o oc:_uc e L1 t h e f ::>. ct of an unm.". c: ,~ bl e su r}Jl us .:-.nd. 2. d.O\'i!1.Wc.r d pri c e tre nd. I t ~- not ::1ece s s"...rily 

r e quire 8.ny quo t ::. syst em t o tt 2. n ·che ~~ of co:s.1trol od in ustri .::- 1 y roduct io n. Al l t h .. ~. t i s :weC:.eci. i n i .d.ust r y is full, :'..Ccur:- t e , co.:-rp l e t e .J.n0.. 

h onest i nfor m::-.tion o:c1 p ri c es ::" (:. i11.'rento ri e s ." 

This does no t c o;J.sicler t~ e hUl1l,;e r ~ volUJ."!le th~·. t G. rove m :ny i nd.u stri -:'.1 

conc e rns to k '1m'ri ngl y o~re r J: . 

(50 ) Bro ":lk i ng s Ins tituti·)'r:, . cit., 2 73. 

(51) i.Iemor-:-.ndUI!l t o Cons-t.J.IJers ' Adviso r y :So _<. r C::_ f· r.1 W. 1. Ch:-.nd ler 

June 3 , 1935. "Subj e ct: Some inci cl e nt s 3.e flect i:ng t he At titude of 

Depu t i es ~.:1cl Ot h e r A.c istr :-:. iv e Off ici ...:.. l s :i: :;. c~ C01i.sur.1e r Pr ob l ems 

~l1d Con.su, e r s 1 Ad.visory Bo.•.:rC. 2 r pre s e r: t :.t i ·re s. 

·· "Wh en EL.i s -~ s ~:. d e!Jil.ty c~ s h.::..nd lil':g :?.eL.i l So J.i d :?ue l :.e ~- .c :::. 

s i mi L..:.r c onp l J. ce:.1.cy in r ega r d to t ha t Co<ie . As one i l l u s t r :.t ion of 

t he t roub l e vrhich e n s ued fr om tha t I thinl: of t he e:;x:;_oeri enc e with de t e r -

mL1a t :L ons of lowest ~"<- D .. b l e costs . 

11 We di s cov ered th,:.t L1s t c:...: .. d. of · exe r c i sL1g supe rvi sion ove r the 

c ost s bei:i:J.g de t or rnineci_ by the l cU v i si mr .l Coci e Aut ho rit i e s , he :1 ~ d 

d isc our ('"1.t;ed .::..ll division .::.l Code Aut h oritie s f rom s en C::.. L1g t o this off i c e , 

t he trc.ns cripts , of l1e 2.rings , cost cl:·"t ,:\. c .. :1C. o t he r i n formo..t i on nece ~. y 

t o .:::m o..n;1 l y s i s of t he c os t C.e t c rmilr :. t i 011 vrlli ~1. i t rrr.s his du t y to be 

f .::uni l L:-.r wi t h i n c onfor mi r wi th the Code wh i hc p rovi de s t:'k.:.t he sh .. ~ l l 

h :-:re J.:;he tright of t l1e ~m st .to:c to '-"-l)")rov e , c". i s.-.. .:;-.: :;_ ove or moc:i f y .' 

"The deputy 11<-'.d. :--> t temp te ~ t o c orcmmni c -.t e vvi t h the CoO..e Autho ri t .,r , 

bu t he.( r e c e i 7 ec_ n o r GlJ l i es . ?::o ~1 t ,.·. ;-1o.n to c ::-. 11 on t ho ic er~: of 

t ·l

" c - ,', s s o ci ,, ·.. ti 01'1 . . 

The of' .:.i.r l · c e r s l,;. "' ~--• c ;'', v e "r'

oy ' h.-.:,•_Y:.~v . - " -_,, ictu:-e of the ou_ ""

ti ons of t h e Cocle . The Co.::.".e Au thority i1_....c1. ,~ me nd ' t h e ~ . .-_e t h r e e t i mes , 

h ol. iJ1se:c ec~ t lle :or ovi s ion r e quirL:.g ,-. 200 p erc ent ~r ? 0::1 , 11 t he i r 

produc t s , -. :~ . in g ene r :.:.l the~r vre r e f;et t i ng _.long sp l endi cll ' • I believe 

t h -.t sui t : .. b l c :-._cti on by t he ut y ·r·:.s und er r~y '7hen t ne Suy r eme Cou r t 

de c i si on 'i ·-~. s '.J."cC~e ( dovm . 11 

Se e c,l so l e t ter b y i'i.:J.l t er it , Dep uty Ac1mi n i s t r;-.tor , to t he 

IV!a yoa :1o.i ze I ndust ry. 

11 r.Ir . W. F . 1. Tut t l e , ]' ~: m~ ing .A.ge::.1 t, J uly 6 , 1934 

Code Autho r i t ;y· for t he a~ n: .:- i S 8 I ndus try 

114 Eu s t 3Jd Stree t 

Nev Yo rl.~ , F . Y. 

9838 
11 1''1 .1.<- ~Jj 

_-\ i.l t 1 0 i t • I : • \ : 

. ' \"' ~ 

'7 , . 

1-

11 L1 :. ~ )J: rl.• 1 c · ;i1;' • ~-:~ " ·.· (· --- t, .,. , t •.:.: r! rc; r,c lGfUled 

fo:· J,1l- 6t:1 n s ::> c 1. r ':)' _ unti.1. J-oJ.;r 10tl: . T.li'"' >e • L1{'; i ... 

fo:c t}.c •l1!. >8S J~ r c · i v i · g uvi d_C'LC• ·;rit~1 vL:q· 'v0 cl tcrr.in,~. tion 

;·· ~c ·:,. rT: i "'.t t .... J.ow..,. t re ~,~0il bll C·! t f o :c }E~ocuc · s of the 

~·;'c.:~ isC' n'u~t ·;.· .~.: .. ceo· C.."·cc '.Ji t1 • tLo ~~ r')vir.._ons of t he Code . 

I m fl:.p· .- vO i1oto fr m Rcl c:- s0 #7 t :1 t th0 I ndustr.r f'l'.r. t ~:en st cpn 

to co:--· c t the vrice si h .;. · t :..on i tsc lf, :..~r' .C~lt'r t h .n .i.)ut t he burC:.en 

o·1 t£lis AdmL1i. t r t : on to lc .~ ul t c Y•)UT Imtustry. 

11 qhi l_ it i. the '=''Jlic:' of the ~T .t 1.on""l Recov ery Ac"':.mListr .t ion 

t J i:1vo':c cv~ry :' \1 lie J 1.G oc~" :..,··ov:..::.:i'):."'i j.11 t.i·t' cli.!i·1.t LOn of 

t'c~t:.'J.cti.·.e · :ce cut' L~_; , ·;c -:u.c:1 Y'~:.. ei\.::.~ t.~ -~ t'.1c 10l:'.be rs of .:.ny 

1..., ·1·tic1.ll 1· i~1c>J."'t.:·3 ·,· _ : ;,_·._ b? :-.. :,:·.-:- L1Cll~ to follo'iT . con~ · u cti·1e 

' o2.i c;· J.r. 8 ·.lf - pr•;s ' '" I t.i.0:1 fo:·· t:l[ .'Ln~' u:- t 1·;,c .:- c'. Vll'lo l e 1 nhich cloes 

i."..O~ rcou.i.Tc th~ LtCl -,r~J:. 't :m ·)1. tilf c·o-l:. :cn cn t . I f :'ou c 1-: f-...rrnish 

us '.7i :..· ---o:. l1 l J e· L. ·~ :. c t.~1. t the ~o .. , .~Fico l i s t s r enovo t'l1e 

8:'10 .::;er~ '-' itu .t .;.')J". ir: ~: .. · r: :. yo·.-,_~ i s'J I 11(u f: try , .,,e will b e c l .cl· t o 

--- jou· ~l t h;;; ·.ro~;:)su: ·lc :. ~.:.: l8 J~ i1 itc:!)' • I e: .:~ ir. hope t h-- t 

I Pl''~; ·, ·r ·. "UC'1 ,.,O.•'U f'I'"tl ' '0 1 l)r Ol"·.· +-lH ll ... 4cJ --t '.: \:_:; • - • J - .. .:: • .l..L. \.J- fJ • 

Vur :r t -rul y ~,r'J1~. , 

·:r -..1 tc r Wh it e 

:U c~..,u y .AdJJini s t r - to: • 11 

9838 
- 20 2-

NOTES TO F~TEn VII 

(l) Sup ra, I II. 

(2) Supra, n, '7 Uo 

( 3) Sup ra, IV, 2. 

(4) Title I, Section 3(b). 

(5) Approved Code i'Jo. 84, Fabrica t ed Het c:.l s Products Mf g . t' etal 

Coating Ind., Codes of Fa ir Competition, II, 3Z7. 

(6) Approved Code No. 28 7, Graphic Arts Industry, Codes of Fair 

Competition, VII, 1. 

(7) See J. r.r:. Hadley's Report on tl1e Graphic Arts Indust ries, April 

3, 1935, to the Consumers 1 Advisory Boe..rd. 

(8) See transcrip t of he .?,ring for the AnimEtl Soft Fair Industry, 

Dec. 7, 1933 (Approved Code No. 253, Codes of Fair Compe tition, VI, 97) . 

The industry employed forty-five men a t its peak~ Its yearly business 

was from $200,000 to $300,000 gross. 

(9) Approved Code No. 9, Lumber t Timber Products Ind., Code of 

Fair Competition, I, 95. 

(10) Approved Code No. 116, Mop Stick Ind., Code s of Fa ir Competition, II, 57. See also the Paper Disc Milk Bottle Cap Code, ap:p roved 

Code No. 246, Codes of Fair Competition, VI, 16; a nd the Sanita ry ·.1 ilk 

Bottle Closure Code, Approved Code No. 371, Codes of Fair Co~~etition, 

VIII, 581. 

(11)· Approved Code No. 25, Oil Burne r Industry, Codes of Fair Corn-

:. eti tion, I, 339. Brookings Institution, The Nationa l :rtecovery Administr ~ion- _An Ana lysis and an Anur a isal (1 935). 

(12) He D.ring on Traffic Control Signs ~ Sig na ls Industry, Vol. 1, 

Mar. 30, 1934: 4- 11 94,(b) and 94 ( a) have to do with the su·oplemental 

code s for tra ffic control signs and signals industry and the adv ertising 

met a l signs and display me nufa cturing in~ustry which the record shows 

were orig ina lly offe red under t he code of fair p r ac tices for t he f abricated met als industry a nd origi n2lly occurred on the p reliminary set-up 

list of the fabric t ecl meta l industry v'.rhich was offered a t the time the 

code was offe red to the administre tion. In t he considera tion of t he se 

t wo there is nothing in reg rd to l 2bor unde r t he a greement r eached a t 

the time the code of f a ir p r a ctices for t he f abric> t ed me tal y roduct s 

manufa cturing a nd finishing industry conta ined i n supplement2.l codes 

offered, nd appearing on the list wou l d make no chan&es in the bor 

p rovisions of t hc. t basic code, a nd these, 2.s we underst a nd it from t he 

records, were origina lly offer ecl under t ha t code. In the trcnsfer of 

this code, it ap1:"' e a r s the t t hese t v;o sup'":llemen t e l codes were in t he 

wrong c a tegory in going under the me rl..: i n·:· devices indu s try , c: nd after 

discussion betwe en t he Administra tion a nd t he t wo co de com.-·n ittees, this 

he cring was called to consider removing them from the ma rking d evices 

9838 
indus try c:> nd ··"'U t t hem 

meta ls i nluc;try . 

} ,, he r s tiC,\' ri ~. w: ll y r:ome from the fabrico ed 

(14) rtest c- ur< n t Indust:r;; , ·.~c No . ·.8...., , Co d0.~; of Fa ir Com1Je tition, 

Vi, 51 2 , Art . III , Sec . 1: "Tv; ~~rm 'resLur nt ind.u :-:- tr;y ' es used herein, sha ll mean t :e busine ss of o:pe r e ting , directly or ind ire ctly or through 

any subdivision, a rest e?ur c- nt , a s hereino.ft e r defined i n Sec. 11 

Bclcing I ndustr y , Co de No. 445 , Codes of Fa ir Com.:;e t i tion, Vol. XI, 

7, Art. II, Sec. 1 - "Definitions : "The term ' taking Indus try ' or 

'Industr y ' s used he r s in sha ll me on the manufa cture, dis tributi on includ i ng trucking , and/or sale, in a ny manner whe?tsoever, of b ake ry ::_Jroducts. Sa i d t erm shall not include ( a ) hotel s , club s , r est aurants and 

simil a r p l a ces where b akery p roducts a re manufa ctured exclusively for 

consump tion a t the pl ce· of manufa cture, (b) wholesale or erta il groceries, 

provided the owner or ope r a tor the reof does not ma nufc;cture, directl y or 

indirectly , through a n a~e nt, a ffili a te unit, or otherwise, any Dart of 

the b akery p roducts offe red for s a le therein. If r.Jholesa le or retail - . groceries do so ma nu f a cture a ny pr ·· t of the b akery products offe red for 

sale there in, a s to t her.: sc:.ic: t Grm snall include only the m;:,nufa cture, 

distributi on incluu'ing truck ing , a nd/or s a le of the ke ry products manufactured· bJr them·. rr· · . · · · 

(15) See Consume rs .h.dvisory :S.oc rd Fil 3s, :BPking _Industry ,Code Summary, 11-1 2 . 

( 16) emor J1duin to A. C. Cook from Con sume rs .Ad vi sor~r Bo a r d re 

Request of \fnolesale HardYJar!.~ Inclustr;: for Extension of Exemption from 

the V!hole~c::.le Plumbing cmd atin::; Code: 11 Tne ·whol esale plumbers prefer 

to sell . exclusivel ' to :~u te:c plumo ers or p lumbint.S contractors .. Whole~ 

sale had:m.re houses do busine ss with the l a tte r and also with r e tail 

hardware stores. 3ec a1ls e of this and other C:.if:ferenc e s in me thods of 

doing business, the wholesale p lumbers de sire price filing, the h c:rdwo.re 

wholesalers do not. Why force the l a tter to file prices? In addition 

to this, is the further considera tion thut p rice filing under distribution 

cod.es offers far greater problems tha11 ·uncler manufacturing codes, and .. 

trose distributin; codes with price filing provisions are having considerable difficulty. We recommend exemp tion f rom this provision. 11 

( 17) Approved Co d.e 160, Fur Trappi nf!: Con tra ctors, Codes of Fa ir 

Comp etition, IV, 151. 

(18) See Title I, Section l and especiall~r Section 7(a) (b) and 

(c), indica t ing tha t l abor WRS to receive certain benefits from the co des. 

(19) John M. Keatin[; , l a t e r General Counsel of the Dress Co de Authority , now in the p riva te p r a ctice of l a-;v in New York City. 

(20 ) All the .stor,y tha t can be f ounc;. in r~ ting ex ists in the transcrip ts of hearing. 

9838 
- 2CA- . 

(21) Consumers' Adv isory Board memorandum to D. C. Pilk ington re 

Pump Manufacturing Code, (Approved Co de No . 37, Codes of Fair Corrrpetition, 1, 673), May 14, 1935. Tne industry tried to include manufacturerQ 

of dredge pumps, who had little relation to the industry. At least 

t welve industries or subdivisions were affected by t he broad definition 

of the industry. 

(22) Field, The Effect Of' an UncC'.1stituti6nal Statute (Minneapoiis, 

1935) • 

(23) Legal Memorandum, No. 16 from Jack Garrett Scott, re Conflict 

between -Codes and Anti trust Decre e s, l1.1arch 31, 1934. 

(24) Memorandum by Eugene Culver to the Consumers~ Advisory Board, 

re Anti-Trust Decrees and Inju_~ctions, June, 1935 : 

11 i'Vh ile these (some named) a.re the ·oi.1ly codes- in which the decree 

of injunction has been modified, it seems certain that of the 169 remaining cases -in which decre es have been entered thLt these defendants 

are now oper ating in violation of some cod.e. It is not like ly that any 

industry or group of industries, sufficiently large to have been considered a monopoli stic menace under the Anti-Trast laws, could have escaped codification under the NB.A.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

The case of the United Sta tes vs. Tile Manufacturers Credit Associ ation, 

et al. involving 13 corporate defendatns and 15 individua l ctefendants is 

illustr ative. There has been no modification of the decree in this case 

which enjoins 23 specific acts, 12 of which are permitted, in fact required , by the Floor and Wall Clay Tile Industry Code approved by the 

President on November 4, 1933. 

11 The following practices· (copied from the decree) are enjoined. 

• • • • • • • • • • • 

9838 

(a) To adopt or use a uniform basic price list, or to fix and adopt 

list prices for their products; 

(b) To est ablish or maintain uniform prices for. their products; 

*(c) To establish and maint ain individual prices that are uni f orm 

for all/ classe s of purchasers or dealers and for all sales; I 

*(d) To establish or maintain rules or regul a tions as to the acceptanca of orders at prices in effect prior to changes therein; 

(e) To establish or ma inta in uniform extra ~har es for builtup 

l etters, for nurnber·s or f or beveled edges; 

*(f) To establish or maint ain uniform limitations on the proportiona t e amounts of t he lower grade s of tile sold; 

Cs) To sell tiles f.o.b. f actory with freight equa liz:ed with other 

f ac tori es i n t he United St c: tes manufac turing the same class of 

tiles; 
(h) To comp il e <'Tid !~tr · u t e fro i '":ht r nt e b ooks for use in making 

:fr ei t eq Jli ~a Li ; 

*(i) To ... t blis'1 or mrti ! r~ 1 1.mil.o rm t e1 ms of sale; 

(j) To est Elbli ... h or moL1tni n uni f orm oncli tions on or for the 

acceptance of orders ; 

(k) To establish or maint ain unif orm char ge s for ·barre l s , half 

barrels or bo xes used for shipping tiles ; to refuse to a llow 

credit f or olrl p ackages r e turned; to quo t e price s with package 

char5 e s inc luded , and to char ge :t'or packages whe t her used in 

shi pment or not; 

*(l) To est ablish or ma intain uniform conditions for the furnishing of tiles f or sample purposes ; 

(m) To r efuse to combine l e ss t han carload shi pments into carlo ad 

shi nts invoiced to one of the purchasers; 

(n) To :tefuse to sell to an;r persons or corporations because of 

any unpaid account or accounts; 

*(o) To formul a te and establish or to r e tain in effect any requirements, circumstances , or conditions,nonconformity or noncompliance with which shall exclude any customer or customers 

from securing credit .or shall impose any limitations or conditions whatsoever upon the credit granted; •• ~ • # ' • 

*(p) To restrict s a les to ~ea rs oi contrab tors in tile or to 

e stablish uniform requirements for cl a ssific·ation a s dealers 

or contractors; 

(q_) To establish an r syst er:1 of oooper stive purchasing of raw 

m<:-.t eri a ls or suppli es or of cOOj_"Jer ati ve owning of the sources 

of r aq mat eri al s, 1ich r:. ll elimina t e or tend to eliminate 

competition in tile purchasing of s a id materials or supplies; 

(r) To adop t or to us e a common tr ademar k ; 

(s) To pool orde rs or to enter joint bids; 

*(t) To prepare a..11d publish c:m ' list or lists of dealers or O.f 

certified dealers ;" 

Those starred. were listecl b~r lv1 r. Culver as he..ving been allowed b.,r 

the Code. 

(25) Bro oking s Institution, op . cit., 78: 

(Reference i s made to overlapping jurisdiction resulting from the 

number of regul a tory aGencies created by the pres ent administration.) 

9838 
- 20 f)-

11 The jurisdiction of many of these agencies overlaps that of others 

in many important respects. Even if there is no ou tright overlapping 

of jurisdiction, the total cover age is s~ broad that adop tion by one 

agency of a given policy or method may vitally affect t he success of 

another agenc:J• in carrying out previously adopted ::policies • 11 As an 

example of this problem, the rel.ation between codes such a s lumb er and 

timber products and the construction code with the activities of t he 

FHA i s given. 

(26) Mr. W. H. Rastall who is making a study on relationshi ps with 

other government agencies furnished this information in a conversation , 

November 8, 1935. 

( 27) National Labor Board, National Labor Rel ations Bo ?Jd , and the 

Department of Labor. 

( 28) He aring on Te'legraphic Co!Thllunic a tions Industry , Feb. 6, 1935. 

The question of jurisdiction was brought up at page 52. 

11 Mr. Vfui te: They (The Federal Communic c.tions Commission) had a 

hearing on free service here just a few weeks ago. 

"Deputy Administrator Fuller: They retained jurisdiction over that. 

"Mr. White: I think pretty generally they have jurisdiction over 

· everything. I t~ink tha t is one of the difficulties." 

(29) Mr •. C. H. Osthagon, Deputy Administrntor furnished this info.rmation in a convers a tion j'.Jovernber 8, 1935. The relationshi p , he stct er., 

was quite cordialo 

(30) Se e hearing, Electric Light and Powe r ~n ustry, J an. 12-13, 

1930, 10 a. rn., Hall of Nations, Washini ton Hotel, Wa shin ton, D. C. 

(31) Approved Code No. 199, Cork ·Industry , Codes of Fair Competition, V, 45, Merchandising Plan, requiring that distributors file va t h 

manuf ctUl~ers their prices on certa in items; see also Amendment No . 2 

to Approved Code No. 199, Cork Industry~ Codes of Fair Comp etition, Vol. 

XX, 271, requiring that industry members shall not sell to distributors 

unless they enter into the contract provided for i n t he r1 erchandising 

Plan ; see also Approved Code No. 88, :i3usiness Furniture, StoraGe Equi pment and Filing Suppl y , Code s of Fair Competition, Vol. II, 380 , Exhibi t 

C, Art. VI (f), which was once int erpreted as r equiring resale price mai ntenance. All uniform contra cts, Approved Code No. 546, Pacific Coast 

Dri ed Fruit Industry , Co des of Fair Compe tition , Vol. JG~I, 39; also 

Approved Code No. 503, Pretzel Industry , Codes of Fair Competition, Vol. 

XV, 87. 

( 32) Ibid. 

( 33) Memorandum bJ Blackwell Smith to the Lee;al Staff, May 24 , 1934, 

re Co des Legisl ating f or Groups not requested e Applicants. 

9838 
- :2C7-

"Many of the , ro'b l c'ms o! in 'ustri .:s ... 8 l ·1 t c to pr D.c ti ccs of individual .., 

outsi de of the j n(iu t J·;,· i .,~G l' , suci1 < ... s mnlr'lructicc-:; of jo'ubcrs i njuring 

a produci n_;; iach: . ...;L-;,r . r..:: ~n·.:- i.; t·.: ... .:. v .t.)rGf;Jure ... or eli minat ion of such 

prRctices even. tJ.1 o~:,;;h thL''r u ·i .::;c <' ut:i ' e o .C the ind.ustr y f or v1hich the 

code is ::J.d.op t e . :e nr-: [' S .. Le0 to o this ome tiues b:r p rohibiting any 

trans actions ~~ t ·:een me: be ·s o ,· t '1e co clifiecl in clu..., tr~ r and memb ers of some 

group who en5a~; e in t;l1e practices o~·l:r.i in c~o. of. Some times lso the app licants seek t c p rovi de for a requir ed agr eement to be ente red into by 

the member of t he other c roup in transactions vi th membe rs of the codifi ed 

ind.ustry. 

11 Section 3 ( 0 ) sets up the procedure for codifying a.. 'trade , industry 

or subdivision thereof' on applicnti on of a trade or industrial associ a tion 

or g roup for such trade or industry or subdivision thereof. Such associa.-

tions or g roups must te truly represent a ti ·e of sucl1 trades or industries 

or subdivisions. When a code is approved its provisions become the standart.s for the trad.e or industr:r or subdivision. 

11 The who l e conception is of volunt a :('y codifica tion of a particular 

trade or industr y or subd.i vision thereo f on t he opplic 'ltion of an association or g roup tr,I l r reprosent a ti V G of it. It i s p robc-:o le tha t purported 

codificAtioi1 of one group on app lic -tion of anothe r group under Section 3 

(a) is 1il tra vires. In an:r event it i s contrary to t he principles u nderlyin -; the concep ti on of the Ac t. 11 

(34) He :-tring for Approv eci Code No. 59 , Har l-:inb Devices Industry -

Proposed Arnend.meat to Code of Fair Compe tition, J Dnua r:,r 30, 1935, (Codes 

of Fair Comp etition, II, 13) 84 2nd 86. 

11 Mr. ~urray : Mr. Aclministr a tor, this Co de for the Tr D.ffic Control 

Signs and Signals Industry, this p rop osed Code , is one of the Codes tha t 

has been bruit ed about for many months in cm effort to secure approvaJ:, 

and. it h e.s been po..ss ed through the .:tevi ew Division. The Code as a Code 

is acceptable to the Ad.rninistr· tion and is now ec cl~ T for approval in its 

final form. Ho vifever, t'1e Revi ew Division h ave questioned the representative chro~ ct r of the sponsoring c roup and reque te d t hat that ma tter be 

firmly established before Administra tive app roval will be g iven •••••. 

11 A que tionnaire was sent t o the ent ~T-six lmown members of this 

industry, replies received from a l arge majo:ri t 2r , and. it clearl:v indic tes 

tha t the proponents who orig ina lly claimed to represent 75~ of the industry 

in truth onl;y represent 25% no-w. So the t ables, as it were, are turned, 

and t h e non-associ a tion members are more representative of the industry 

than the association members. The a ssociation p roposing the Code has 

been properly notified tha t t he ir approval is not sufficient to obtain 

Administrative app roval of the Code • 11 

( 35) See the transcript of hearing, Playin~ Card Appendix of the 

Graphic Arts Code, January 10, 1934, 36 et seq. 1rhere appears an indication that U. S. Playing Card Co. cl.esired n o pl~ ice control in the industry 

and held back in approving the administrative structure for tha t reason. 

It was succ e ssful in securing its wisheE. 

9838 
- 2C8-

In connection ·with the problem of assent it mi &ht -oe ar6Ued tha t 

an assenter would be es~oppe d t~ deny the represent a tive character of the 

prop onents. Answe rs of dure s s and secret action and intent mi 1,5ht be 

made. 

.·· 

9838 
1 V.r ES TC CHAPTER VII I 

( 1) The ProcP.d r·1 1 heme ·1nd t hf> Fe.·1 ring s . 

(Brookings Institution 1934), 219 : 

".An advantage p ossessed by adm inistr1.t ive tribuna ls, which, if p roperly sefeguarded , is a lso an advant age to the public , i s the r e l a tive 

simplicity and flexibility of their methods, -p rocedures, rules of evidence, 

.and ma~ner of me].dng: decisi ons. In i1 .n r c;1.ses snch tribuna l s a re ·":i ven 

n o 'lE"T t J ost cbl..ish their 0 '.' :1 uro .. PClnro , t o crPa t e the ir O''rn rul s of evi -

dence, anc: to control t o a ve~y 1n.r;<!(' eJ-t ent the fA Gt ~ \'lhich 'ill g~ ve :- n 

the ITk'JJ::i n:.<; of the ir deci si n~ . ~ven w:h en they are n0 t ei ven comnl ete P0\7er 

in such n atters, t he_r are g nerally left a much fre er hand than t ho orc inary trt~ no~s ~s . 

11 .. or _eover , the .judicial courts thm':se1ve s h "l.VO be en very liberal in 

leA.ving such e, _,_thori tie. a f r ee he.nd in t h e se ma tters, inst ead of insistinr on ~e nn1ic~t n of ordinary ju~icial nroc edure a~d c rit eri a . It i s 

generall•r the l)r actice of adminL trative boards a nd tribuna l s to conduct 

their hee.riT:.@.'s in a. much freer manne~ t han the judicial courts would emuloy. Thus, the hearings a re ,:ener allv ex-oeditod , rules of evidence are 

reduc ec1_ to a mj_nimui·n , cases ar e f r eonen t1y ur e sent ed without counsel or by 

uublic account ants, And the cisions are based not merely on the evi dence 

uresentecl i:'1 t!1e hearinf .o f t he cas e , but a l so on facts gather e d by the 

commission or o..dmini s tr."l tive tribunal itself." 

( ?) p)i~ .• ' l?Ll-1 75 : 

11 Tbel.~e e.re n.o .o·enera l rul e s of ceclu e CJ.') '"11 i cab le t o the au thoriti cs t .L1c:.t :.~ e ca.n""'ITinp- 0n e.clmini strr1.tive .!'l,d j ,Hlica ti on . ? r ocedur e i s s o 

vari ec~ t~ 2t no l ::> ',rnrer 1810 ' " S h iJ '"T to nro ce e d .i th c: c.«.se ,-,i t hou t examini::.v ; - - - '"-

the ne rtic1., le.:.~ rulE's of t he author it:; 1,.-,it"h r-h ich he i s c,_ee.lin·g . · ~ven 

vrhen he c

1

.oes s o , he J11BV f'incl th e rul e s so vague and indeffni t e that he : 

harc'l11• !-:r..o·-·s --.:i. th e.nv de 1

q;rP.e of cer c:d~1 y :rha.t is required.. Al thou h 

severa l el eJ1o :i~ e.. e c ener a l treatis es 'l ave ·been v1 ri tten Oi1 the subject of 

federo.l ') rocedure and ura c.tice, a s nell as man,; spe cial treatises dealin6 

with the pr ce c~ure of n a rticul a r a&-!1 inistrative adjudi cating bodies and 

a dministra tive tribuna l s , l avryer s ~ vre ll a s litigant s a r e often at a l o ss 

regard.inc; t he :o ro p e r s t eps to t ake . 

11 les of evi d_ence r ange a ll t he way f r on t ho s e almo st as s trict as 

the rules y.-~ lied in or dine.r y judici a l courts t o n r act i cally no rul es, except, :9e:.'ha:•1 S, t h o se of ordinary common sense . I n s ome ad.r.inistrative tribunals, t he he2.ring s a re v ery formal . In other s , they c:.re scarcel v more 

f ormal tha11 conve r sa tions. Infor mality is generally mo s t pr onounc e c in the 

case of n i xed e.ut ho rities where the · quasi-judicial functi on is as yet hardly rec ogniz . Ye t even b e f ore s ome of the authoriti es t hat are acting as 

controllinG e.gencies over admi ni s tra tive ac tion, there i s ver y littl e 

f ormality- m1d t he rule s of evi dence are almost negli.gib l e . 11 

It should b e po inted out that lll.les of evidence and p r ocedur e freouently vary rrith t he jurisdiction, and. t ha t in p riva t e l aw courts, the attorney 

9838 
- .G l ) -

enco1mters the same difficu lty as these rules are so different and of 

such ci ebe?.te.ble me rit, ancl especially in the ca se of a drn.i ni strati ve boclies 

where t:1e roble s vary , have S})ec'ial r easons for diff ering. It woul d 

seem h~ t t h e authors ' criticism, if mean t as such , is not particularly 

in po i :nt , a lthough it !ni gh t be desirable to have some simpl ification. 

( 3) Van Vleck,- 11 Adminis tra tive Jus~ice in t~1e Enfo rc ement of 

Q,uasi-C:::iminal Law, 11 l George Vfash ing t oj}____Law _Review 18 ( 1932). The 

author sut;e::ests t ha t only t wo reference s t o ad:ninistrative procedure f or 

expulsion of the Act are mad,e with in t he Ac t: (l) Pr oceedi nE_:s begin by 

the arrest of the accused on ·a · vmrra nt issued. by t he Secretar,y . ( 2 ) Tile 

accused r.1ay have bail. The . Admi ni stration worked out its own rules of 

procedure. See 3ule 19, Rules of ,January l , 1930 , page 37 . 

( 4) :Blachly and Oatman, op . cit., 163 . The authors po int out t.l_at 

statutes va17 as to established urocedure for administrative b odies. The 

statutes outline p rocedure for the Interstate Cormnerce Commission, but 

say little or :nothing of the Federal Trade Commissi on. Ot hers defini tel

give pov1er t o administrative bodies to establish ~heir own rules. On 

this proposition, see Stephens, Administrative Tribunals and the Rules 

of Evidence, p . 8. 

(5) Comer, Legisla tive functions of Nati onal Administrative 

Authori t v (HeY/ York 1927), 200 : 

11 In recent years many of the st8.tutes autho-rizing delegated legislation hav e include d provisions to the effect tha-t a hearing must oe held 

before such legislation can legalli i ssue." e.g., .37 Stat. 315 Sees. D, 

n, 7, 8 (1 912) ; 39 Stat. 728, .Sec. 23 (19ln); 41 Stat. 10!;3, Sec. 20 

(1920) ; (2 Stat. 1435 , Sec. 3 (1923). 

( n) Yamo.taya v. Fisher, 189 U. s. 8!; (1 903 ); Bra tton v. Chandler, 

2f10 U.S. 110 (19.82 ); State Bo a rd of Health v. McCoy, 125 Ill. 289, 17 

N. E. 70!; (1 C88) ; Coo-pe:!.~ v. Board of Wo rks, 14 C. B. CT.S. ) 180 (18n3); 

State v. Chittenden, 127 Wis. 4S8 - 107 N. W. 500 (1 90n) ; U. S. ex rel 

Roop_ .v. :Uou,:;;l a ss, 19 D. C. 99 (1890). See also, h;cFarl and. , Judicial 

Control of the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Corllmissi on, 19~0-1930, (Harvard University Pr ess , 1933) . 

( 7) iiny e r s , A Hand Book of N.R.A., 2ncl ed. ( New York, 1934), 192: 

11 0n June 27 , 1933 , at its first public hea ring, the Nat i onal Recove r y AciJninistration announced t hat inasmuch a s the statute laid down no 

requirements for any public hea r"ings upon codes of fair competiti on or 

any p r o cedural requirements, it would determine its own urocedure . It 

then sta t e d. that sponso rs of codes would b e called uuon to present evi,o;o 

dencci on the va rious matt e r s in Sec"tion 3 ( a) resuecting which the President i s required t o 1nalce findings. It furt her st ated that persons offering obj ections to or modifications of any code provision or additional 

code p rovisions must fil e a specific s t a t emen t in writing r equesting 

si mpl y the elimi nati on or addition of a sp ecifi c p r ovision, or a modification in l o.nt;;uage p r oposed by the objecto r." This was quoted i n the 

Bri ef fo r A. 1 . A. · Schechter Corporation in Schechter v. U. S., 52 . 

9838 
(B) See a l so rook ing~ Inst.i t tion , Th~_l~t,!_i on l Rf'covcry Administration - an AnaL ~_P._[l,!_i __ -~n~. :.9 n,r-,_i_s·'\ (1 935 14: 

"Except in the case of ;~. rif f inve ti P.;~l tion , procedure r equi r ements 

a.r e limited to t e V<t .~ ue specif' 1.tion o+' -p ublic not i ce A.nd hearing. 11 

(9) Title I, Section 4(b) . 

(10) rJ.I.R. _., See 3(a). 

(11) Bri ef f or A. L. A. Schechter _Cor:_:2_Q!a tion, on . cit., 49- 50 : 

"There is nothing in t his sec+ion 3 ( a.) or ony"''he re e l se in t he Recovery _ ct wtli ch p rovides for not ice to pe r sons in t he industry, particul a.rly 

those not members of the applicant trade or industri a l association, and no 

provision whatsoeve r i s expressly made for a hea.ri ng to determine ~hethe r 

the p rovisions in t he prop osed code a re properly c o.nt 8.ined therein. No 

evidence is required to be t aken and no finding s of f A.ct are required to be 

mRde by t he President except those 1.1!fe have mentioned above, which have no 

rela tion a t all to the fairness or unfairness of most of the prB.ctices p rohibited by the Live Poultry Code. Thus, in this respect the President is 

free to ac t in a "QUrely c.rbi trary manner. A trade ·or ac tice is ·denominated 

unfa ir simply by reA.son of the ct th t the p rep ondernnt majority in the 

industry has ordained it to be such, and this without any_ required notice 

to other members of the industry, without any reauired hearing, without 

any requirement for evidence and without any requirement for findings of 

fact or jud icial review. Thus, it is pl a in that tne code may be formul a ted 

in a purely arbitra r y qnd capricious mA~ner, for it mAkes no difference 

that the National Recovery Administration may have customa rily held informal public hearings to y olitely listen to the compla ints of 'persons engag~d in other steps of the economic process'. When presented for Etpp roval to the President his action in approving, rejecting_or modifying the 

same may be utterly arbitrary n~ caprioious, because he need not say why 

he ac~s. 11 

( 12) Supra , V. 

(13) Brief for A. 1. A. Schechter Coruoration, op. cit., 51. 

(14 ) 38 Stat. 717. 

(15) Brief for A. L. A. Schechter _ Corporation, o~. cit., 46-54. 

(16) Infra, XII. 

9838 

9838 
- 212-

(17) Jo~nson, The Blue Ea le from Egg to Earth, (Saturd~y Evening 

Post, February 9,. i935), 81: 

11 Th~ very Act was conceived in controversy--controversy as old as 

civilization--controversy among la.bor, management and consumers. For 

reasons recited rlier, we organized to· make t hat controversy vocal, 

public and intense. We preferred to wr~te the rules for a new economic 

government of the United States by hearing every side which might have an 

interest in the result and arriving by compromise at the greatest good 1o 

the greatest number and the . least possibl-e harm to anybody-.'' 

(18)' Johnson, ibid., (January 26 ·, 1935)· 88·: 

"As I have said, my whole theo'ry of administration was to make NRA a 

'f orurn of controversy. Nothing short of clairvoyance can pre vision the effect of a Code; first, because, the whole idea is unprecenden.ted; second, 

because no group of men could be gathered who could know enough about 

the infinite variety of circumstance in American business to pass in a 

closet on i·ts problems. The only way to get the truth in such a case is 

to give every adversary and informed interest its day in court." 

( 19 ) Supra, V. 

( 20) Supra,_ n. 17 and lB. 

( 2i) Supra, VI. 

(22) Freund, Administrative Powers over ·Persons and Property (University of Chicago .Press 1928), 84, and Chicago Junction Case, 264 u. s. 

258 ( 1924) ~ " 

(23) Tagg Bros. &'Moorehea~ v. u. s., 280 U. s. 430, 432 (1921). 

( 24) N. R. A. Release No.· 2993, San uary 25, 1934, quoted by Brookings 

Institution, op. cit., 85, N. 3: 

"The formula is designed, by controversy of cC!>nflicting interest, to 

arrive a t truth and composition. This practice has been followed without 

exception. Without it there wollld be no formula or pos·si bili ty of obtaining informed opinion on any of the three principal sides of the contrailing questions pertaining to each code. The only alternative to 

that sort <;>f revelation through controversy is such long inquisitorial 

aild El.Cademic proceedings as have contributed· to· the previous failure to 

control mono-poly by the anti-trust acts." See infra. 

(25) See NRA Release, June 27, 1933. 

(26) uffice urder No. 15, August 5, 1933 p. 6 is the only early 

reference to public hearings (other than Pre ss Relea se s which C!i.n not be 

taken as formal policy). The reference mere ly cont a ins t he outline heading 11VI II Hearing A, Hearing Proper. 11 Immef>ately above, under VI I B, is 

rather full instructions that the Deputy Administra tors 'Vill inform Public 

Relations Division, if a good publicity story exists and will check the 

draft of the story pre'Pared by the Public Relations Division with the interested Trade Association. 

9838 
. , - , .J • • • 

( v7) Gf fic : nnt :1.1 : 

(3) During t l P1 bJ:ic .i 'lrinr; t J e or esiding officer (See II-2400) 

wi ll seek to elicit f 1.cts fr m t he o·oo 1ents :md or ouonents of specific 

provlslon of t n )rop osed co e, fo r t h , purpose of brint:;ing out the 

n ces ity, benefit, or detrime nt of such rovisionn. He will r eceive 

suggested questions f rom his advisor s and will make such use of them as 

he deems necess~ry . He wi ll, however, be guided by the line of questioning suggested by his Code eg~l Advisor to insQre the legal adequacy of 

the record of the Public Hearing." 

( 28 ) I bid. , 27 . 

( 29 ) 

19, 1933 , 

27 , 1933 , 

Transcrip t of Hear ing Electrica l hanufqcturing Industry, July 

155-165. Transcript of Rearing Cotton Textile Industry, June 

24-25. 

( 30) AmericR. 1 s Recoverv Pr m (Oxf ord Press 1934), 82 ; See also 

Brookings Institution, ou. cit., 108-112. 

(30a) Recommend8tion of t he Advisory Council: 

11 I t is a well e st bli shed p r act i ce t 'oubli c };le a rings that advisers 

may if they wish, m ke statements, a nd. t hat · so long as they confine themselves to questions de signed to elicit f a cts t hey may a sk questions . 

directly a s rMell as through the deputy. This p r ac tice has been recognized not only by custom but in conferences be t ween executive officials of 

the advisory boards and the Administrator. It should be recognized in 

the manual. Therefore, the Council recommends tha t the second sentence 

be deleted and r epl a ced by t he words 1 he wi ll give his advisers adequate 

opportunity to deve lo"? f a cts" rn 

. . (31) Transcript of Hearing , Fire Extinguisher Apnliance Manufacturing Industry (.Approved Code lJo. 98), Codes of: ~r Cor:npeti tion, Vol. 

III) Monday Gctober 23 , 1933, 10:17 . · 

Nir. A. 0. Bonniface , Secreta r y .of the Chemical Fire Ex,tinguis'her 

Association, in submitting t he code had only two sen~~nces to say which 

might have any bea ring a t all upon_ the ~ode ro:r~ osal. The 'rranscript of 

Hearing upon Article VI , covering Powers and Duties, discloses testimony 

running from Page 61 to 85 inclusive. ~t is interesting'to .nate that of ' 

these 24 pages of testimony not a single word WA,S sp oken in favor of the 

provisions of the p roposed code. The testimony in fact is limited mainly to briefs by pe op le opposing the code • . (32) Transcript of Hearing, Air Filter Industry, December 21 , 1933. 

P R G C E E D I ~ G S ---- ---

11 :!:leputy King: The first code is the Air Filtr> r Industry • . I have no 

requests to be heard on tha t, and m::-.y 1:Ve consider your ori ginal p resentation as a p resentation of all codes? 

9838 
- 214-

"Mr. G'Leary: You may consider the presentFttion the presentation 

of all codes. If you prefer, we will present ch one. 

"Deputy King: I think it is a useless ·c;letail, which will burden 

this hearing. I suggest to the reporter that with the announcement of 

the hearing of these codes that the code for each hearing be copied into 

the record of the code under consideration. 

* * * * * * * * * 

"Mr. CJ'Leary: I ~hou.ld like to !).ave you give the cnairman of the 

code committee of each industry an opportunity, if they have not a lready 

done so, to present a l~tter · of presentation. · I think most of those a re 

in, but if they are not, I think they should be presented. Otherwise 

the code is fully presented. : ' 

"Deputy King: Does _anyone wish to be heard on the Air Fil-ter Industry Code? 

"In order to save time we will consider each code .first where no 

one has suggested an opp.ortupi ty to be heard,. and. after amnle opnor,uni ty 

has been given,· pas-s on to the next .code. · .· . ·· ·: 

11 I assume no one has a+!Y. special . amendmen-ts i.n reference to the Air 

Filter Industry, and the hearing on the Air Filter Industry is recess 

subject to the call of the ~ministrator~ 

"(The hearing was thereupon recess as above· stated, at 2:30 o'clo:Ck 

p.m.)" 

(33) Transcript of Hearings: 

' ' I 

Buff and Polishing Wheel !l).dustry, October 16·, 1933. The hearing· 

lasted from 10:00 a.m. ·to 10~55 a.m. 

Washing and Ironing Machinery Manufacturing Industry, October 4, 

1933. The hearing lasted from .lO:OQ a.m. to 10: ~5 a.m. 

Terra Cotta Indust~y, Se pt~mber-. 26 ,. 19 33~ . The' hearing lasted from 

10:15 a.m. to. 11:22' a•m. . . ·. · · 

Hair and Jute Felt Industry, September 29, 1933. The· hearing l~sted 

from 10:05 to 11:00 a.m • . 

Ladder Manufacturing·, . October 10.; 1933 . .. , · The hearing lasted from 

10:00 a.m. to 11:40 a.m. · 

Hardwood Distillation~ October 3, 1933. The hearing lasted from 

10:00 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 

See also, Dearing, Hpman·, Lorwin, and Lyon,· The ABC of NRA (Brookings 

Institution 1934) 87: · · · 

11The duration of he arings depends : entirely·. upon the amount of evidence to be introduced; ·some la.st only a few hours while others continue 

for several days. Public hearings on the · code for the storage battery 

industry required only two hours, while those for the retail trade code 

required several days." ' .. 

9838 

o: 

31 

cl 

S\ 

;] 
- .. lr:;-

( 34) Tumsc riT)t o He ri ·.t~ , Cotton T ;: til 0 I n ustry . The he a ring 

l a t ed f rom June 27 , ~:; t o j . e :0 , ~''.i ...i 11 cl u~dve . 

(35) Tr r-mscri:pt of ::c:~rin:; , St ee l I ndu,.. try , July 31, 1933 , l, 

Stat ement of .

1

r. Don a l d Ri ch er ; , Cow1se l, Nn ti on a l Recovery Admin istration. 

11 Since t h e fir" t , e arinr; up on t he code submitted by t he co tton 

textile industr,,r , t here hr~ s beer a f o;rm of ~) roc dure folloned, wi t h v1hi ch 

I assume most of t ho s e p r esent a r e fami lia r, but in order tha t t here may 

be no misunderst and i nt; ," it may be des'irable to re st a te tha t f orm of procedure. 

11 The l aw lay s down no re quirements for any public hearings upon 

these codes of fair competition, therefore t h ere a re no st a tutory limitations or controls on this p rocedur e . 

"It ~hould be clea rly understood that no repre s enta tives of any p riva te interest f avoring or op osing a code have any legal rights to control 

or direct the p resenta tion of evidence, or the n rocedure in this public 

hearing, which is subject to sole control of the Deputy Administrator in 

charge, acting in conformity with genera l r egul a tions. 

11 I t is hov; eve r t h e puTpo se of the Ad:nini s tra tor· to give a ll p ers ons 

interested ~1 adequa te op ortunity for the presentation of evidence in 

support of the code, or any objections to Drop osed code p rovisions, or 

any suggested modific::1.tions the reof or additions thereto. 

11 The actual hea ring upon a ·code vvill begin vd th the p resentation of 

the code by its s1onsors. 

11 :Se:Eore a hearing is t;iven to thos e offering objections or adclitions 

to or modifications of any code provision, a sp ecific statement is to be 

filed in vrriting setting f orth the request for the elimination of the 

specific provisions, a modifica tion of a provision or any additional provision, and then the -prop osa ls rill be h eard in the order announced by 

the Deputy Administra tor, and all parties presenting evidence are requested to confine their ;)resentation in the first instance to oral or documentary evidence produced in support of a s,ecific pro~o os l made. 

11 0ral ar@,uments are ~1 ot to be rec eived in these hea rings m1less cert a in matters are subsequently set do vm for ora l a rguments •. Written arguments may be filed if Darties so de sire. 

11 The pul"!)ose of this hearing is to nrovide evidence of facts upon 

which an administra tor will be justified. in recorrrrnending approval o.f codes 

to the President; therefore· these he arings are not appropriate for t h e 

present a tion of argument upon issue s of l aw . If any party in interest 

desires to raise any issues of law in con1ection with a p roposed code of 

fair competition, he may file a vv ri tten arE,'UlTient tbereon with the Deputy 

Administrator, but a ll art:,'1.ll11ents u-aon que stion of lav.r v1ill not be pe.rmi tted during the public h e a rings. 

9838 
-216-

As previously stated, the control of the hearings rests with 

the Deputy Administrator. \1i tnesses are ~resented by him for questioning orb;>' others representing the Administration, but mtnesses are not 

presented for cross examination by opposing interests, and such cross 

exa~ination is not a part of these proceedings. 

11Again I wish to em_phaz~ the point that this is ar"l. adninistrative 

inqui17 and not a judicial investigation; there is no restriction uyon 

the representation of parties by attorneys or specialists, but such 

representation so far as they are heard in .these proceedings should 

regard themselves as witnesses subject to questioning by the Deputy 

.Admint strator qnd not as counsel conc~ucting a laB suit. 11 

This statement by Hr. Richberg provided_ t he l)attern of procedure 

follo•.-re0_ in all subsequent hearings, and we.s uidely quoted by presid_-

ing officers and_ legal advisers, alt.ho~h it was never issued as an 

offi ciD..l rJ .R. A. statement in any othe r for:1 that that above referred 

to. J3y practice, it can be said, it nas adopted as officie~ N.R . .A. 

proceC:..ure. 

See also Transcript of :Searing, Cotton Textile Industry , June Z?, 

1933 ,, 4.-7 . 

.si~me.na;_ M.r:tiJ1.i _t..r:at_:LY.E2.5.:.:ci_0V'~a.J.-l3 __ q,p,_o,_ _t_h_e_jtuJ._e__s __ o_f _ _E_v_i_d_e~; 

(Harvard University Press), 95: 

11 If the rules of evidenc e are com:won-sense ways of determining 

whether to consider offered proof, wl1y should they not -be of value to 

one tri bu.nal as well as to another? 11 

( 36) T'ranscript of eal~ing, Fire Extinguisher _Applia'1ce I.!anufa cturing L1cl.ustry, 9()-91: 

11l.Ir .Evans: I would lil:e to state that it is all very rigid 

for a cl.iff erent s1;ecial t y which does not require t hat C.sort of control • 

11Assi stcmt Deputy Lane: 

ing rrith pure opinion, and I 

stantiate it with facts. We 

relation to Article VIII. 

.Again I must warn you that you are dealcannot take it unless you li"ent to subnould be pleasec_ t o have any facts with 

t~.Ir. Evans: I will stop just a s soon a s I can understand your 

directions, but I cannot understand hou you car~ p rove a judgment 

abou t 3n days, for instarJ.ce; t he re is no proof adducible fo1~ that; 

it is a question of judgr,1ent, trade juG.gment a.'1d p r a ctice and experience." ' (' 

.. !I 

The p residing officer t h en a sked Lr. Evans to p l a ce his sugvections 

in a orief. For a discussi on of t h is pra ctice. Infra. 

( 37 ) Luce, Leg islative Procedure , (Boston & lTe'f! York, 1922) ,146-147: 

Speak ing of legislative he,;,_rings the Author says - "The value of the 

opi11ion brought out by hearings is as uncertain as thct of the informatiou. The opinion is t he more d&~ erous, for rnisinfornation 
c an be corr cted , b. t t 11 n i s n t st f or op iniol . Pond e r it f or a 

momen t , and. y ou w.i.. J.l :..t"' • lt' • i vk i '1 dr 1.· 1 11.=:; i nr ·· r e n ee Pl" t o the c oini on of t~o mi llion or s o of q 1 mPn bein s - ------ from t h e vi ws 

exor e8se0. y f ive llr fifty er ons i n a committ e roo'm. 11 

( 38 ) . Ta..e:e: Er o s . & Moo.l':' eh A.J. v . U. S., 2t3 0 7] . S. 420 ,· 432 ( 1930), 

i ndicates t a at full arg ument 1s a l l 0wed a s regu r oroced r e . 

( 39 ) Supra, I V, 1 • 

. parti e l a rly d isc us sion of A.uffrnor d t v. re n. 137 U. s. 

310 (1890 ). 

( 40) Sup ra, n. (35 ). 

(41) ~ayers, ou . cit., 192. Brief for A. L.A. Sche chter Corp ., 

oo. cit •. , 52 , _quo te_d t he statement of Mayors' r eferrPd to. 

( 42) MAye rs,_ ou .• c.i t., . l J.t see Tr .q n s cri"9_t of f.teari ng , F·Lli' 

Dressing and Dyeing Industry, Nov . 1, 1933. 

(43) Farmers Elev~ or Co. v. Ch icago, Rock Island .and Pacific 

Railroad Co. , 107 N. E. 841, 843 (Ill., 1915) •· ThP c~se consciously 

follo \T S t h e Int erstat e CorunP.rce Comrn1 ssi on cases. .It. sh ou ld a lso be 

noted that the st ~t ut P qu.lr ~ ~ hearing . Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 U. 

s. 56 (191 2); Gon zal es v. ZQbrick, 5 Fed . d.) 934 (c.c.A. 6 t h , 1930); 

and Ga rfield v. U. S., e x rel Spald ing, 32 App. D. c. 153,158 (1 908) • . 

See also, il]ote, "Re qu.i sites of an Ad mini str.:1.ti ve Hearing , 11 80 

Pennsylvani a La ·RP vi ew .878 (1932) •. 

( 44) Stephens, ministr ti.ve Tribunal ·8.nd the' ·Rules of Evi dence. 

(Harvard n~ versi t y re~ . 1933). 95: 

11The crifice of c ro ss-examina tion, h owever, seems serious. 

It is not impossi b le to reject he"'lrsay afte r hav1ng heard it, t hA.t is, 

to d etermine to g ive it no wei ght. But if it is t0 be r Plied on, h ow 

far is t he trier of f r.tct to s ive it worth ?" 

( 45) Beri z z Co. v. Krans z , 146 N. E. 436 (11. Y. 1 925). Evidence . . . is not c onclusive where t here is no b:"l sis to of f e r rebuttA-l. Th i s W8 S . . 

in a p roceed ing un~er t he New York Arbitration Ac t. 

( 46 ) 

( 47) 

Infra , I':. 

. A. C. 1 20 ( House of Lord s 1915). 

( 48) Such books as: liemart, The New De.sp otism, (New York 1929); 

Allen, Bureaucra cy Tr iurnuhant, (Now York 1931).' 

(49 ) Cmd. 40t:)O. Presented by t he Lord Cha ncello r t o Parliament 

in A9ril, 193Z,_ at p~ e 80: 

. . . 11 A. fourth u ri n cipl e ··hich some judgPs ha ve d iscerned is th.at when 

a public inquiry is provide d by st a tute , the insoector should make 

9838 
218 ~ 

his report av~~lable to t he parties heard. Although the Committee 

is not willing to sar tna t a r efusa l to do this is contra ry to natural 

ju.stice, it s:t.q,tes its b8lief "that important considerg.tions of public p olicy are involved.' 11 

(50) Un~ar v. Se aman, 4 F. (2d) 80 (C. C. A. 8th., 1924); 

Fg,rmers Elevator Co. · v. Chi 'c ?:,gE.t_Rock · I c; l a nd & P.q,cif ic Rnilro.q,d Co. , 

107 N. E. 841 (Ill. 1915); Sabre v. Rutland R. R. Co. , 85 Atl. 69 2, 

(Vt., 1930); And Yudel~ v. Andrews; 25 F. (2d) 80 (C. C. A. 3rd., 

1928).; See, lJote, "The Ri ght to a Hearing :aefore Administr::ttive Tribunals , 11 28 Harvard Law Review' l98 (1914 ); See c-tlso K'.JITOck Jan Fat v. 

v(ni t_£, 253 u. S. 454, 464 ( 1920), p~p roa r:: hing the pr:oblem from the 

inade qu a c" of t he record pre sentE'd the court. 

(51) Stock v. Central Midwiv~s Boa rd, 3 K. B. ?56, 7640765 (1915). 

(52) Note, "Requisites of an Administrative Hear~ng,n op. cit., 884. 

(53) Garfield v. U. S. ex reil..· Spalding , 32 .Ap9 . D. C. 153, 158 

(1908 ). 

(54) 38 Stat. 722 ( 1914). · For a discussion of the power in the 

alien field see Van Vl e'ck, ou , ci t•. 

(55) 46 Stat, '699 (1930). 

(56) Titl'e I, Sections 3 (e) and 6 .(c). 

(57) Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S, 447 

(1894), which case involved 26 Stat. at L. 74~3 ; an0. SabrE' v. Rutland 

R. Co., 85 Atl. b93 (Vt., 1913). 

(57a) Blaisdell, "The FedE'ral · Trade Commission, 11 Ne.w York, 

.1932, VIII, The Commiss~9n Shorn of Power, 259-284. ThE' theses is t hat 

:the Commission has been fo~ght with all kinds of publicity by those 

it so-ught to control :md has often been rendered helpless to show 

its sid e of the i~tur e by t l.1e Courts harshly limiting its power to 

inspect rE'cords or require periodic reports. 

(58) Fed8r.'ll "Trade Cornmi s si·on v. Cl a ire Furnace Co. , 274 U. s. 

160 (1927); FeC!.e r-81 Trrtde Commission v. Maynard Coal Co~», 22 f. (2d) 

873 (Ct. App . D. c. 1927); and Federal Trade C0mmission v. Viller's 

National Fede r a tion, 23 F. (2d) 968 (Ct. A'?P• D. C. 1927), which held 

that making a refusa l to produ.ce evidenaP . s u..J je ct to :::t criminal nrosecu tion is a den~al of due proc8 ss of law. 

(59) T ranscri ut of Hearing , Fur Iv1anufacturing InCl ustry, Mar ch 

19-21, 1935, 67. Mr. Hodgson, the Code Director, who sho1ld have had 

t he richest experience with t h e tr'lde n r a ctice ' rovisions And who. should 

have been most helpful to the. N. R. A., after spe cifically stating 

up on his first appearance th1.t he would reappt:>ar with a det '"lil ed st::ltement upon the trr:tde p r a ctice p rovisions, f a il,e·d to .do so, Mr. Hodg s on's 

statement was in response to an inq .~. iry by an lJ . R. A. off icial. The 

suggestion w::ts mad e tha t the Industry desired that he made no further 

sta tement. 

9838 

j 

R 
- 21 ~-

( 6(\) ElJis v . In ters ~ c Comme rce Com....,ission 237 U. S. •l-34 , 44 5 

( 1915) , t l-lt-' o · inio n of t..r . J stice lolmes ; Fec' e r 1l Tr de' Commissi on v . 

Ar'le .ri c 'ln Tobqcc o Co._, 264 rr, S. 298 , 306 ( 19:14 ), the ODinion of Mr • . Justice Eol m!?s ; ~ r a). Tr _de ommi_§_ io n v . P.arnPJ ond Snyd f' r & Co u· , 267 U. S. 

'586 (19 25); Rnd Fe l Traie Commissi on v. Smith , 34 ~ ~d ) , 324 

( 192° ); see a l s o Hale v . Hen1

-ccl , 201 U. S. 43 (1906) . L.:mge l tti g , 

"Constitu tiona l Limi t at ion on A rn in 1st tive Powe r of I nvc> sti gati on," 

28 Ill . Lqw vi ~ 508 (19 3- 3.11· 

( 61 ) Kilbourne v. Thcmoson , 103 U. S. 1 68 (1880); M d !vl cGrai'n 

v. Dawghe rty, G73 u. s. 135 (1926 ). 

( 62) Harriman v. I nt e r stq te Comme r ' e Commission, 211 U. S. 

407 ( 1 908 ); and in !' e Pnc i f ic Ra i l w;:,,y Commis io_:r_!, 32 F. 241 (1887). 

( 63) 

Commission, 

r. Justice Holmes in Harriman v. 

11 u. s. 407 , 418 (1 90 8 ) . 

Interstqt e Co~merce 

( 64) ~gal lv or Ul da from Bl qckwell Sm1th to Legal St qff, 

June 2 1, 19 ~ . r e Exami'na t i on of :Book s, qu oting a memorandum of · 

Robert ? . RePder: 

11 A witne ss m::tv waive t he ·orote ction C'f the Fifth AmPndment 

by t e stifying volunt a rily . It is ve ry ci ollb t f ul whether he coul d. b"lrin lon?' in .3-d vanc e th".+ h "- would waive t he p rotection of t h e .Arle ndment . Cong re ss cou l d g r a nt such immunity f rom furt her prosecution 

tna t he could be required to t e stify if such l egislatio_n were on t h e 

st · tute books. It i G not t he re. It seems t hat t h e·: Presi dent could 

grant such a '9 "1 rdon that t ne wit ness cm1ld be required to tE>stify and 

produce e vidence; but t hP district attorney CEtn not gr'l.nt immunity. 11 

( 65) Title I, SPction 3 ( a ). "The ? resident may, R S a condition 

of his a ';Jp roval of any such code, imp ose s .1.ch conditions (including 

requirements for t he making of reu orts and t he kPeu ing of Accounts) 

for t h e rotecti? 'l of consUP'l e rs, comu eti tors, emoloyees, qnd others •••• " 

Gn · the subject of periodic rep o r ts s;e c Lilienthal, "The 

Po"rer of Governmental Agencies to Compel Testirndny, · 11 39 Harvard L"'l.W 

'lteview, 694, ·700 (1926 ); and Blaisd.ell, The Federal Tr1.de Cof"lmission, 

(Columb i a Uni vers.i. t y Pre ss 1932) 259-284. 

(66) Legal Memorandum, op. cit. (64): 

"My conclusions are t hat t he keep ing of books show·ing such 

data as are nece ssary for t he enforcement d . let".::: itimate code aims may 

be re yu1red in advEtnce and t hat t h ereafter t h e production of such dRta 

wnen necess· ry for t he e nforceme nt of the lay· may be required." 

~ e also "Intersta te Co! me rce Cor:'!is:310n v. Good rich Tr.,nsit 

Co., 244 u. s. 194 (1 91 2) . 

( b7) App roved C•:c e .o. 4, E.lectrical " anufacturing Industry, 

Codes of Fair Corn'9 Ptitio:1, I, 48, Art. VI; qnd. Aou r.o.ved Code No. 15, 

Men's Clotning Industry, Codes of Fair Competition, I, 235 , Art . XIII. 

9838 
(68) General Re gulations, Series A,. issued .by ·the Secret 8.r y of 

Agriculture. 

( o9) 

881. 

Note, "Re .. quis.i tes of an Administr::>.ti--e Hea-ring, 11 . cit.; 

( 70) Note, ibid.; San Diego Land and 'J'O'"!l Co. v. N!:lt ion.q,l Gitv., t 

174 u. s. 739 (189 9) ; Lander v. Mercantile Bank, 186 J. S. 458 (1902); · 

and Smith v. Hitchcock, 226 .U. S. 53 (191 C: ).; but SPe, Farmers' Elevator 

Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pa cific Ry. Co. 107 N. E. 841, 843 (1915). 

(71) Tr<l.nscript of Hea~ing, Fire E~tinguisher Appliance 

rq,nufacturing Industry, 91: 

"Assistant Deputy Lane: As I und rstan~ it, you want to 

suggest a modification of the time? 

"Mr. Evans: I want to sugges.t, . T~~Ti th rep sect to our business·, 

iii 

., 

" 

cc 

i' 

that it is too rig~d . aand useless. I made this ·oremise in the bee in:.... a 

ning, th~t I would have to raise these p oints with resp ect to the different Articles, and that wh;y I am -d'Q'ing it. : .. 

· -"Assistant ·Deputy. Lane: You will cover those in your 

Brief? . . 

"'Mr. Ev.q,ris: Yes." .. 

(7 2) vffice Manual: 

"Code Making and ,.Am.endmen t I I-5ono , AmendmPnt s 11-5120 

"C • . Nature of .·Pro.ceed.ing s 

"(1) vThenever 'a iikelih~od exists that a substantial 

minority or group. will ooje~~ : to- a. prop o.s·ed amendment, or where the 

nature of the subje(;t mattf>r involves· the·-publi-c interest' a nubl:ic 

he.q,ring should be c·alled.· ·: I~ . other C[l:se ~ i n otice of o~ ortu.ni ty .to be 

beard or to file objections will ordinli.I'ily be sufficient. !t .. 

(73) Legal Memorand:u.m, by Blac~well Smith .to the Lega l Staff 

re Hearings on Prop osed Amendments, J~e 2 , 1934 : 

11 Q,uestions <l.re frequPntly arising · as t -o whe ther o.n act_ual 

hearing on a proposed amendment or. like matter is required qs distinguished from opportunity .to be heard. Obviously ;:·fr.om art Administrative st a ndpoint ', it is impossible to hold he a rings on every 

proposal made. The ad vi sabl~. p rocedure 'in this oonnect~on is to obtai n 

from known informed s ources, including the industry, avq.ilable f qcts · 

concerning the probable result of the proposal, both wi th1n the 

industr;}r an6. in relation to otn er _industries. : If. no · appreciable c cnt roversy or conflict is likely to ensue, or if the ·proposa l is .of 

comparati ve l y minor importance, or is one -rrvhich would not require further 

investig[l.tion to obt a in ne cessq,ry information, or the question of due 

p rocess is not l arge ly involved, then an opport~ity to be he a rd p rob ably 

9838 
will suff ice . S ch ~c s sh oul d be analJ zed in e ch cas f r om this 

vie, ~) l1 , wh i ch makPs t he " ns e r to t hP question l .q,r a:e l v a mn.t 1 r of 

the exe r cise of sou nd judgment . T'h e main r e quircm nt (1vhi h sho l d bo 

comp l i ed ith in e i t her ven t), l.S to obt a in in t he r c ord slfficiPnt 

f acts to s now t he nePd f or th p ro"9 o a l , "~nd tha t it s g_•)prov· 1 i "" 

r e !'I SOn cble exe rci s e Of :iC1m i ni tr ti ve "tu.thority , Wi t h in t he 00li c i cs of 

the Act . 11 ( UndP r s coring is mine) . 

(74) Ibid. See a l s o the l a ngua ·e by h'r . Ju t i ce Hol mes i n Bi 

ket a ll1.c Inve s .ment Co . v . t qte Boa· · of ...:uun.li zation . 

230 u. s. ~~ , 445 (191 5) : 

11 .'hPre a r ulP of cond uc t :=t•)u l i e s t o P10 r e t h g_n '=~ fe'v ueool e , 

it i s 1m.:> r ::> ct l c 1.b lP t h.,t e · eryone snoul d h nre " i rPc t vo1.ce in its 

adop tion. T .2 Con · t i tuti on QOes not req Lt.i r e :-1.l l ' .:>-.Ab li c ::tcts to bP done 

in to; n me e t i ng or an a s ·· embl y of thP whole . 11 

Eut see Lond oner v . nv r, 21n U. S. 273 (1908 ), ind i cating 

a d i ffe r e n t r equi r ement whe r the ~t . involved w:1.s smalle r. 

9838 
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX 

(1) Ta.gg Bros. & l

1

.'!oorhead v. U.S., 280 U. S . 420 , ( 1930) : 

n .re fi nd in the evidence before the Sec:retary ample su:_Y0ort for the 

findings and the conclusion r eached by hi m. It may be that some of the 

evi dence wa s irrelevant or of little weight, and t hat some of the reasoning was not ·0ersuasive. :aut, me re admission by an administrative tribunal 

of matters which, under t h e rules of evidence aryp licable to judici a l 

proceeding s, would be deemed inco,rro etent, or me r e error in r easoning unon 

evidence a dduced, does not invalidate an orde r ma,de by it •.•.......•.• 11 

and Hote - - 11 The Ri ght to a :-rearing Before Administrative Tribunals," 

28 Earv A,rd Law Revi~w 198 (1914) at page 19 8~ . · 

"The lavv of the subject is apuarently still i:-1 its infancy and tnis 

is particularly true of that part dealing with proc edur e . Doubtless freedom from procedural sh a.ckles is one of the chief ends sought" in administra tive tribunals. 

( 2) Stephens, Administrative Tribunals and the Rules of Evidence, 

(Harvard Univer~ity Press, ~93~). 

(3) Ibid, 68: 11 (1) Do you apply the rules of evi dence? (2) If 

you apply certain of the rules and omit to apply others, nlea se state 

which and why? (3) To what tent ~ if any, have y ou found in your experience tha t omission to ~ply the rules of evidence o~erates against 

obtaining an accura te understanding of the facts; and (4) To what extent, if any, have y ou found in your eA~erience that ap~ly ng the rules 

of evidence op er EJ.tes against obt aining an accurate understanding of the 

f acts ?11 

(4 ) An illustrative answer given to Judge Stephen s follows. 

Stephens , op . cit., 80 : 11 In Utah the Chairman of the Commission, took 

pains to plnej)are the following answers: '(l) As Andy says, 'Yes and no , 

mostly no.' We pay little attention to the rul es of evidence in the 

course of our inve stigation of matters submitted. The questions we have 

to determ2ne are l argely social and economic ones, not legal, therefore 

requiring :o rocedure unknown to the Courts. ( 2 ) Yes. ·,Ne often apply 

the rules of evidence with respe ct to wholly i mmaterial or irrelevant 

matters. Obviously the admission of such evidence woul d add nothing to 

the f acts for determina tion by a regulatory or administr ative body. We 

also rule against evidence that is purel y a r gumentative. (3) Technical 

rules of evi dence under our statute m~r be disregarded. In p ractice and 

procedure their omissi on, we h ave found, not only tends t o eXl;)edite hearings, but affo rds many witness es not under the guidance of attorneys 

greater fre edom of exp ression, which in the main will lead to a better 

unders t anding of the facts we ultima tely have to determine . Opinion 

evidence, whil e generally admitced for the r ecord, oftentimes ~e tes 

against an accurate underst anding of the ac~ s, unless supJlomented 

with the r easons or the f a cts u-oon which oninion of the witness is 

predic a t ed . (4 ) Strict application of t he rules of evidence and the 

ob se rvance of court precedure woul d in pra ctically all CA.ses defeat the 

purnos e fo r which public utility commi ssions we re created, t hat of s.q,feguardine; tile public int e rest a.nd provi ding for the gene ral welfare. 11 

9838 

.
• \ . "l -c '- -

(5) Faris , 11 J uclicA.l No ti ce b A Jnini trntive 3 o i .s , 11 4 !n_dj .!:. Hn 

Lnw J ournC1 1 1 67 (1 928 ~. 

( 6 ) :::11 illin , Je t c r minv tion of Buslneoc 11 • Pr;'lctic·1l .tc t 0 ( 'or 

Fnct, 11 8 ·:cvi10w 3~,0 ~lJ, '::_2_ . 

(7) St e,:l~1 f'ns , on . ljit ., a : ~~" ut no ·· J.,e i s , bv t 11e f~ ·lxc'1 ti011 or 

C'lbandonmei: t of tl e 1ul c O.i: evi.ience , to b ' nc .r L W110 l c- '~1 d :·.,ncy free ' 

as to 1e fac ... s . ':2i.1c 1 ntl!lch ' ., t l1e b si of ecision vv ill incl.c ·1.d nave 

been c nnOjlize .... . ··Jnt i f trJe p o ul 1.r vi ;· i corr:-lj t :ma t. e rul es of 

eviden ce a rc ,)ut ' obstructive n.nd irr;~ tio n···l t8C1.nicnli ties, 1 then vv e are 

well rid of t.:J.em . PP r hal)S th e t ruth li ~ • .,rt w. ,. !Je t ., .en . 11 

(8) i•i cFarl ·n , Ju.cU ci::tl Control of t - e Fede:t~ l Tr n..:l e Commissi on and 

Int e rst n.t e Co:rve r ce -'Ommis .3 i0~1 JRr · l.'niv8rsity -'r e ss 1933 ) 30 n . 

7o , c i..tin .. ·: 17 Ill i no i s .LJ Cl.l.i Rtwi ew 2 1

) 7 13?.2 ); ~o3 , 11 A~·nl ic o.bi lity of 

Rules of Ev i ci enc e in ? rol,;e cdi 1g s ,) efv:!.~e 1

'\o r E.nwn 1 s CoriT')ensA. tion Commission , 11 

36 Harvar d L[1.w --evie'·' ·~ .)Ul9 '2:) ); ::~ d 1i i t:-mOl'e , Ev i denc e ( a ed ., 1923 ), 2 7. 

( 9 ) Ve.n Vl e ck , 11 Ad.,:ti 11i stra tive Justi ce in t h e =:nforc emei1t of Q,u, siCrimi n r l Law , 11 l Ge or,.;e 'Vr._s: in :; to ~l L:-tw :iev i · vr lB ( 19322_ . <1lld jTote-

"Admini s trat ive --~w . Probati ve VRl Ue of rte:-trsey Te sti !::ony , c:4 ~: ichi -'s n 

Law Rev i ev·t 831 ( 1926 ). 

(1 0 ) Ste Jhe!ls , o-- . c i t ., 7- 8 , 1 6 . Se e r1.lso T) . n . 9 -14 for a com")r ehen siv~ s t atemen t of tl:1e r -.ll e s of evi d ej"ce :=>:OlJl i ed by V?.rious S 'GCJ.te 

pu-blic service COP'ZT1i ssion s. 

(11 ) Henderso;.1 , Tle Fe d e r a l Tra de Co m..--ilission , (YRl e Univ e rsity 

Pr ess 19;3£.!: ). St e-_Jrlens , 01 . c i t .: I11e Fe derA-l -T ~ Comrr.ission , in 

answer to Judge St en11ens 1 qu · t i on::1.ire , st at\=>d t i1 :1 t it in t e nded t o r e -

ceive onl ~r le6ally com e t ent· evi ;ienc e· .8 l1 G. lJ r;se its f inrHn;;s UlJ On such 

evi d enc e . 

(12 ) ;..j' - "l . .L ~.en .. ers::m , . c 1. u. , 

(1 3 ) :Bl c-.ch l y El11d Ontm:1.n , c-.d::nin istre.tive Le-2;islation a nd Ad.iudiCf! tiol ' ro o'.~ i! g s I nstitution 193<-± )' l Stl : 11 V~ le n cou rts r evi evv t he 

deci sions of : drninistr rtt i v e j udic-i a l tri ~;un ls , they s ome time s r efuse to 

upho ld t hese llec isions b e c aus e t he:r c onsid.er ti1a t vi ~l.e nce was t aken in 

an i m·Jroue r m .nner , or t l.1.at t he rul es of evi de nce em·oloyed in a rriving a t 

a d e ci si on were not s LCh n s to s afegua rd B.ll t he int8r ests conce r n ed . 

~'1e judici c•.l c-ourts t J.yu.s 11av e a c e rt a i n i r:fluenc.e uuon the r'l;.l e s of. 

evi dence em J~ o;r ed by 3_;enc i e s of n.dministra tive a clj udic a tion. Yet t h is 

influence is consi de r A.b l y l ess 1IOVTe rful t han mi ght be eX1Ject ed, for the 

courts h:we cii S1)l : y ed a mar-ked t er cle .. 1cy to <".s sume, on the who l e , a f a irly 

luJe r a l atti t uce on t he ma tt e r of evi :._ ence . 11 

( 14) Joh n i3ene & ::>ons, I :1c . v. :B,ecleral TrC1.de Comt·d ~~ion , 299 F. 

468 (1924) ; :-md .c·ris che r "Cc Co . v. 3t'Jcelite Co r :., 39 F. ( (;d ) 2!'_. 7, 2 ·31 

(Ct. Custo1, s 2.nd Pa t. ArY.) ., 19 ;30 ). Se e, ennsy lv is R. Co. v. U.S., 

40 F . ( 2d ) 921 ( 1930 ). ~he CBSe held t evi~ence between t he s ame 

Pa rti e s in a c~ ifferen~ c a1.1.se u non . rel ated i ssue , wa s :9 rol)e rly consi de red . This_ is ·a r e cogni zed exceD~ ion to t he hea rs ay ru.le. Jut see 

Em lo. e rs I nsurance Cor. v. I ndustri a l .Ac c i dent Coii1.!iission, 151 Pa c. 

423 Calif. 1915 h old ing t nat hears ::~,v evi rle11ce i n not a prope r bC~s is on 

9838 
which to de t e r mine jurisdiction:=tl ct. 

(15) John Bene & uans, I nc . v. Federal Trade Commission, su rc n. 14, 

(1 6 ) I bid. at page 471. 

(17) Ibid. at page 4 73: 11 From t he evi d ence we deduce n_s finding s 

of fact: • II . . . 

(1 8 ) St ephens, op . cit.: . ''Even the expert Commissioner sh ould 

re ceive he ars a,y sparingly, should not C.eny :J 2. f.' t h.:= ·t e-smllnA! "~l-c. e :0 :: 

h; ;~en ~~ '-'- GXaiJ DG. tion , a nCl. shoulfL be Willing to intro Q-u.c e 'That fie . a cts u-_ o:_. II 

(1 9 ) Gar fi e ld v. U.S. ex r el S·0al di ng , 32 Apu . D.C. 153 (1908). 

Attorneys disbarred by t he Secretary of I n t erior objected to the use of 

depositions , taken without notice to them or o·olJortuni ty to examine the 

vd tne s ses , and were sust a ined. 

( 20 ) Infra , VIII. 

( 21) Broo dngs Institution, The i.iational ..: eco ery Administra tion 

- An Anal:rsi s and_ an App rais al (19 35·), 104-1 08 . 

( 22 ) I bid, 112 -ll?. 

( 23 ) Ame ri ca 's Recov e r y Prog r 0m, (Oxford .?ress 19 34) , 82 : "7he 

post-nearillg converences a r e r eally a series of mn r0 is es until a Code 

sati sf cto ry to a ll elements is p ro duc ed . The s attitude is tha t of 

leade rship , CJ.l though at times it s been forced, to use a more potent 

influence on rec a lcitrant or selfish int erests." 

( 24 ) Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne , 1911 U.S . 106 ( LOLl) ; infra., n. 25 . 

(25) Shurtl e ff v. U. ~., 1 89 U.S. 311, 214 (1903). ; ne re Congress 

had specified groU11ds for t he r emo va l of an off ic e r by t he Presi dent, nd 

he was removed without notice or oppo rtu ... '"li ty to be heard , the Court sai d : 

11 ±t must be presumed t hat t he President did not mn.ke t he removal for any 

c aus e assi gned in the statute .•• 11 rhe im•)lica tion is th~t the Presi.;. 

dent's a ction needed no evidentiary b a sis. The se is di stinguishabl e 

as it involves the President in rel ation with a subordina te employee. 

See a lso Myers v. U. ~., 272 U. S. 5?. (1 92o ), 53 . 

( 26 ) Kvvock J an Fat v. Whit e , 253 U. S. 454 , 464 ( 1920 ). Y'here the 

inspecto r f a il ed to record in its 'Jrope r ry l ace i mport ant t Astimony, the 

court said: "It i s t he province of t he courts, in ')roc e edings for review, 

wi t h in the limits amnl y defined in the cases cited, t o prevent abuse of 

t his ex tra ordina ry p ower , and this is p ossible only when a full record 

is preserved of the essen ti a ls on which the executive officers .. roceed to 

judgment. For failure to preserve such a record for the i nforma tion, not 

l ess of the commissioner of immi g ration and of the Secre tary of Labor 

than for the courts, t he judgment i n this c a se must b e reve rs ed." 

( 27 ) Chic8.go Junction Ca se, 264 U.S. 258, 264 (1924 ); Atch ison, 

T. & S . F. Ry . v Comme rce Commission, 1S 7 liT . E . 831 (1929 Ill.); Jnterstate Comme rce Commission v. Louisville and Nashvi ll e R., 227 U. S. 88 

(1 91 3 ); U. S . v. Ab5 1 ene & Southern :;:tv. Co., 2,;5 U.S. 2.74 . Note , "Ad-

-'"" ..... ) , ': •• 1 ... !! ,.: .,.. ,_ 

9838 ' . .... .~.. . 

.1: 
- ....- .. 

mini s t rative Lew - Probati ve Value of rie· r sny Tes timony , 11 24 1v

1

ich . Law 

Rev iew, 831 (192G ); an d l~Jo , 11 :i\E' ui ite of an Admi 1 i s tra tive Hcaring , 11 

80 Pennsylv<ni a La¥ vi e~v 8'78 (1 9~52 ) 884 . 

( 28) St .phens , o . cit ., : 11 Ce rta i nl y no p r ncti cal d i f ficult y 

t nnd in t 'lt v1;:yy of drawing t h o l 'i.ne agains t a ction by commi ssions upon 

apc rs in thci r f i l os , C'llTi er s 1 aucl engi neer 1 r eports , and othe r such 

dFl t n. , without submi t tillg the s ne to t he r eco rd ancl to t he scrutiny of 

the pa r ti e s <-uld of t he r evi ewing t ri bun . Not onl y i s n f a ir h earing 

not h a d in t he aps enc e of such p roc edur e , ·out a f::1 ir r evi ew c n.nnot b e 

de . Unl e ss evi de nce RCt ed u ry on is introduc ed , the r evi ewing tribunRl 

c anna t lmo vf of it • 11 

( 29) 2 o5 U. . ~74 , ( 1924 ) • 

(30) Ibid. 286 - 288 . 

(31) Op . cit., 289 . Se e a lso Chic··1go Junction Case, 264 U. S . 258 , 

264 (1 924 ). !vir. Jus tice Brand eis s a id, 11 Fa cts conceivably lmown to the 

Commission but not put in evi d ence will not sUJ;mort an orde r. 11 

(32) The recent c a ses of :!?an."'JDR Refining Co. v. Ry ·,n, 293 U. S . 

388 (1 9 35) ; ru1d U. s. v. Sche ch t e r Bro thers, 295 U. S. 495 (1935) indicate t his. 

(33 ) Sup r f1. , .Flori da & East Co ast R. R. Co. v. U. S. 234 U. S. 16 7 

( 1913); Cnic a~o Jw1ction Cas e , 64 u.S. 268 (1924 ); Int r~at ional Shoe 

Co. v. Fede r a l Tra de Commission, 0 U. S. 291 ( 1930 ); and Fede ral 

~o Con11J.1ission v. Nelson Bros., 289 U. S. 2 66 (1 9 33 ); see also Willoughby, Gonstitutional Law of t h e United $ t at e s, (New York 1929) 

( 3L.':) Freund , .\d.mini strati ve Pov1ers over Persons a nd Prope rty 

(University of Ch ic·e go P ress 19.28 ), 10 8 : 11 The hearing -p rovi sian thus 

circumscribe s d iscre tion · by requiring its exercise to be substantiated 

by evidenc e . It remains to be seen hqw t h is will affect the exercise of 

Druden tial discre tion, particul arly Ui)On the ba sis of the widest consideration of exu edi ency. Hmv will it be o~ ibl e to n rov. e or disprove 

' public intere st '? In many c ases it is cl ear that the r equirement will 

be mainly one of form: che r e must be some t hing in t h e -r e c ord tending to 

show puolic interest, or the OD"•)O site, and a corre su onding finding. 

This may inure to the benefit of the app licant if he makes a good prima 

facie sho~ing, and no evidence is introduced to t he contrary , and if he 

sees to it that the cons ent orde r contains the ·app roryriate finding . 11 

Also see page 84. 

( 35) Supra. 

(36 ) Federal Trade Cownission v. Kennel, 291 U. S. 304 , 312, 314 

( 193Lr. ) 

(37) U.S. v. Baltimore & Ohio R .R. Co~, 293 U.S. 454, 55 Sup. Ct •. 

268' ( 1935 ). 

( 38 ) I b i d . a t page 72. 

9838 
whi ch to determine jurisdictionA.l f A.ct . 

(15) ~ohn Bene & uons, I nc . v. Federal Trade Commi ssion, suurc n . 14, 

(1 6 ) I b i d . at page 4 71. 

(17) Ibid. at pag e 4 73: 11 From the evi d ence we de du ce c:ts finding s 

of II fact: • . . . 

(1 8 ) St ephens, op . cit.: . "Ev en the ex-pe rt Commis sioner sh ould 

re ceive he ars ay spa.ringly, si:wuld T1.o t f.en.~r lii:::J c.:!.f.' t:1.:: tE-s~~!'!A7 V.<-:")1-c:e ·0 ::: 

c.:~ ~ .... exanino.tion , a ncl shoulc{ b e wi lling to i ntroduce 'That ne . e.cts 1..1.:_ . 11 

(1 9 ) Garfield v. U. S. ex r el Snal ding , 32 Apn . D. C. 153 (1908) . 

Attorneys disbar red by the Secretary of Inter ior ob jected to the use of 

depositions , taken without notice to them or o·o1Jo rtuni ty to examine the 

witne s ses, and were sust a ined. 

( 20 ) Infra., VIII. 

( 81) :Broold ngs Institution, ·:rhe Hational :;.e covery Admini str a tion 

- An Analy sis EJ.nd. a n App rais a l (19 3E· ), 104-1 08 . 

(22 ) I b id, 112 -ll? . 

( 23 ) .Ame rica 's Recov e ry Prog rc1ffi, (Oxford ?ress 1934), 82 : "The 

post-nea rL1g converences a re r eally a s e ri es of co m~J rods s until a Code 

sati sf cto ry to a ll elements is p ro duc ed . The !.&A s attitude is that of 

leade rship , a lthough at times it h c:ts been forced, to use a more p ot ent 

influence on rec Rlcitrant or selfish int erests." 

( 24 ) Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne , 194 U.S. 106 (l OLl ); infra, n. 25 . 

(25) Shurtl e ff v. U. ~., 1 89 U.S. 311, 314 (1903 ). ne re Congress 

had specified groU11ds for t he r emo va l of a n officer by the Presi dent, r-nd 

he was removed without notice or ppo rt1L~ity to be heard , the Court s a i d : 

11 ±t must b e presumed t hat t he Presi dent did not mnke the removal for any 

c au se assigned in the statute •.• 11 The im,Jlica tion is that the ?resi.;. 

dent's a ction needed no evidenti a ry b a sis. The c 2se i s di sti nguishabl e 

a s it involves t he President in rel a tion with a subordina te employee. 

See a lso Mye r s v. U. :::,. , 272 U. S. 5?, (1926 ), 53 . 

( 26 ) Kwock J an Fat v. Vvbit e , .253 U. S. 454 , 464 (1 920 ). ·'here t he 

inspector f a il ed to r ecord in its Droper 'Jl ace i mportant t e stimony , t he 

court said: 11 It is the province of the courts, in 'Jroc e edings for review, 

wi t hi n the limits amn l y define d in the c ases cit ed , t o p revent abuse of 

t h is extra ordina ry p ower , and this is p ossibl e only when a full record 

is prese rv ed of the essen ti a ls on which the executive office rs p roceed to 

judgment. For f ailure to preserve such a record f or the i nforma tion, not 

l e ss of the commi ssion er of immi g ration and of t he Se c re t ary of Labor 

than for the cour ts, t he judgment i n t h i s c a s e must b e r evers ed." 

( 2 7) Ch ic n.p;o Junction Case , 26tl U. :3 . 258, 264: (192.:± ); Atchi son , 

T. & S. F. Ry . v Comme rc e Commission, l r-:, 7 ~{ E. 831 (1 929 Ill.); nte rs t ate Commerce Commission v. Louisville and Nashville R., 227 U. S . 88 

( 191 3 ); U. S. v. Ab11 en e & Southern :tv. Co., 2G5 u. S. 274 . Note, "Ad- _, ""'"',...,. .). ·: .. ,.,. ., 

9838 ' . "' -.L. · 

.1: 
ministrative L eVI - Probo.tiv Value of ne·').rsny Tes timony ," 24 !VIich . L w 

Review, 831 (1926 ); and tJo te , 11 :-'P.qui ite of an Administr A. tivc Hcaring , 11 

80 Pennsyl VEnia. LEI v Revie\v 878 (19 32) 88t.L 

( 28 ) Stt}phens , o . c it., 98: 11 Certainly no prncti cal di fficul t y 

stnnds in till wey of drawing the l ine against ac tion by commissions upon 

_ ape rs in thei r f ilt;S , c·n·ri e rs 1 aud engineer 1 reports, and other such 

dAtn , without submitting the same to the record an cl to t he scrutiny of 

t he parti es o .nd of th reviewing tribun;1.l. Not only is <. f a ir hearing 

not had in t he apsenc e of such p roc edur e , ·out a f::1ir r evi ew c ::1.nnot be 

~de . Unless evidence a cted u Do n is introduc ed , the reviewing tribuna1 

c annot lmow of it • 11 

(29) 2::> 5 u. s . . ~74 , (1 9211:) . 

( 30 ) I bid. 286 - 288 . 

(31) Op . cit ., 289 . See a lso Ch ic:·1go Junction Case , 264 U.S. 258 , 

264 (1 924: ) . !vir . Jus tice Brande is sai d , 11 Fac ts conc e ivably known t o the 

Colllini ssi on but not pu t in evidence wi ll not suu~o ort an order. 11 

(32) The r e cent c a ses of ~an ma Refini ng Co. v . Ry ~~ n, 293 U. S . 

388 (1 935 ); rud U. s . v. Schecht e r roth rs, 295 U. S. 495 (19 35) indicate this. 

(33) Supr a , _Flori da & Ea st Co a st R. R. Co. v. U. S. ~34 U. S. 167 

(1913); C ic ~ Jw1ction Cas e , 864 u.S. 268 (1924) ; Int r~at ional Sho e 

Co . v. Federal Trade Cornmi ssi on, 80 U. S. 291 ( 1930 ) ; and Federal 

R;dio Co~nission v . Ne lson Bro s., 289 U. S. 266 (1 933 ); see also Wilioughby , Gonsti tutional Law of t he Uni t ad $tat e s, (New York 1929) 

( 3':~ ) Freund , _\.dmini str a ti ve Povve rs over Persons a nd Property 

(Uni V$rsi ty of Ch ic<;1go Press 1928 ) , 108: 11 Th e heq.ring -p ro vision thus 

circumscribes d iscre tion · by requiring its exe rcise to b e substantiated 

by evidence. It r emains to be seen hqw t h is will a ffect the exercise of 

urudent i al discretion, particul arl y u·oon t he b a sis of the widest consideration or exuedi ency . How will it be n o ssibl e to p rove or disp rove 

' public i nterest '? In many c ases it is cl ear tha t the r equirement will 

be mainly one of form : che r c must be some thing in the - r e c ord tending to 

show pu olic int e r est, or the ou-)O si t e , and a corresu onding fi nding . 

Thi s may inure to the b ene fit of t he app licant if he makes a good p rima 

faci e . shoviing , and no evidence is introduced to t he contrary , and if he 

sees to it that the consent orde r contains the ·appro::>riate finding . 11 

Also see page 84 . 

( 35) Sup ra. 

(36 ) Feder al Tr ade Comrnission v. Kepnel, 291 U. S. 304 , 312, 314 

(193':r ) 

(37) U. S. v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co;, 293 U. S. 464, 55 Sup. Ct. 

268, (1935 ). 

( 38 ) I bi d . a t page 72. 

9838 
- (::26-

(39 ) Willis , Parliarn en y Powers of English Gove rnment epartm~n , 

(Harv a rd Univer sity Pre ss 1932), 184 . The v a l ue . of i nve s t i gati on by administrat'lve officers is discuss ed. 

(40) Sup ra., VIII. 

(41) New England Divisions ase ~ 261 U . . S. 184 (1923) . 

(42) ·: u. s. v. Abilene '& Southe r n Ry. Co., 265 u. S. 274, 291 4). 

(t±2a) Office Manual, 2412 ( 3 ): 

11 During the Public Hearing the Presiding Off ice r {See II-2400 ) will 

s eek to e licit f a cts from the opponents and nrop onen ts of Sl')e cific p r ovi sions of t he p rop osed C?de , fo ~ the purpos e o£ bringi ng out t h e ne c essity , 

b enefit, or de t r i ment of sue~ rovisions ~ Hew.Ll l r e c ei ve suggest ed question! 

from his a dvis e rs and will m::tke such use of t hem a s h e d eems ne c e s sar y . 

He will, however, be guided by the line of questioni ng suggest ed b y his 

Co d e Leg al Advis er to insur;e t h e l egal ade qua cy of t he r e cord of the Pub l ic 

He aring. 11 J ' • • , 

(43) Brooking s Institution, op . cit.~ 111. 

(44 ) John s on, The 3lue. Eagl e from Egg. to Ea r.th , (Saturday Eveni ng · 

Post, Feb. 2, 1935), 82 : . . 11 The Lumbe r . Code , too., come in during ~hi s p eri od . 

I did not conduqt t h ese he a ring s. Th e re . vv as no. epic f i ght i n· t he s e negoti a tions, but, on the other h and and . for ·.the very r eason that t he r e was · 

not suffici ent controve rsy to d ev e l op ·th.e subj e c t , t he Co de h a s neve r been 

so s a tisfa ctory .as othe:rs of the Big Six. We have h a d to change it more 

than once, and I · fea r that 'it is· stil.I ~ot right. 11 

(45) Brief :for A. 1 .. S. Schech t e r Corp.~ in Schech t e r v . U.S. '1 60 : 

11 1 $e l e ctive buy i ng 1 was· r e ferr ed. to in the Gov ernrrien t 1 s ·b ri e f b elow as 

one of the 1evils_

1 corr ~cted py t he Co de • . The evi denc e Te li ed on in 

support of t h is contention and als o f or t h e · -pui1Jo se of linld. ng 1 stra i ght 

k illing' with i nt e rsta te .comme rce , is that of Gover nment 1 s si t ness 

Tot tis, himself a sl ht r~ .· Th e na ture of the ' evil' was· t hus naive l y 

s tat e d by this ·witne s s on his direct exaiPin.a tion by the Gover nment: ' . 

11 ' Q, .. Will ·.you expl a in the . p r a ctice of s el ective killing t hat 

exi s ted p r'ior to· the time t hat the Co d e b ec c:tme e f fe ctive? A. e ll, 

at tha t time a buye r went in a n d h andl ed each b ird h i ms elf and 

picke d out just what he wru1t ed.' (R. 294 ) 

11 h i s obj e ction t o the p r a cti c e was expressed. wi th equal ·frai"'lkliess and 

naive t e on hi s dir e ct· ~xarnin tion by'· the Go ve rnment as follows: 

11 'Q,. Wh a t h EJ.-ppen ed to t l!-e r est . o·f · t his -paul try? A. · It was so l a 

a t a cheape r p rice to ' whichev e r buyer they could get at a sati sfac to r y 

p ric e . It was a SEJ Cri f i ce p rice . 1 (R. 294 - 295) 

11 In t he op i ni on of this witness , concurred in by t he Gove r nment , 

se l e c t ive k i l ling is an ' evi l' b ec ause it per mi ts t he customer t o buy 

what he choos es , l eavi ng i n the Dossessi on of t he sl aughte r e r i nfe rior 

9838 
'7-

poultr y r equir ed to D G olrl nt n lowt'' l' . ri~.; 11 

(45a) The l'o lowin~ is · 11 t\ l'fStini.S exru1t•)l e which cna best be 

considered by quotin,~· frot:: L 1e 'l1r .:u1scri ot of ilcnrin{! Rubbe r iif!anufacturing Industry , JMua ry 12 , 1 :..,4 , 8 , ·.r . Eugeue A. Ki 11gm;m representing 

the LaCr osse ?.u ber .hll Co ., :.rl . Tyl er -ub r Co . , · nd the Goodyear 

Rubbe r Co . testified : 

" I n commenting on that I would say that the Code on which we had a 

nuolic he ring , so feu a t!1e uur•)oscs of our discussion t oday are concerned , wa s not this Code . The se , so f a r as the s e ~roceed ngs go, are 

new feat ures. There was i n that cod e a defini t e ~rice f i xi ng nrovisi on 

differ i ng from these i n i~s wo di ~ ru1d possi bl e operation , t o which we 

most str enuously objecte d . That provi si on has been omi tt ed . Bu t i n a 

series of conferences which t ook pl a c e b e t ween t h e socall ed hear i ng 

committee , and. ~e'? resenta ives of t he Admi nistr a ti on , t h er e we r e put i n t o 

thi s Code t he -p rovisi ons t o which obj ecti on i s now made . 

Co cernin~; these p r ovisi ons we we r \, not consulted , although our 

petition , i a ooj ect ing to t he Dr incip l e of p ri ce f i xing and its op er a tion 

must ve been wel l known , bec aus e of t he at titude and position which we 

t ook a t t he hearin6 • 

11 In t h i s i ndustr y , as we will poi nt out very earl y , t he r e i s a 

gr eat differenc e in t h i s t yne of manufn.c tur e and di s tributi on of goods 

t o the publi c . The p r ovisions of t he co de we r e pr epared not by a r epr esent a t i ve g'rou-p of t he indus try , because no group of the industry can 

b e repr esent ati ve which r ep r es ents one division of t he industry whos e 

economi c i nt er est and adv an t ages are utt e rly o~pose d to anothe r. 

' Rep r esent ative ' cannot me an siz e . 'Rep r esent a tive ' c an only mean tha t 

it f airly e~resen s all el ements in an industry . 

11 As I s ay , vve objected , or, rat he r, we r equest ed an op-portunity to 

sit in an6. b e renresent ed_ and a.t l east p r esen t, when t hi s th ing which i s 

now l onge r wc:ts be ing f ormul a t ed ,-- pre sent our vi ews. Hithout knowl edge and without pe rmi tting us to De Dr esent, t h i s was ap"? roved .and becomes l aw , and t he l aw which now exi sts was fo rmul a t ed by tho se whose 

e conomic int erest i s entirel y at vari ru1 c e with our own. In s aying this 

I wi sh to say t hat I fully a-pp r eci a t e the v ery g r eat J) r essur e which the 

a dministr a tion i s unde r. 

11 That, howeve r, does no t in any sense t ake away from what I have 

already sai d , that a code i s writt en by our compe titors who a r e in a 

di f fe r ent po sition, and anprov ed without our having an ~p ortunity to be 

i nf luent i al, if we mi ght b e infl u ential, in t he -f r aming of its p rovisions . 

11 And since t hese q.r e en tirel y new p rov1 s1ons whi·ch a r e in he re, 

whi ch we r e not i n t he code at t he time of t he public hearing , our po siti on 

is that t h i s heari ng he r e i s a he a r ing in which we a ddr e ss ou rs e l ves to 

the gov e r nment p rimarily be caus e to addr ess our sel f t o t hose who se economic 

i ntere st di ffe r s so radi ca lly f rom our own, as will a pp ear ~rese , i s 

quite an a~ ou s to having a J udge a')Jpoint t he ad e1 sary a ttorney as hi s 

de l egat e to de ci de some cl ai m which I have i n di sput e with hi m. So that 

t his argument i s addr essed p r imarily to the Gover nment, and wai ving t echnicaliti es of mach i ne ry for changi ng codes , i t i s a p roposed revi ew of 

9838 
- ~ 28-

,-:h i ch has been done; i t is ·o r o·oo s ecc on :rhB.t l e··-yers ca ll a nunc :9 ro -cunc 

bc.si s a t t h is time , C.oing t he.t '<1 ic~1 r: e ,-,oul t:. have co::1 e haC. there been a 

hee.r ing on the coG.e u ith these revis ons j_ n it, :;_~c: the::: tne4n those 

,"Jh ich r: ere in it (".t the tine of t l:.e h ee.rinc;. u . : 'I 

(L~6 ) · FtJ.r Dr essinr=; and. Fur :Cyei nc. I nC::ustr:r, A:_,- rov ~( Co c e l~ o. 161, 

Code s of Fa ir. Com:9 e~i tion, IV, 1 61. 

(L 7) Ibic-:.., Al~t. VIII , 2-): 11 2. In orce r t o effectur.t e t_ e ·our-

·ooses of the Act a nd. t o e.s sur e ~1 e ;Je.i ntenc:·.nce of lc."o o::.~ stcnC.arc'.s , an~' · 

cavi s i on of is i r..c.ustry :1c:-.y , c:.t any tii!le c::"' ter t h e effective c.e.te of 

t h i s coc"Le sub:.1 i t to t he Acu-:1 i n i strc:.tor, throu-3h t he Code Aut:1ori tJ 3oarC'c, 

a schedule of chare; es a:p:plicaiJle to s ez·v ice s rend.erecl by n enbers of . 

s 2.i cl C.ivision, bn.s ee. u·?on tht? lo· ·e sJt, :~GC\ sonc-:J le cost of :;J rod..uction . If 

anc. ···hen such s checnl e sl1r-tll ·oe a~.:.- :;: vec. "J:" the Ac:..; Jin st tor a:."l.ci. by 

em lo ye:~s of S5~ of t he en:ployees enc;.:'>::; ecl in the clivision af ~e ted, the 

es set iorth the~ein for the se~v ic es suec ifie& sh~ll "J e the mi nirmm chaJ:'ge f o:;: S <'..l( se:c·vices i n the inf:ustry , anG. t h e :;_· enC.i tion of services for ~:c c; es bEHo- 7 those ~:rper ring in suc:1 c:..~Jyro ve i sch edule sh all 

be o. v iola tion of this cocl.e . Subse0"t..1..ent chanc es i n s2.i c s ch edu le shall 

be a rrived. at in the· s:::'jJe E1anner one. shc: ll not be subject to · t he u rovisions of Sectiori 8 (~) bf Article VI. 

"3. Any :;_~ou:y of fur c-:.res ::. s or fur c.yers, not othe:": i9e bound by .· 

an approved s cheC.ul e of ch2.r r;8 s c.s. conterl:;? l atec. by Article VIII, lJay 

agr ee upo n· c;; 1:1 i n iqum ·service charge to assure the :.12 i:nten2.nce of l abo r 

ste nc a:~c: s · covor in:::; <'.ny one :~o e of service or a scheclule con::;>rel1;endL1g 

more tho.n ·one t y:_o ,e of service, '.7hich shall ,be come effect ive and binding u :9on the :part'i es t o such , agreeElent ~"~len a:_9:9rove0. by the Adninistre.tor. Any v iole.tion of s:uc~1 acreement c-.ft e r ap:p-:rova l the:-eof shall 

be dee;:1ecl a viola t ion of t h i s coC:.e. SubseC1u ent chanc es i n sai d sch edule shall be c>.rri vec}_ (.'\.t i n the s~ne mrmne:t -.?xl.c". ·sh.s.ll not be su-oject to 

the p rov isions of Sect ion 8 (c) ·of Art i:cle VI. " 

' (48) Transcrip t of Post Heari ng, -Fur Dres s i nG oncl .Fur ~r eing I nc1ustqr (Dog 211 cl Long Hair Division), April 4, 1934 . 

(49) Ibi cl .• , 7, 10, )0. 

(50) These rre re Inc-:.i a n Kitt Fo ::~ es , SY: ift 'Foxes , C2..p e Fa::es, Sa nd 

Foxes, Ki n& Foxes , a nd_ P ersi o.n l:itt Fo~es . 

(51) 11 er:l0r<: .nc.Ui''J. , Co:J;lsume~s 1 Ac-;.visory ::::'.oarc". , 11a~r 1, 1934. 

(52) Tra nscri:9 t, ! cit., 113. 

(53 ) Tr Bns cri t, 0:9 . c it., 17. 

(54) A:9ril 30, 1934. 

(55) Approve0. Code Ho. 98 , Fire E:::ti n&-1ishin5 Ay::;>li "1Jlce i.-ft;. I nd. , 

Co d.es of F2.i r Compet ition, I I, 511. 

(56) Tra!1s criot of Hea r i n5 , FiTe :E::~t nt:,'u ishinf; Au-oli2.nce i ·anuf a cturing I nc'.ustr y , Ap ril 30 , 1934 , 26-38 . . 
- .)1'')_ ... . 

( 57) ~. rov ed JunP 7 , lX)-.: . 

( 8) ::ool 'L\~: cil L 11 .-U'> try , ~O ·'f) ;,: o . :-, , (Co d() " ofF· ir Cornnctition , 

I , 33}, 37 - 11 ·T'1e p rovici o1 in t 1·-' Go~_t e rE' 1_:·.tl •t lling ma chine ry hours wa s 

t he only poL1 t · t issue unon \"i1i ch n t!d no1·i t.~r of l~a indus try took exception . T:1is .ninority wit1dre w it., obj B tion in f<'~vor of the 1 ajority . 

It was n fine exhioition of ;.>ort ma nship a nd uns elfi::;hneGs . A t horough 

analysis of this particul:•r rool m will be undP. rt aken i·nmediately to 

obt ain the a.ctual fact by 1.Ceure1 t e s t <'ltis tical study and resec:trch . 11 

The provision in qu<? stion r eads ClS follows : Pa ~e 39 - 11 I V HOlBS OF 

OP"SRAT IOH OF ivi AC I-=: nt~:t Y -- 11 On and P ft e r t he effcc ti v e date no emnloye r 

shall o-per .... t e any comb or any spinning S1Jindl e or any loom or a ny kni tting machine for more than two sh ifts of forty hour cn.ch ne r week . 11 

(59 ) Legitima t e Full Length Dramatic and Musical Theatrical Industry, Code No. 8 , (Co des of Fa ir Compe tition, I, 81) Administrator t s 

Letter to t he :?residen t, a t u..--~. ge 82 ; 11 For t he first time in history of 

the l egitimate ~: eatre minimum wages· ,qnd rne.ximwn numbe r of hours hAv e 

been fixed by e{;:reement for a ctors, u r ess r epr esent a tives , company 

managers , house treasure rs, and otne r l ebor . Wag e s h p_ve no t been r educed, and , i ndeed , h!:>ve been r :=ti s ed. Iiours gene r al l y h av e b een reduced. 11 

(60) H. I. R. A., Titl e I, Se c. l. 

(61) Co c_es of Fa ir Com~e tition, Volume IV, Pag e 703, Administrative 

Orde r o, 1-28, De c emb e r 15 , 19 ~33 : · 

11 lVIKGEi:CY ·;·2Q,UI REi :ENS7S ~_S TO ?lJRT:-tER LI MITATION OF HOtBS OF 

MACniNE OP::::::F AT ION I N. CA:..:mED Y_4.EN GROUP OF Ti-rE COTTON TEXTILE 

INDUSTRY 

"Pursuc:·n t t o t he r ec om111enda tion of t he Cotton Texti l e Code Aut "nority unde r Se ction VI of the Cotton 'rextil e Code , approved by the 

Administrator De c embe r l, 1933 , p roviding fo-r p roc edure. for t emporary 

change s in the limit a tion of h ours of De tion of productive machine ry to mee t particul a r conci i tions arising in particul ar g r ou'Js of the 

industry ; 

11 It is req_uired t hat, for a -pe riod of sixty days f ro1n Janua ry 1, 

1934, S"'9 in:.1 in~ s-p indl es in the industry , whe r eve r located, op e rating 

on the ·orcd.uction of y typ e of c a r ded ya rns for sale as such (such 

spindl es comprising t he p roductiv e ma chine ry of the CA.rded yarn g roup 

of tne indus try) shall ·!.ot "J e ol ·":L':- ter -in e:~cnss .. ~of+-·fm i~ ~eicht::·&ou!l.§ !: ec:;.ch 

in any week during such p eriod, Drovided that such 1Je riod may be shortene d by the Co de Au t no.ri ty with the con-currence of t he Government Representative t he r eon, or tha t such restriction of hours of ou e r a tion 

may likewise be r educed at any time during the period as changing 

conditions rn.=y warrant; and provided furth e r that during the p eriod 

when such t e::.1p orary limitation is in effect, no weaving mill, combed 

yarn mill, or 1c~ itting mill shall operat e spindl e s in the reduction of 

9838 
- 23Gany type of c e.rded yarn for sale as such whi ch we r e not employed in 

s-pinning c arcled . yarn for such sale at s ome ti~e during tne nine ty days 

prior to Dec embe r 1, 1933: 11 

11 T"rT...E COTTON TEX1ILE I NDUSTRY CO ~ HT-rEE , 11 Co de Authority unde r t he Code of Fair 

Comp etition for the Cotton Textile Industry. 

"By George A. Slo ?n, Chairman. 

11 The foreg oing requirement is concurred in. 

11 Hu gh S. Johnson 

Administra tor 

"Leo Vv olman, · 11 ri . A • .Slater. 

"Government Repre.sen.tative on the Cotton Tex tile Industry 

Conuni ttee, ·code Authority under tthe Co de o:f Fair Competition 

for the Cotton Textile Incl ustry~ll 

(62 ) Tr·anscrip t of Hearing , Cotton Texi{fle Indu s try, June 27-30 , 

1933. 

( 63) Bri e f for A. L. A. Schech t er in Schechter v. U. S ., o-, . cit., 

172, suggested to the Supteme c·ourt th.i t no ·ansvv ers cm.ild~found in this 

field. Although this view s eems rathe r hop el e ss, it inciica t es the difficult subject mat ter w_i th which l'JP.A c:le_a l t: 11 Whe'Gher a given tral1SRC tion 

will ' p roduce an effect u p on' interst ate comme rce is a questio'n which in 

a complex economic society involve s f a ctors so multitudinous and so interwoven with inoperative circumstances that even an e·xhaustive study will 

not provide an answer. The conflicting testimony i..n t h is case amply 

demonstrate s that the cp.e stion is practically i nroossi ble of solution." 

(6'±) Transcript of Public :::-rearing , Zl ectric Light and Power Industry, January 12-13, 1934, 394. 

(65) ;·.'iemor andl..un to· c.· W. ~ning from the Consume rs' Advisory :Boa:r:d, 

November 27 , 1934 . A conside rable p ortion of this memorandum is s e t forth: 

11 (4) Article VI, Section 7, Paragr aph (j), authorizes the Code 

Authority to formulate and p resent to the Administra tor an open price 

pl an which may oe used in this industry . Pending comule tion of such 

plan, the Co de _L'.~tth ority, for a period of four monthsr is emoowe red to 

co~lect and di SSEJninate information a s to p rices, discounts, rebates, 

allowances, :1 ncl a1l othe r terms and conci.i tions of sale e.nd/or transfer 

to differen t cl asses of distributorR. Ib othe r .words, •ntil the Code 

Authority can work out some plan which is ACCeptab l e to the Administration, 

it is given a ca rt e bl anche for four mo11ths, to pursue any -p rogram it 

desires. We regard the grant of ·:any such ro ~d nnd unr e stricted powe r 

as unwise and hi ghly obj e ctionable, a nd advise its elimination from tl1e 

code. 

11 This code h a s -oe en Dending b efo r e t J.1e A.A.A. a nd t he N.R.A. for more 

than a year. During tha t time the p rop onen ts h ?v e sug es ed several 

diffe ren t /)rice filing p ropos a ls, none of which were acceptab l e both to the 

Administrc1.tion a.ncl the memb e rs of t he industr y . The r e is no r eason to 

beli eve t hat the liode Autnority will suddenly dev e lop a p ro-p e r and unobj e ctionaJJle 1Jro15 rain for t he coll ec tion and d iss eminat ion of ·orice infor9838 
-231-

mati on for us e during four months following l"WJI'OVRl of the code . 

" A biief review of the hi stor; of tni s industry may b e of ssistance in poi tin.~ out tne clongers inherent in M Y provi s] on such ;:1_s that 

above r eferred t o . 

"Si x mum·:> ers of this i ndust r y do more than 8(} ~ of t he entire v ol ume 

of busi n ess , t he ..r emaininb busin e ss being distribut ed among t hirty to 

for t y small mru1uf? cturer s . The industry i s divi den into t wo camns - t he 

meat p!'l ckers , e- nd the so -cal led " indeuenden t s ". Each g roup p ro duc es about 

hal f t he total ou tput of t he indus try . They bo th apparen tly desire a n 

open pri c e , but ve h~d diffi cul ty i n a rriving at a Dr ogr am t hat 

was mutua l ly S8tisfn.c t or y and a t the smne time nob ion e to he 

Administratio1 . 

"The independents w1sn to hav e an open p ric e ; l gn which woul d apul y 

to t he distribut ion me t hod fo llowed· by t he packe r s . A maj or l?o rtion of 

the outuut of the 1J ..... cker s i s so l d tnrough b r anch hou ses ovv n ed oy t he 

packe r s . The independent s· r eali zed t hat a price f il ed by a nacke r cove ring t he sale of h~s pre -J et t o h i s b r a:nci1 outl e t s woul d mean noth ing , RS 

the b r anch !wuse ~oul d. ~~. 11 a t a ny 'Jrice i t f ound desirabl e , without 

r efe r enc e to the ncninRl )r~ce mn.de to tt b y t he p 11 cker. fhe indenen dents 

t he r ef or e nronosed a pri ce fi ling ')l a.n em-oodying t he Jrincipl e o f resal e 

p rice mA.i ntene.nc,e , th:e effec t o f wliich woul d ·be to requ ire t he ·oacke r s t o 

fil e wnol esal e ·or iees as well as ma.nufa ctu :ce r s 1 prices. The p a cke:ts 

obj e c-t ed , and t he v coposa l h a s b een withdrawn. n owev e r, in v i ew of t h i s 

h i s tory , a nd our knovrl edge o f t he de sires of c ert a in memb e rs of t he industry, we beli eve it v e r y u ..r1desirabl e to F~ llo v1 t he Co de Aut h ority to do 

11 anything aoout 0:_0en -pri c e s unt il t he limits of t he ·rowe r s o co nf e rred 

are disti n c i l y se t forth . 

11 The wi s e-Lorn of De rrni t ting any open u rice filing -.:> l a n in this indu stry i s o'•;>en t o se rious doubt. No ul a n or sugge stion t hat h a s y e t 

been offe r ed. i s ..., cc en t abl e . Th is industry h ctS si x v e ry large memb e r s , 

and forty v e r 'jr small ones . I t i s i mp robabl e that e1ny open ··Jrice c an 

b e evolv ed wi1ich will a f f ord p rot e ction to the small mem·oe rs, yet b e 

ti faet ~ t o t he l a rge . 

" About f our years ai;O, t he Depa rtment of Jus tice commenc e d an inv estig ation of memoe r s of t he Cottonse ed Oil Re fin e rs indu s try, following comnl a i nts agai nst c e rt a in a ctiviti e s of their tra de a ssoci A.tion. 

In t h is inve stigation, a tt ention was given to the op e r a tion of a.n op en 

Dric e pl an which was in u se by the a s soci a tion. Mr. 'Halte r Rice , Sp e ci a l 

Assistan t to t he Attorney Gene ral, ma de a r eport to the Attorney Genera l 

on Ap ril 20 , 1931 , c on t aining a SUIDI!la ry of t he evidenc e s eeured. Thi s 

summnry incl.i c 2.tes t hat the open p rice ·olan was r e sulting in virtua lly 

u n iform "):rices on t he J:>clrt of t he 1 8 l a r ge s t producers in the industry; 

t hat price c~1 o.nges we r e ma de sumul t an eousl y ; and t hat the s a l e p ric e s 

fo r cott onseed oil sho rt ening we r e ma i n t a ined a t a h i gh and n e arly 

const ant l evel duri ng ;:1 n d following a pe rio d of t i me when urice s for 

cot t ons eed ~d r aw cottonseed p roducts h~ d f a ll en to a v e ry low l ev e l 

and we r e s t i ll de clining . · 

11 The Federal Tr?.de Commi ssion , i n its inv est igation of t he Cottonseed Industry , dev eloped t he f qct t hat t he s ame l A.r ge r e fine r s who dom9838 
-232-

inate the refining industry, also dominate the cottonseed cru:::.her::. through 

subsi di A.ri es engaged in tha t industry. At about the same time that the 

refiners were participating so effectively in an open price plan, the 

crushe rs we re engaging in a pl m for the collection :md dissemination of 

informa tion e·o'nc erning the -p rice s which the crushers we re l!.::> ying for 

cottonse ed . According to tne report of the Federal Trade Com.raission, t his 

cooperative activity on the part of the crushers resulted in the crusners 

pBying uni f orm and eve~-decreasing p rice, for cottonseed . Tnis r esult 

could not h2ve been achieved if it were not for the full cooneration of 

those large crushers which we.re subsidiaries of the large refiners. 

":Because of the fact that the refiners w:r10 domina te this in dust~J 

have abused open p rice filing Dl:ms in t he Dast, there is valid reason 

for apnrehension that they would abuse permission to engage in an open 

11ri ce filing p ro gr mn in the future . 11 

(66 ) J an. 28, 1935, Cincinnati, Ohio. 

( 67) Ap l~oved Code No. Ll-36 , Fur Mfs. Indus try, Codes of Fair 

Compe tition, X, 265 . 

( 68 ) March 19-21, 1935, Article VIII, Section 13-20 . 

( 69) Trp nSCl~ipt of :learing, r·ia rch 19- l' 19 35' 61 .2, 773' Fur 

Manufacturing Ind.ustry: Mr. Fillmore - 11 Aft er all, a ren't all these 

regulations of Indus try - they h c<wen 1 t anytning to do with t he consumer". 

(Page 612) Mr . ;, ·:iller- (referring to a suggestion that pl~ ibition of 

style shovvs would ·De de triment al to consumers in the m1a ll and medium 

size cities) s aid- 11 The vv om;:~.n in that small town you S;?Oke of is not 

concerned in this Code of ours. We cannot ~e conc erned with he r 11 • (Page 

773) 

( 70) 'rranscript of :dearing , Steel Indus try, July 31, 1933 , 1. 

Transcri·Jt of Hearing, Cotton Textile Industry, June 27, 1933, 4 -7. 

( 71) i,liemorandum to Consumers 1 Advisory 3oard re Some In~iden ts 

Reflecting the Attitude of Deputies d Other Administrative OfficiRls, 

June 3, 1935! 11 • • • • was nrobably the deDuty most conv inced of the 

correctness of the rul e against advisers being pe rmitt ed to make statements or ~sk queetions at hearings. His contention was tha t .<'· S the 

.administration was engaged in fri endly coop eration to produce a code 

a s ne arly like tha t proposed as possible, it should not be allowed to 

appear tha t any s-p irit of distrust or antngonism toward industry existed anywhere within N.R.A. He a lso was convinced t hat his advisers were 

to consider the f ac ts brought out "111 d to render a.dvice to him on the 

side. It was his job to preside and if we li ewe further pe rtinent f a cts 

could be brought out by questions, it WRS our function to suggest the 

questions to him. 

11 •••• did not hesitate to t ell membe rs of industry at conferences 

that t hey mi ght well ignore certain suggestions of advis ers for he intended to over-ride them .•••••••..•.••• 

"Late r on, however, Kenny had an -experi enc e with •.••.••• a t 

9838 

:i 
Cl. confer nc ri th ~ ... e Aluminum Cool~i n Ut n. i l I m1u try . On thi occasion .•.... exnlnined t o the indus t y th t t he n~ume s r enr escntative al ay objected nd tna t they mi ght ~ell i gnore the r e commendation"' . K nny noint d t o one nrovi i on wi1ich rni{;ht be administe red 

against t e Pu'ulic inte r est • . . . . . . 1 ~ r eDlY was tht-1 t it would 

nev er b e admini t e r e i rrm r oue l y 0ecause he was go ing t o R0r.l inis t er it." 

( 72) Cemen t Indu try , Aunroved Cone ro . 1 ?,8 , Codes of Wa ir Comnetition, III, ,..q5 a t nnge 334. , Article> VII , "?rior to the construction 

or one r a tion of a 11 e nlRnt, or the incr ease in the nroductive canacity 

of an existing one , or the mov emen t of all or nart of sue~ a u l a nt from 

one nlace to anot~er , T~e Cement I nstitute, on i~t of sucb i nfor mation, shall nrom1Jtly c ollect co~nl e informa tion concerning existing 

1Jroductive cauac i ~r in t he a r ea in whi ch t :1e nroDosed new 1Jl.::1.nt i s to 

be locatec, to ~e ther ~ .... i tl1 dP t a conce,..ni:lg consumution of cemen t in tha t 

area. I f these c1at8 d i s close t ha t such ne·•r nla.nt will :result in further 

increasing t ile nroblem of over-nroduc ti on or over-ca1J ~i t y in such A.rea , 

The Cemen t Institute r.1ay uetition t he Pre~ident to Drohibit the c onstruction, or Ol')e r a ti on , of the 1Jronos ed new nla n t, or the inc.reR.se in i118.nufacturing ca1Jaciti es of such existins Dhmts. The n!'ovisions lte:r of 

shall not b e cons trued to urevent t he mo~e rni za tion of existine nlC~nts 

t o i mDrove owlity of nroduct a no/or one:ration efficiency. -· 

"The 3oard .:Jay stuc1y the Droblem of nermanent excess of uro0uctive 

caDaci ty in· a ny- iir ea a nc1 ·nay from ti ~e to time "?rena re And submit to the 

Ad ministrator for consid e r a tion 1')1Rns for t he clos ing a·l)v.rn or amortization of the less econor.1ical nlants. 

( 73) Suura , n. 71. The writer contin'Jed .: ;'If .the Code Authority 

is suecificR.lly a uthorized to f ornula t e a no 1JBsent. a nla n for annroval, 

t he Administra tion has t a cit+y a ssenteo to the n :rincinle that onen Drices 

are de sirable i n t h is in0ustry. F.or this reas on,, we advise against the 

auurova l of t he n:rovisic;m authorizlng th~ Code Authority tp nres ent an 

ouen Drice 1Jlan for arYr:lrova 1, and recommend the en tire eli!Tiina ti on of 

Article VI, Se ction 7, Pa r agr auh (j) . ". 

The Lega l Division had a d.irect sta te.nent UDon this uroblem, which 

d id not aholish the us e of the a r gument of t a cit annroval. Legal ~1 er.lor andum, No. 9 , ~·T t ice <md an 01JYJ orb:mi t y to be TTeard, January 12, 1934: 

"As to add ition of new :TJa tter to co0es unc1 er nrovisions in such 

codes for i nclusion of such new ma tte~ on annrova l by the Administra tor: 

The cownents as to notice a nd a n 01JDOrtUl1ity to be heard sunn ly in theory, 

but ' here the new :natter is ca refully set Ul') i n t he code itself, not being effective until anDroved b y t he Ad ministrator, the Administra tor 

could simDly Pn~ rove sta ting that hjs annroval rould be eff e ctive on a 

suecif ies dRt e unl ess cause wer e shown to the c on tra r y nrior to that time. 

11 In C8 s e s 1e re the nem rna t t e r is not mentioned in the code ex c ent 

by gene r a l des c r intion then t he re should be a definite hearing on the 

suecific ne''l ;natter when Administra tor had decided what form it should 

t ake and in such cases t he remarks in the first nortion of t h is memorandum as to notice and hearing are a""')nlicable . " 

9838 
-23L.:-

( 74) Strawbridge ,): Clothier v. Fecl_e:ral_ ~dj.c Cv~:li~l-_oD_ , 57 F . ( 8d) 

4:34 ( 1932) . 

(75) .Iron Rno Steel Influstry , Annroved. CoC:e _To . 11, Codes of Fair 

ComDe ti tior., I, Reno rt of De'Dut y Arlmi nist.r a tor L ·: . Si:rroson, a t nage 

1'7!3 : 11 '11i le the members of t he indus try a nd t ae i ndus try adv isor r E:uort 

that h~ scheme of the code involve ~ no substantial c hange fran nresent 

nractices, a nU!nber of nrotests ha:ve b een rnaoe against a lleged changes 

in basi ng ~q ts an(l a gai nst t he nrice nrovi sions of t he carle as a wh ole . 

Protests ha.ve a l s o "!Jeen mad e aga i ns t t he control of dec1uctions for trn.n snorta tion costs cheane r than 11-rai l, aga inst. t he control of auan ti ty 

dis counts, and aga ins t t lle on e ration of t hrough rail r fl.tes on 'Droducts 

fabricated in transit. The 'Drotestn.nts n-ave n,Q~ sfltisfa ct or il y established their 9bj~~tions to t'!:le O'Je r a tion of t l1e code . 

"In view of the 1')rotests anci t he far-reaching effec t s of the n r cvisions of the code, it seems wi se to 'Drovide f or P 90-d ay ueriod of 

exn·erimental observa tion of t he one:ra.ti on of t he cod e. 11 (Unde rlinine 

mine). -

( 76) Ibid 

(77) Pana:na Refining Co. v. C{ya n, 293 U. S. 388 , ( 1935). 

(78 ) Smith v. :"'"itchcock, . 286 U. s. 5~, 6 1 (1912): "· , • the official was n ot c a lled on to sta te reas ons or to cl iscuss, - his only du-

·ty wa s to hear; a nd beyond offering t h e n rinted brief, n l ain tiffs' representatives showed no desire to be eard. 11 See a lso U. S. v. Cheoical F'm.mdation, Inc., 2.72 U. S. l (1926 ); "'~ nd U. S. ex rel "qoon v. 

. l as , 19 D. C. 99 (1890). 

(79) t\1Iartin v. Ma tt, 12 i'Th eat. 19, ~2 (18 ~7 ); and Philade l nhia & 

Trenton B. . !:{. v. S timoson, 14 ~e t. 4lJ-. 8, 458 ( 1841J) , 

(80) Wichi t a R. '::{. u. Light Co . v. Public Utility Co:n::tission, ?-60 

U, S. 48, 59 (1922 ) in whicL t he court s a i d : 11 ~e rest our decision on 

the n rinc ::_nl e t >-a t a n exlJress fi nd ing of unreasona bleness by t he Cor.1!:tission was ir.ciisDensable under t :1e statutes of t he StA-te. 11 

(81) J(y cr: ~ J a n Fat v. 1'1hite, 250 U.S. 4:54 , ~,6Lh 9~0 ) • 

. (E312.) Go~1~ t~~e on ini ter s ' · Po ,rers i.enort ( c-L,_ rd. 4060, T)resep.ted 

b y the Lor5 ~h.J .:: Jce llor to Pa rliament i n Anri l, 193?,) SO , 

( 82) Nc·t e - "Delegation of Powe r by Congress", 48 T·'arv:1.rq. Lr :.__-qevi g !_1.9.:~~~ ). 

( 83 ) I b id ,, 1- ~2 . 

8~ ) ., 9-12 . 

(85) Ibi rl , 

( 86 ) Pacif ic St ates -3ox c:md Jasket Comnany v . nhite, 2 U. S. Law 1

'Te ek ?,02 ( 1935 . 

9838 
(87) ?9 3 l . S. ~qq (19Z5). 

( 8'5) Pa cifiC St~tC iOX an -----

( R<J 9,- U. S. <±95 ( l 9'l')). 

( Sl) ?60 . S. ~"8 (19.-.~) . 

(92) J64 '() . s. " (19~4) . 

(93) 290 u. s. 190 (19 ~3 ). 

~ t c ,.,h · t n · t '">tJLl "JC\f. :e o,.,...,, ny v . 1 e , .,.., . c1 . , , . ---·-

(94) Pacific StF~te 3ox and "la ket Cornua n y v. "Th ite, On . cit . . 

( 95) ·1rief fo r A. L . A. Schechter Cor-q., op. cit., 80 , co:n ented 

uoon this fact as regar dec the Admini~t c>tor s renort. 

( 96 ) A tJ'"T)e of f i nrl n~ i s found in t he l e tter t o t he Presid ent 

f r or:1 ~:e Admi nistrfl.tO!' on A'1urover1. Code ill'o. L19 , On tica l 'l!am:tf0 cturing 

Industr y , Codes of Fa ir Comnetition, I, 600 , 601, which reacl.s , in uart, 

as follows: 

"The Administrator f ind s that : 

11 ( a ) The Cooe as co::t·~ encled comn lies in a ll r esuec ts with the 

pertinent nrovisions of Title I of ~e Act, incl udin~ without limita ti on , 

subsection (a) of Section 7, ano. subsection (b) of Se ction 10 t he r eof : 

and that 

11 (b) The a.,..n l ica n t l~; 01 .. P) i n..,ose s no ineaui t a ble r estrictions on 

admi ssi on t o :11e •:~ r hi-c. t he't"e i n and is trul y r enr esent a tive of the Ontical ' Ian lfa,ctu:-in,-; I ndustry; a no t hat 

11 (c) The ~oce as r e co.n 1encie0 i s not rlP.signen to lJromote monopoli es 

or to eliminate or O"Jnress small ent e!'Dr::s es and "V ill not operate to (liscriminate agc<i nst the·1 and wi ll t e nc1 to effec tUElt e ~1e Y)O licy of Title I 

of t he Na ti onal I noustri::tl ~ecov e~y Ac t . 

"It i s recor.1:nended , t he!'efore, t h a t t h i s Cooe be i rnLled i a.tely 

ad outed. 11 

Another t J'"T)e of f i nr'Jing i s indicat ed by the ~xe cutiv e Oroer for t he 

same Code , r ead ing , i n Y)R rt, as follor~, 599 : 

"NO~ , TRF'":).:S:_!?O ':l.!" , I, Franklin D. ~oosevelt, Pre s i den t of the United 

State s, nursilllnt t o f ne aut ho rity v est ed in me by title I of t he :,ra ti anal I ndustry ~e cov y Act, an'lrov ec June 16 , 1933 , and o t herwi se , do acou t 

and annrove t~1e :relJort, reco.:unen0a ti ons ano fino ings of the Ad minis trn tor 

and oo or de r t h:.:J .. t t he s a i Ll Code of Fair Comnet iti on be a nd is he r eby a-olJrov ed , subject t o t he followi ng conditions: 11 

Anotber i s in ic ate~ by the short letter to t he President from t he 

Administrator in co· nection ll<T ith aTllJroved Code l o . 50, Automatic Sprinkler Indus try , Codes of Fair Com-oet i ti on , Vol. I, 605 , G06 , as follovrs: 

9838 
- 23E11 I have the honor to submit and ·recom..":\end fo-r yo·u.r alJU!'oval the 

Code of :E'P.ir Cor:tne tition fo!' t he Automat ic Surinkler Industry . 

11 An anal ysis of the 1Jrovision ~ of t he code has been made by the Adrninistr?.tion. I find t ha t t he cod e corrrn li es with t he re nuirements of 

clauses l and 2, subsection ( H) of Section 3 of .. ~he· Er~t t'ti>:.: , 1 ln.Cu.iO"'':."':lD..l 

1i.ecovery Act. 

'

1 I am , my dea r Mr. Pres i 0e n t, 11 etc. 

(97) Philadel1Jbia & Read ing ~y. v. Di Dona to, ?.56 , U. S. 3~ 7, ~28 

(1920 ). Th e cou rt r eferreCl to fin<Jir:.g8 •nan e i '1 ~1P t erms of t he statute 

ns "no connec ted finding s of fact aQ id e fro.n concl,lsions of la'!T . 11 .. or 

another critice l com:nent, see ~· enc1erso:G, on. cit., 118 , 119 , critici zi ng 

the Feo c r e.l Trad.G Cor~ission for usin,q: such ter!·:1s as 11 com::1e:rcial bribery " 

and "stifling anr'l SU1J1Jrese>in,<s: co ·:roeti ti on in intersta te c o::rrnerce. 11 See 

a lso nage 114: . 

(98) T.renderson, 01J. cit., 108-1')9 , 

(99 ) Office nual: "Code MR:;:ing an6 Ame:ndment II-800() Procedure 

II-2 70:.3 .12. 

"(II) It will con tain the following ma nd a tory uarB.granh beg i nning : 

I l . , d ' f. ., t ( V li') II a na yze s a 1o co e a na 1no •.••.• e c. see - -. 

It is significant tha t these eo uirer~e nts do not tell the Ad ministrative Official wha t tyne of fi nd i ngs he must ::J?.ke or shoulc1 make. In 

fact, the whole indica tion is tba. t t h i s ':vas a :ne re form ,1hich t he Administration felt it must ce nu y with, more as a necessary evil th."'.n Anything else. 

(100 ) Annroved Cod.e Fo. l, Cotto ~ Tex tile Industry, Codes of Fair 

Comn e tition, I, 3-l~a. 

( 10 1) A1Jn roved Code '} o. 9, Lu :-~ber c:> nd Timber Procl. uc ts Inc'ius try , 

Codes of Fa ir Co.n"Je ti tion, I, 96 -.135 ; i:<Jillis, op. cit., 133-135. 

(102) The English ·Dractice, i n ca ses of l ocEl l sl u·n c lea r ance nro-

,je cts, run from fifty to three hundred uages. It includes a state r:~en t 

and a n ana lysis of t he f ac ts. 

( 103) Leg itimate Full Leng th DrRPla.tic a nd ~-~us ic l Industr~r , Annroved Code :~ o. 8 , Codes of Fe ir Co:m1 etition, I, Pl. 

( 104) Fi ling Tack l e I no us try , Annroved Cod e no . 1:-: , Codes of FA ir 

Co ~etition, I, 217. 

( 105) Lea ther Indus try , AD1Jrove r) Code } o. 81 , Codes of Fair Competiti on , I, ~88 ] .• 

( 106 ) 3 ri ef for A. L. A. Sche chter Corn., ou . cit., 54-59 . It is 

cont ended t hat "the Pr esi den t has made no find ing s of fact to bring his 

a ction in an1Jr oving · the coc'ie with i n a ny uolicy or standa r d which the Act 

may co~t in. 11 The sa.ile sugg esti on i s made in :·rote, "De l ega tion of Power 

by Congress, 11 01J. cit. 

(J.07) I nfr a , XV. ,· .... 
-:C37-

NOTES TO Cru.FTER X 

(1) 1 Coke Rep o:r t~ r '77b; -s'tor r s v . Barker , 10 Am . Dec . 317, 

323 (N.Y. 1822) ; Haven v . Foste r, 19 Am . Dec . 353, 357 ( ass. 1829) 

Whe r e t he ma.xim i s stated igno r an t i a ,juris guod guisgue tenetur scire 

meminum; and 'Wha rton Legal Maxims (New York, 1878) , 93 wher e the 

maxim is stated i gnorantia ,juri s non excusat . 

( 2 ) Fairlis, "Admi n i strCJ tive Legisla tion" , 18 Michigan Law 

Revieu 181, 198 (1920 ): "In t he ma t te r of nublication, Acts of Congr ess and sta t e l egisla tures a re p romulgate d in well known and acce ssibl e ways; but it is a. dif ficult a nd a l most i mpossibl e t a sk to 

kee;p ra ~:: of t he multifold va.rie t y of a.dministra.tive r e gulations. 11 

(3) 5 Bentham, Work s (1843) V, 547: "We hear of tyrants, 

and t hose cruel one sl but, whateve r we ma y have felt , we have: neve r 

heard of any tyrant in such sort cruel, as to punish men for disobedience 

to l ans or orde rs which he has kep t them from the k nowledge of." 

Q,uotoq_ by Griswold, "Government in I gnorance of the Law ... A ~l a for 

Bette r Publication of Executive Le gisla tion," 48 Harva rd La.w ·Review 198 

(1934). 

(4 ) Betham, ibid., V, 546: "That, if he (a. man)-- ask s in 

which of all these book s he could upon occasion, lay his hands a:nd find 

those p a.rts in which he himself is concerned, without being bewildered 

uith those in which he ha s no concern, -- what he learns is -- that the 

\lhole ma tter. is so completely mixed up to gether, that for him to pick 

out the collection of those same pe rts from the ·rest, is utterly impossible." 

(5) Comer, Leg islative Functions of National Administrative 

Autho r ity (New York 1927), 156, n. 4, indicates that often only a small 

(15) pe.r cent of ruling s r ela tive to problem will be found to be published. · Sen~te Report Nl ·. 27 , 69th Cong . 1st Sess ., p. 7 (1926) relat.-

inp to t he Bureau of Internal Reven:ue. 

(6) Ibid., 195-196. 

("') Ibid. 

(8) Blachly and Oa tman, Administrative Leg islation and 

Adjuication, (Brooking s Institution 1934 ), 11: · nit is impossible to 

secure a.ccurate statistics re s arding the number of sub-legislative a.cts 

which a re issue d by all such authorities each year: or to find out t he 

numbe r of .administrative judicial decisions of various sorts which a.re 

made: by t l1.e r.1 . Their puolished rules and regula.t'ion s cover altogethe r 

a.ba:ut eig t or ten time s a s ma py pages a s the a.cts passed by Congr e ss." 

(9 ) Brook ing s Institution, The Nationa l Recove r y Administre tionan Anal y sis an d an Appra isa l (1935), 29: There is e. reference to t he 

gree t VOlume Of ·codes , SUpplementPl code s , amendments, modification s, 

classifica tions, et cetera. 

9838 
- 238-

(10) ~~ief f~r ~~~· SChechter Corp. in. Schechter ~~ U. S., 

66, 68: This note is desi~1ed to show the persuasive way admi~~strativs 

inadequacies were presented to the .court, particularly by quoting 

reputable authority. The writer has read both authorities quote<i 'n 

the eriginal. "The practice of filing Executive Orders y,ri th the Department of State is not unif.Jrmly or regularly followed,_ and the t otal s 

ar e really greater than above indicated. S0me ~rders are retained or 

buried in the files c f the goverTh~ent ~epartments, some are confidential 

and are not published, and the practice as to printing and publication 

of orders is not uniform. Some orders are made known and availaple 

rather promptly after their approval; the publication of others may 

be delayed a month or more, with consequeat confusi on in -numbering. 

The comparatively large , number of recent orders which incorporate 

provisions purporting tJ impose criminal penalities by way of fine 

and imprisonment for violation is without numerical precedent in the 

hist0ry pf the government. 

111 0f the recent output, approximately half have been issued under 

or pursuant to the National Industrial Rec overy Act, and have had to 

do either with its administration, agencies, and appropriations, or 

with the approval o.f codes and amendments thereof. 

111 The total volume above stated does not include the contents 

of the codes and amendments, all ·of which according to the act, have 

the force ·and effect of law and vi olation of any provision of which 

is a criminal offense." Report of Special Cornm. Administrative Law, 

Am. Bar Assn., 21 5-216~ 

111 In the first year of the National Recovery Administration, 2,998 

administrative or·ders were issued. In addition to these, the Recovery 

Administration has adopted numerous regulations and sets of regulations 

which are to be found scattered ·among 5, 991 press releases during this 

period. lt has been estimated.that the t ot al amolmt of 1 law1 evolved · 

during the first year of the NRA's activities exceeds 18, 000 pages, 

probably a greater volume than the total amount of statute law contained in the .. United States Code.' Erwin N. Griswo·ld, ~Government in 

Ignorance of t h e Law--a Plea for Better Publicati on of Executive Legislation.' 48 Har~ard Law Review 198, 199 (1934). 0 . 

(11) Infra, XI 

(12) 293 ·U. S. 388 (1935 ). 

(13) U. S. Law Week, Dec. 18, 1934, "Taken separately, though 

several New De a l agencies have made an endeavor t o distribute their 

orders and regulations. This is shown by the enorm0us number of 'rel eas es' issued. 

11Particularly is this true : as to the codes of N.R.A., published 

copi e s of which arc quite r eadily and promptly available. It is not 

so truo as t o the hundreds of miscellaneous orders issued by the Recovery Administration and other agencies. 

9838 

··, 

.• 

.

. , 

' 
Non Existent Provision Invol ed 

"The int er e.,t or t 'u.:: S1.nre1 e Com~t in t his matter waR a ro used 

particulerly by th cl i scl o.=nn· c C'luring t 1:e C~~g1Jmm:. t of th oil cases 

tha t four Texac; oil n r oduccrs 1acl been L1C'l.i (.;t ed for vi olati on of a 

non- e xis tent u r ovi si~n of t l e Putroleun Code , an<.~ t ha t -= lower Fed ral 

Court had su.s.taincd a dcnurrer t o t e indic 1ent on t he ground tha t 

the provision, t hou.gl t to be actually i n the code , wa s unconstitutional. 

This anomalous r esult 0ccurr ed beca se , i n a;nending t he entire Sec . 4 

of ..Art .. III of t l1e Code , t he second par c.:gr nph of t he s ect ion , in which 

no changes ~; ere ~ r•ae , w:-. s no t r esta ted in the executive order. The 

e rror was no t disc over ed ancl. rectified until a year l a ter, during whi ch 

the oil producers wexe :Jrose cu tecL U1?e> n cliscovery of the error, the 

Gov e rnment withdrew its c- Jea l t o t l:t.e St.,Jreme Court in t l1e case --

known a s the .Smith casG of the l ast t erm C:I.J. . w. 733) . 11 See also , 

the Nev1 Yo lk Her a ld-Triblule . Dccer b e r 12 , 13 , 1904. 

( 14) Lorwin and Wubni o , Lal? or Re l a t ions :B oar ds (Br e>ol-;:i ngs, 

1935) ' 93. 

( 15) Ca rr, Del egated Legi sl a ti·):i1 ( Car.1bridge University 

Pr e ss 1921) , 42- 47, a t pa::,e 44 : "The c1ocume!lt a r Jr f or m in wh icl~ st!ltutory rules anc'l. or ders a r e o:ffici a.lly :)ubli shed_ i s ~rerned by section 

3 of t h e Rules· Publi cat ion Act aJ1d by t h e T1~easury regul a ti ons made 

ther eunder. B8f ore t hat Ac t VTa S passecl , clel sgat ed legislation was 

almo st undi scov e r abl e . Part of it was buried in . ~1e pages of t he 

11 London Gazette , 11 the a ri d nature of whi ch still justifies 0Ma.cauiay 1 s 

criticisms; the rest was scatte r ed over Parlimne11 t a r y Pc:.p ers or other 

departm_enta l documents or fil es v:i~hout any def L1i te s;y-stem. 11 

(16) ' Ibid ., G'? repro?.uces this (orig i nal cita ti on 56-7 V.C. 

66) . Also see page 59 . "Regul a tions, da ted August 9 , 1894, made by 

the Treasury. with t he concurrenc e of t h e Lord Chru1ce llor and the Speaker of t h e House of Commons i n ::ur su P.Jlce of t he Rul es Publica.tion Act, 

1893-1894. No . 73411 • 

( 17) Ca rr, o·o • .J. cit., ':k2- 47. 

( 18) Gri~ ~o , op . cit. ; Bacb l ey and Oatman, op . cit., 

260-261. Tr..e autho r .s suggest ; A. · A unifor m f orm f or the publica ti on 

of rules an<l r egul a ti ons, ti ~ a refer ence t o t he l egal basis f or 

t h e regul a ti on. 13 . Tha t all su ch re:;uJ.ati ons shall b e issued in t l1e 

name of e Presi dent. C. That a SJ)ecial bureau handle the matter,. 

checking it as t o fo r m, B;~ l basi s a.nd relationshil) t o ot her adrni nistrc.tive l egislati on. Tl1e a-:.1thors further sug6est tha t an Official 

Gazette 'be ~st? i s}J.ed to }:Ubli sh L po rt ai1t administ rative rules and 

r egul a tions, aJ;J.d that t h is Gazette be ;nad.e av a ilable a t 11 numerous 

offi cial depositori e s." 

(l8a) Federa l ReGiste r Act , 19 St a t. 3 )0 (July 26 , 1935) . 

,1r . J ame s :rtonal d. , a11 att or ney f or t he Fecl.e1·al Archive s has afforded 

the write r with i nforma tion conc er nL g t he admi ni stre.ti on of t h e 

11 Federal Reg ister 11 • L1 h i s o_._1 in~o n much o:£.' t h e wo rk of his admi 1-i stration i s educ a tional . As vari o-c:.s E:el1ci es a re s:1own t he adva:1tages 

of using g ood fo r ms with standa rdize(_ -J"J.r··)o se c t :tey are c omi:i c to 

9838 
-240-

use them. Mr. Ronald. advises tha t there has been a high degree of 

intelligent op~-ra.tion by the various_ agencies. 

In conne.ction with Chapter V, The SQhe_me, it is i:nteresting that 

the Federal Register Act provides: 

11 Sec. 5 (a) Ther e shall be :·mblished in· the Federa l Register (l) .-

all Presid.entia:J_ proclamations and. Exec·..._tive orders, except such as 

have no ,~ en l ap1)licabili ty and lesal e·ffect or are ef-fective onl y • 

against Fede r a l a~~ncies or 1ersons in their c apac ity as officers, 

ag ents, or el}l.ployees thereof; (2) · such do cuments or classes of documents as the Pn si ent shall cl etermJ,ne from tirne to time ha:sfe g eneral 

applicabil;i ty and lega) effect; a..'l'ld ( 3 ) such d·ocuments or classes of 

documents as may be required so' to be ·oublished. by· Act of the Congress: 

Provided, That for the ·pu~· oses! of thi ~ Act every do~ument or order 

whic!L ... ~ll prescribe a penalty shall be deemed t o have general ap--

B.l-i.C?.lbili ty and ler::;al effect." (Underlining mine.) 

It is also i.nteresting in this c onnection tha t s ome agencies do 

issue final orders toward inclividua ls ancl _ groul)S under the same statutory authority. 

(19) Memorandum, re Functions of the -Legal Division, Janua ry 

4, 1934. l. Draftm~ship 

11 The N. I .R.A. does not operate with respect to any in-dustry until 

a code or agreei)lent for _the industry has been drafted and approved. 

!'Codes are thus ext.ensions of sta tute. Hence they should be prepared with the .care appropriate to the preparation of· ·sta tutes, thus 

producing certainty ru1d. eliminating ainbi gui ty. The Tights of all 

enterp~ises in the industry and of the public in rela tion to the industry, as well as the powers of achnini strati on of the . industry by 

itself and by the Administrator depend practica lly entfrely·upon -the 

code. 

11 This means that good legal draftsmanship is a t a premium." 

(20 ) Rese a rch and Planning, Post Co cle Ana l y sis, Serial 

Number 73, July 8, 1934, "Definitions of Industries and Trade s under 

Approve d. Codes 11 g ives a nmnb c r of examples of p8or draftsmanship and 

ambiguity in defini td: ons • . Jthe r types of p rovisions. a lso furnish 

examples. 

( 21) Dick inson, Ac~inistrative Justice and the Supremac~ 

Law in the Unit ed State s (H rvar ~ University Press 1927 ), l 6, n. 3. 

There appears a long and ex c e llent note upon notice of hearing . 

· (22) Freund, Adm'inistra tive Powers over Person s and Property. 

(University of Chicago Pr e ss i928}, 156. The author cites a number of 

New York ce.s es on hearin5 and sta tes that t he Courts l ook a t the requirement as being technica l, f or "nowher e does it a:;?p ear that the 

complaining party was ctually tak en by surprise or suffered actual 

9838 
-~ .-.tl

injusti e from L .ck 0f noti e . 11 

I bill. 

( 24) <g· 2 Bro ther "' &_doorhea4 v . U. S., 28) U. S. 42·> , 440 

(l ~J3-l ) holdinc thot notice is o~)e r if the determination is one which 

t!1e "plaintiffs '-'he let h r- ve anticipated"; and Feder: l Trade Commissi on 

v . ,9-_rq_t_z_, 253 U. S. 421 (EJ. .. ) ) . Tl1e Cmrunit.sion can p rohibit onlyp r::tcti ces charr;ed in the c or pl aint . 

( 25) _~ 1in Yow v . U. • , 208 U. s. 8 (1908). A party h<; S a 

ri c;ht to p r ocure evidence before heo.rinc;. 

(2 ~) Bi-~ etallic Investn nt Co . v . 

239 u . s:- <±41-(Ens ) .- §_t_a_t_e_B_9'-'c'-' r--'d'---__ f_ E___._q U---'-C'l_l-

(27) _t_::_tc_ oa_r_r_ .cf He tl~. v . J-,icCoY_, 17 N. E . 78 6 (Ill. , 1888) . 

(28) Notice of He a rinbn , 0 . 0 . 2 , J u ly 15 , 1933 , established 

procedure for handling m:d nu'll:ins l}Ublic tiw no tices of heari n.:; ; 

Notices of Hearing s , •• 1 -~ (lind· ted ) se t forth ~'~ roced'lrre f or handling 

notices of hea rillb ; Re comrnenci.ed Public Hea ring s , 0 . 0 . 23-A, .~ em er 

21 , 1933 stressed publi cat ion of noti c es; No tice f Proceeding s , E. • 

6527 , December 21 , 1933 created NRA offici a l bulle tin b oard; No tice s 

of Hea ring, 0 • • 23 , August 23 , 1933 ; Notice of Hearing , 0 . 0 . 50 , 

December 26 , 1933, ga,-e fr:>rm f or no tice of h8a ri:;1g on code s and amendments; Official J.JRA. Jlull e tin Bo a rd, A. 0 . Y...-- 2 , J anua ry 6, 1934; and 

Pub-licati on of No tices, O. M. 193 , J: n~i l 28 , 1934 , set forth persons 

and ~laces where notice s shoul d be s ent for publ icati on . See.also , 

Brookings Instituti on, 02'J · ci t ., 108 n . 15 : "It is inte re s ting to note 

that these precautionar;y measur es occurred l ate i n the code-ma."k:ing 

' p e ri od. Pr evi ous to t h is time t he Press and t h e trade e ssociations 

were i nforwa lly r e li ed on in larg e measure to ke ep interesteu par ties 

informed as t o t he time and subject of publ ic heari ng s . 

11Unde r the pr e sent arrangement notices of imp or tant hear inc;s a re 

furnished to t he Pr e ss, l abo r uni ons, f ederal g ov e rnment officials, 

governors of st ates, c ode aut ho rities, c ompli ance di r e ctors, firstcla ss post offic e9 , trade associ ati ons, a:1d individual s on Si)e cial 

ma iling lists. 11 

( 29) This informa ti on vra s furnished by Messrs. Riclint;s and 

Patt e rson , Publica ti ons Se cti on . 

28 , 1935 . 

hardly be 

(30 ) Transcrip t of Heari ng Corn Dry illing Industry, J anuary 

The numb er of industq:- me.mbers in the Southe rn Sta t es coul d 

estimated L1 any accurate manner. 

(31 ) It is d.oubtt"\d if t h e f act t hat t yiJica l evi denc e was 

pr esent would be a ::proJ?er b asis up ::m 'ahich · t o deny t he privi l ;':;e of 

b eing heard to one demanding it • . Supr a . 

( 32) Legal Meruo r ancJ.Di11 No . 9 by Bla ckwe ll S J.i th regardine; 

Noti c e And .An Op:?ortuni ty To :B e Heard, Ja~1uary 12 , 1934: 

9838 
- 24 2-

11 ( 1) In order f or a code to .. b e valid .._her e must , of course, 

be fair notice to all that c ertain subject matter is to be considered 

and thnt miscellaneous modifica tions thereof may be made at the hearing . (This is fairly we ll t aken care of by the ne~1 Executive Grder 

on Notice. an.d the ·new· :ffi~ e Orde.r on Form of No tice.) 

.. 11 (2) In orcler to save t h e value of :-proper not.1ce it is ne cess a r y , in my opinion, to ke ep a h ea ring 3.live until revision of the cocle 

has been completed so that the final code can be pres ented to t he hearing a s adjourned. This can _only be done I believe by a specific ad-

;jourm.o.ent o_f the first hearing to a definite later time and place, v1hich 

can be t h e deputy 1 s office. If this is C:. o'ne, anyone ca..."l f ollo 1 t h e 

cour.s:e of the hea ring by inquiring of the de1)uty at t he time and pl ace 

warned at t h e previous session . I f t h er e is to 1?e further adjournment, 

this can be stated at such later time and :place. 

n ( 3) .As yo-q. uncl.oubteclly realize, some of t h e decided cases 

on "noticen are rath er extrene, and ho l d_ that import ant natters not 

referred to in a notice cannot valicHy be dealt with even t houch t h e 

notice .does contain a general catch-all clause warning of consideration 

of . other matters which may be brought before t h e meetin.g. 

11 There must be s.ome line beyond which one cannot validly introduce new matter not sp eciffically referred to in the notice. For instance, if the notice only r efe r red to _a simple labor code it would 

seem doubtful whether allocation of rodu~tion and price fixing could 

be validly inserted inasmuch as no one would ~e f airly warned of such 

provisions. 

' ' 

11 ( 4) In all case s wh ere t he new j?r ocedure as to notice and 

form of notice is pro~erly f ollowecl, 'ke'eping t h e meeting alive, as above, 

will do the trick, with the exception of those ca ses where radical 

departures are effected. 

rrin the latter t YIJe of case (radical ctepartures) t here should be 

notice of t he revised code containing the new mat ter. 

11 (5) The ma tter can be car ed f or a s f ollows when a r adical 

departure is made from t he code as noticed. fo r hearinG: 

9838 

11 (a) When the code is finally r evised; 

broadcast no tice in the usual channels 

somewh a t as f ollows 

11The Code. of Fa ir Cornpeti tion fo r 

the _Trade/Industry 

has been r evised in the light of 

evidence and representa tion made 

t o N. R.A. and q,o pies t hereof may 

be obtained by all intere sted 

parti es on aJ?plica ti on to Ro m __ _ 

Conime rc e :BUilding, Washington, D. C. 

Any criticisms or objec ti ons t o sai d code 

as revised must be de livered to Deputy 
Adrninistr...,t:n~ ' , oo.n ____ _ 

______ __ ::auildin.n; , Washin·:.;ton , 

1 ~ ~>1 . II 

11 (b)If no 'seri ous objoc'·l on r. :ue 1rese.1ted. 

]l'i "Jr t o t · 1e C. te s Je cifi . ., ,, , t h0 co c'l.c 

ar. be p _)rovec. ·a~ d t'rm .. ul:·utcd . 

11 0f course ir a -ly vi t a l ooj uctions ·w e 

m:: .. de they :1i 11 hn.ve t o be cr:red for in 

~.e man1er th::tt see1. s ·oest in lir;ht of 

t l1 e C:..eve:!.0pr.1ents. S1.-:.cll o"bjectio:1s v.oulC::. 

orr e in, if t hey could :jro·)erl y be rtl"td.e , 

no 1!1,-=ltter '.1 a t cours-e were foll0\r1 ed anC. 

ul ~. :1::-ve t o be t nl :en care of, so it is be t ter 

t o ho.ve then re :: ere c~ b efore _,)~J ro~.ra l. 11 ~ . 

( 33) Lec 'll l'.iernorendum, ~: • 51 , by J3 l ockwell Smith : 11 I n 

view of the campaign to clean Ui? code-m.ski ng , -I :1av e stp,t ec1 that t he 

.Legal Division will <::.~);) ove r educe(: no tice of hearing rrhere the Deputy 

c onside r s r educti on il;r:JO rtrJ.:J t , :provid.ed t. ~1a t 1 o nat ional not ice is cut 

t o l es t han seven W C:avs net . ~1i s means t hat t he no tice r.mst actua lly be ·1ublic .) o:Jer ~r fo r seven (7) days. 11 

( 34) u~ra . n . 32. 

( 35) Legal ·.iemora~lf .. w-:1 , LO . 72 , fr ota BlE!c:k:well Smith : 11 ~ 

Notice Wl:iil.e I c ru1:no t sta t e E1at ·it i s an· abso l ute r equirement of every 

ad.r: i nistra tive action t 'le:' t t here be l'lo tice to ~1e lJarties affect ed. pti or 

to t he effecti ve:;J.ess of t l1e acti on, I do wish to r e ni nd you t hat it is 

highly mp-orta..~ t t hat t here b e _re ? s onao l e ::.otic;;:.§_].:1 _eve r.Y___Q_a e where 

such course i s .. ~c: F .. c t i cab le . J1 __ sJ, ~Q..u ld. ta': .. .Q.Q_DVincilV! r:easons as .}Q 

i tnnr acti c_ab i li ty t _Q__leacl. t l1e _;Legal Di vision t J relax its recornmenda ti on 

for notice e_'s ___ t..Q..~;/ ac ti o, • 11 

( 05) c. ..~.. Iemorc::ncc1.1m , .. o·. ;') L.!: , b~ Bl a cLvrell Smi t h , quoting 

Robert P. Reede r , re.~_~ -r c~ ,'; lTo tice ru1d Heari 11(; . 

( 38) Tran s c:-ipt of Hearin~_;; . P2.tntin:;; , Pa,Je r hanging and 

Decor atir.g I ndust r:y - AtJendrilents to Co cl e_ of ~ir Co:r.me t_i ti on I:Iini_I!lum 

R9- t~_§_ of Pay f or s:.:i l le<i \lorl-:ers , etc . , Februar y 25 , 1935 , p . 51 : 

11Mr . Du Brau., Represe::.1ti [~ t he :'.last er Pa int e rs Associ a ti on and 

Dec ~ra rs Associ a ti on of Ba ltimo re , affili te~ wi t h t ne ~a tional 

Associati on. 

":;Ir. Aoninistrator, I -:oul d. lil:e to nake a few r e:na11J:s. This 

hearing, as we Uild.er :-;tancl. it, is nation- rii O.e and cf t he u t most and 

great e st i n)ort;:mc e , as we o s a Ul1i t fr om ::a['.l timo re , presenting Secti on s of ·rar yland, n ave hacl no time a.~d. v:ere (~ iv en no tir11e f or this 

hearing . We received a notice fr om l·.tlr . Hu....Yl.gerforcl ' s offi ce , semi -

offici a lly t hat a hearing vmul d be helcl to cLc.y , ten days a[;o . 

9838 
I n order t o c;e.t her c!.at e , am: . :' ~o i:·1t b1a tely into alJ. phases of t he question, we certa inly G.i C. ::10 t h ave :·.il;;r time ,, or t h e i nfor mation about 

t hese :;_;J r opo sed amem~aent , t hat t he ~!at onal Code Authari t y , wi tl1 which 

we a re affili a ted through t h e Nationa l l.last e r Pai n t ers and Decorators 

Associati on, alno s t fee l s ort af sna y tho.t we bel onc; to , they t hemselves c1i c3. not give us a11.y i nfo rma ti on until i1'Jv7. It ·ms l')ri n ted in 

the National Mast er Paint e r s l·!iac azine, of -vvhich or..ly one c opy is i n 

Baltimo re, has been r ecei ve.d ye sterday . That i s no infor me.tion a.t 

a ll. An(.:. we woul cJ. here :?rotest ~a in t any conclusive vote being taken, 

f orced u•)on this indust ry as far as Ba ltimo re or i ·aryla11c. areas are 

concerned. I n the brief tii'lle we h ave had., vv e, howe .. er, '::ent to wo r k 

anci. sent out questionnaires, ov er S )'), and .. re ga thered an average 0}1'-

inion of what the icl..c-;a of the employin3: PC!-in ters i n i.iar;:rland, Car2bridge , 

Salisbury, Frederick, District, .Annapo lis , :Baltimore a rea, was i·1 t l1e 

opinion of the enr::> loying painters, m~; ;;;- i:1g over 3 't') men. That is 

under this cro ss secti on. 

11 Assi stant Deputy Yow: EruployiYl{j i10w ma;.1y? 

. "Mr. Du Brau: 31

)). We $ent out about 5'.)0 questi onnaires, and 

only received abou t 50 ru1.swers, fu~d t hos e 50 ans eri ~g em~ lo ed ab out 

3rJo men. We h ave preJ!ared a brief, v1hich, if you will k indl y consent, 

we will leave it f or you to read." 

See al o TranscriJ!t of Hea ril1g , Fire Ex tinguisher Ai,lpliance Manuf a cturing Indus try , Oct ober 23, 1933 , 5'7- 7 J. 

(39) Iron ancl Stee l I nC:.ustry , a:-:J:•r ovecl Code ~- . 11, Codes 

of Fair Comp etition, I, 190 , Art. XI, "Section 1. .A..1y notice, demand, 

er request required or pe rrni tted t o be c;i ven t o or Hlade upon any member 

of t h e c arle sha ll be slri'ficie:i.1 tly G;i ven i f mail ec1 J_)o s t a{;e J_) r e:pai d 

acl c-:.re s secl to such membe r a t t he ad.d.res1,; of such menber on file with 

the secretary. A waiver in wri ting si (;ne c. by an~ wembe r of t h e code 

of any such notice, demand , or re qu est and deliver ec. t o t l1e secretary 

shall be deemed to ·be t l1e e rlui V<3.l ent of a no tice, denc:ud , or r equest 

duly g iven or made, whe t h er or l1o t sue~.:. wai 'le r was signed. and deli vereC!. 

before the ti(ne wh en such n oti ce ,. c1.c:·"w: d. , or ef~_-ue t we..s requirec1. or 

permi ttect t o be c;i v en or maCi.e. 11 

( 40 ) No tice o.f Ol)l)o rtun i t;v t o be He a r d , .Band Instrument 

Manufa cturi ng Industry , April 13 , 1935 , ReGistry "Jo. 1540/05. Both 

t ypes of rinted no tices we r e usee\. he:ce. 

( 41) Memorancurn, t o W. L. Schm.·z:, Depu ~r Ac"unL1i stra tor, 

from the Consumers ' Advisor y 3 oa r cl. , l1Iay 1, 9~-s5 : 11 1. .Arti c l e I I , 

Section 1. Th is :)rovisi on, which clefi::.1es t !1 e I ndustry , woulC. , as it 

is }?ropo sed t o amend it, b e extrer.:1e l y ~~tbi c.:,uous and confusi rlb• I n 

the first p l a ce, secti on 1, L1 def :.:1 L. ~-; t he 'Ino.ustry t would refer 

t o 1 ori p-i nal s a l e *** ·by a menber of ~1 e I ndust ry ', while section 2 

d efine s a er of the Industry as <1 n;y-o ne 1 enga_::;e c".. i n t h e h1d.ustrv 1 • 

However, i nsertion of t h e phr a Ee , ' and/or t h e orig ina l s a l e thereof 

b y a memb e r of t he I ndust r :r', a t t:1e - oi n t SU[;ge st eC. woul d. a1)pear ·to 

confine its a)J-:> l i c a ti on t o 1 f abrica ting , ancl/ or ass e1nb ling , repairing, 

econ structin , and r emoclelinL,; ***,' and. t o e_-clude ori g inal s a le of 

9838 
prod cts of t: e i ndust ry. I f ,...uch i r. int er~rlerl t he pro isi on is unusu...1.l 

t s o.y the l east . I f i t i, i t 13ncled t hat or i , in:.1l s:~le of p r oducts of 

t 1.e ind r: tr;y sh nll orne lli de r the c ocie , t he cff ct YIO'.lld be , fi r st , to 

include L ?)<':.: t c r s ancJ. 13 ond , t o cause a con:l ic t v1i t11 t he grnercl 

1ol e s a linr; nd. Re t ni l illt.; codes, i f no t t est o' l i..,h n v erti cal corle . 

For cxru.pl e , j urisdiction ov e1· or il! l sal e of ~)roduc s b y t he manuf acture r t r e t a ile. s ·.!Oul u. b e cov ered by t he Bar.d Instr ur:1cnt Mo..n f,.cturi ng Industry cod e ,. a ltho h c oruinc; }!roperly m1der the Hh olos[iling 

code . Likev1ise , j urisdicti on ove r orig inn.l cal c of p r odu cts b y t he 

manufa c t Ur- e r dir e ct t o c onsumers would b e co e r ed by tho Ba nd Instrurnent 

·mufacturing Industry Cod e alth ough c omi nc; }Jrcmerly under the Re t a iling 

Coo.e . Thus, a c ocle de sig n ed t o cover 1.1a nu fo.ctu r e rs a i d .11nnufacturi ng 

I"IU.ld be e.xte!1ded t o cover, :Joten ti nlly , t l:: e entire p roc e s s from manufacture to final sale . 

11 We bject very serinusly to wha t appears to be an attempt· 't o 

broaden arbitrarily the scope of t he J3 cJnd Instrument l!Ianu.facturing 

Industr 7 code . Th~ s runendpent was Ciiscuss ed ry briefl:y at a public 

hearing n Se1Jter.1ber 24 , 1935 , a nd :..,r e suroably at t- e po st- hea ring conference , b llt it was Dot no ticed for h e C'.ri::1g . Thus, parties vitally 

interested, namely, q1ose e1 ?;rr:;ed in whole saline .omd retailing opera.-

tions, h ave had no opportunity to r egister objecti ons. We believe that 

s ch crganizati ons a s the Nat i ona l Retnil Dr y Goods Association will 

feel that they have a vi tal sta"l(e in such ~ proposal as this and that 

they shoulc"l be he<ra. fr om. I n a ny event, r:e ur::;e that the present 

amendment to Article II , Section 1, be disapT)roved. 11 

( 42) Supra , VII. 

( 43) Legal 1emoranci1E1, r'o . 12, from :Bl a ckwell Smith , regarding True Representatio,n, February.5 , 1934 : 

11 I shou:...(~_ thilli·:: 1at true repi~esent tion r efe:!:'s rather to the fact 

that the applicant r;ro'J.P cc:m be cotlsidereo_ to be mo re or less a representative cress- section of t h e industr r for vi:1ich it speaks .. Of course 

the larger the percentage we have t h e r or e c e rtc,.in "''e can be that t h e 

sampling is a true one . In the cas e of e.ny industry, or trade widely 

scattered and made UlJ of !la~ tl1ous ands of small u...J.i t s ve can only sa.;)' 

that an association, when it is freely opel! to 1ileHibership and which has 

members distributed in every geographical division of the industry, i . e ., 

such as metrop ol itan and non- metr:>po l itan areas, north , \"/est , and south , 

small enterp rises as well as larg e ones, specialized branches, etc ., 

and includes raembers._ of all sizes and types, is truly representa tive 

of the industry. 

11 0n the other hand , an association or g roup which includes 85% of 

industry as aefined in the code but excludes a specific class who 

may be competitors and whom they therefore wish t include under the 

code but who did not join with the <J )plicant ass ciation or group in 

f ormulating a code ~ cannot be said to satisfy the Act . 

"As the Act is phrased the President is required to mru e n positive 

finding ti1a t the Association is truly re:?resenta tive of the industry. 

~he absence rf evid nc~ alone , __ Q.~ t!le ~l-~ stateme nt o_:f_t£:e _f a ct th?-t 

:t is trul:,r representative vritb,_o:ut more is not sufficient, as I see 

ib__t_g_ basE? such a. findins. The tran s eriJ? t of the ::;ublic :1earing should 

9838 . 

' I 
- c46-

Cl")nt ain some definite f ac tual evid.e_nce UY)on ,-_,hich the deJmty car.. 

satisfy himself on this point." 

See also · Legal Memo randum, by :Blackrrell Smith, regardd.ng onAssociation Representa ti on on Code Authorities, t.Iay 24, 1934. 

(44) Transcrip t of Hearing, Fire tin~Jdshe r Appliance 

Manufacturing Indust.ry, October 23, 1933, 69-?0 . Powe ll Evans of 

Merchant and Evans Company : 11 This company, the AutoFYRstop Company, . 

ebjects to inclusi.on under this code as unrea sona:tle and unfair towards its :pur:ooses and business~ and we desire tog,., on record here 

that we have had no notice of this code other than hereinabove stated, 

and had no invitation from its proponents to become a member of it or 

a party to it to date; although the code, Section 4, states 'the term 

tmember of the industry' include s everyone engaged in t he industry as 

above defined, either as an employer or on his own behalf." 

1927). 

( 45) Gray~ Nature and So1rrce of the Law, 2d ·Ea., (New York 

(46) THE CONSUMERS' .ADVISORY BOARD OF THE l\i .R.A • 

. :FROM JULYI 1933, to J .A1'1J.ARY, i934 . 

:E' r epar ~d by _Ge o • B. Haddock. . _ 

''During the latter part of N'o:vember and the . month of December, the 

work of the C. A.B. confinued fo increas·e in effectiveness. ·The staff 

personnel turn-over slowed up, and each adviser became mor e efficient 

in his work. During DE:cember, the problem of c'o de administration began to present itself, and it becaine evident that m&J.y hastily ·drafted 

code provisions would require i n,t'erpretation. At first, . Code Authorities 

issued their own interpretations·, and even some of those which were 

approved by the Administration had the practical effect of a code 

amentment. Because it was apparent that improper interpretations w ul d 

be as bad or wo rse that impr oper code prrwi sions, it was decided that 

the Advisory Boards should be consulted in the formulati on and issuance 

of interpret~tions. 11 

( 47) Office Manual: 11 Cod.e Administra tion I I I-3'100 Rulings 

III-3114 (5) Interpretations vs. Exempti0ns. Individua ls or group s 

wiil' not be released from the full operation of code provisi ons by 

inter1)retation of ti1e language there~f. Where t h e ori gi nal language 

of a code binds an individual or up and it. is desired to rel~ase 

such individual or group therefrom, this relea se may not be effected 

by a strained construction of tha t languaGe, but will be accomplished 

by exemption or stay as provided for in Part III 32l)0 (below) . 11 

- ' 

(48) 11A t endency is noted," says the Advisor y Counci l (October 

26, 1934). 11 on the part of Deput y Administrators to c:.ct on Classificati ons and interpr etati ons wi thout consulting their AdvisE:rs. The 

tenta tive NRA Office Manua l does no t r equire Deputies t ' obtain reports 

from Advisory Boar ds pri or to ac tion. On September 11,1934, however, 

t he Council r ecornrneno.ed that Sections 3131. 2 t 3131. 4 coveri ng Interpreta tions, and Sec tions 3331, 3332 and 3333 coveri:o.g Classifications, 

and Sections 3234. 2 and 3235. 43 covering Exemptions and Stays to be 

9838 
L~c1.i_ie c1 t o r c:st r e t he i'i ,inE'l < dviso r :· r c"i.r> tiC'n:::. i~)~, ~or tho r~"'2srm 

t :·t ~x'·r~Jtio:1s , CL· s!:i"L' i.c.:--t.:.oi1.., r:l<., Inter rotation·~ ·n~ y vi.tnlly a 'foct 

t e .ti L ~ .. J.in, r a Co e , Pn-. in tl e ir natt.Lrc c: 1 ~_o :lccs t~ ton.:'; . vcr::l 

c- veil cole. .t ines nf .P lie • 'I'' lf.- .t<nn;-1 ha~ P' r .1.u;y b ··L-il '.llH::iJ'it'C.L by 

Offic e .. e:-:~o c.·~·1ci:l!1 'Jo . ·c to vor:or:.l t:l t:1e ubov reC"l.t.:GnC:OJti n •lt: 

l' s1Ject t o :..x~ll.)tioJ s. '"h G'L'~ ~,.;il be ... ie sit resir·>'bl tl1~t a 

sil..i l a r c,.>riecti :m '"''~ 'i."t.tt:-:e date2.y m;:;re E·nd cirCL1 l atecl. "'i t "h rc.,occt to 

Inte.c_n e t c: ti ol" anC: Classitic,qtions. 11 

11 Sor:1e c-f t he su .c_; t=,e~ ti on , 11 "a:;e- t :e .·h .v.!..so:c;y min~il 1E~ rch 4 , 1935) , 

" are C.ict2ted. by Ul 1.<..n cle rl;y·inG c onv i ct.Lon on rr._~lE r; ·r,~ tiv c po licy ,:,hich 

ir; Cl,Di tc sic ij1 c:1c: r .r:.c t er "'nc' Hh i 'L redu"'es t·'l ti1 e fr ll ow l~~?.: ~ro :.3 es sive 

fni:n : 

11 ( l) The AcLv i so ry B ·- rc:s s~10ulc.L :;c;v e e n 6'?1'~ rtt.'.'li ty t o express 

t >ems e lve s 011 a l l met· el'S i.21 vJ>ich t he;/ lw.ve qn int erest . 

" ( 2) Ti:~ey ru e tb.e nly on E- s ill a .P s i ti o· t o c·e cid.e when a 

rr tte r i "' ~~ "' inl..inc ;y .'" f i n ter est t o thc;n or to t h e po i n t s 

"l v i cV.' tl".ry 3s~ l·~ct i ~; r e}JP ucn t . 

TJ n:a.;:-2 Si ~_ cn cieci s ::. cns , ·:·l1ey m.cs t Er.t le;:;st be inf Jr med on 

J.)enC.L1l; .? Ct i un s. 11 

" Sinc e int e r n ret c:t i c ns :1c;)' vi t c• lly e f fe c t t Ye meaninc; of a code 

and sinc e by their Tia ~r e }e~ u re cl~ ces ~no ~ line s of po l i cy , we 

rec o:.l!:-.encf tho:c.t De--·•- ty A"Jnini :.; trPt o r;; be r c ;_!.:'l..:re0. t o c onsul t the Adviso ry 

3oarC..s e.s V!e l l 2'> t 18ir le ;al ec_v i s· rs. Th i s i s th~ ) res en t tice , 

2n6. ws see no re::Jso n f o r chc.m,:;: in~, it. 11 Se 'temb e r ll, 1 934. 

( 49) Le.;e l h·i e:.lo r ::n<>lrrl , 72 frr:Hn )3 l c:.c!:o .. e l l Sn i th , I:ay 23 , 1935 : 

"Confusi on has been i Ec icot e d i n t h e mL1C:.s of s o;ne ,nen:bcrs rf t he 

Legal Di i~io~ as to t~ e ti ~e of ef1e c tiv n e s s of an interu r e tat ion . 

Tiw confusi on n e c e s ·:e ri J. y ari·:e:s if the ;natt e r i s l .."ol<:G cl r.t as r-t 

question of w:1en en int e r p r ekti on shall be e f :cec t ive . 

11 The fa c t is, of CCJi.'.r se , t hat .:;n in te~~~?r n h 2 s ~o~ffe ti ~ 

vi tal ity in i t_§_elf_. :r 1e effecti v e:n e s s f_l o':'_§.._:f_r_0!0. Jb~_ C2_~~__2I_~~~ ~ 

legal d8 CUl1 nt i~t r!Jr ted. 'l;r.e C..at...9__of __ E-_:,'.)~.-e j;iv ene s.§_?LJ..he~

ticul ar doc-mnent inter;JreteC. is t tle on l y ei'::.' e c t i v e c.~e . 

ri ou:.s __ oy:.e_s_~_i n ___ doe s_? ~c_i ~oy~e v e r ~- s to fai r ness and u_ 't_ ~e __ 

of enfo rci r~ 1i_.t,'Qi]:.it;{ PP-:::: ins_t. _ _ i:~) viC:· . .:...:..c:ls. ~pd r t h e terms nf aJ!X 

int~rpre d r".. 'J C1.1JTI E}_nt _ _c_3 __ t _. _t}1.e __2e r_j_n c ·o ri 0 r t~]le_:::p n. ou. eril~'1.i__2f 

_ap_ i_!1 t._~ _g]'_e_ _ t i on . Ev en :1c-..i..:~:}o the ·f) rovi. F·i o 1 h r" s be en e f fe cti ve f r om 

t he <late of ::.11e coc.e , it m2y rer~,: ·: e2. l 'be i.l.Ylfair o r l.~njns t t0 assert 

such effec ti'."eness ;~ c- Llst ons ._.,.-~lc • .. i(~ n•1t i:n fa c t J..:r~ l t~1 e in t erpre t a t ion 

questioneo_ end ~'ho rees-J ·at:l y r e lied U;Jrn s me 'J tt e :c int e 1·pre:tation. 

9838 
--------

_ . 48-

11 In any such c a s e nf injustice or 1.mf2.i rness, the Le&al :IJivisi0n 

s:i.lOul d recommend em exemp ti on or c- t leest vii thholcii· < of enforeemen t 

a ctiviti es c:.s t o r::ny ti::1e _1ri or t o t he enno,•nc e·:1ent .f t!:1e inter:Jret a ti on. The matt er is r eally one of equity anC. sh:mld be s con siderecl., 

r a ther them ·8 s a c1 D._e ~i an of \>Jhen t he interpretati on is effective. 11 

( 49a) An aicl.e for the Bo~::in.:; Ind.ustr:/ Coc'.e ec'..vised. 1.1e in conve r sation 

tha t after t he Revi ew Division "cl amped c~o·:m 11 on 11 i nter•'reteti ns 11 he had 

b een senc".. in : ov.t tha t h e me rely che ng eci t :; eir name to 11 o Ji nion s 11 or 

11 ex:Jl E·na.ti on s 11 an G. c Jntinued to sen d t:1em out kl1o v•int:; they uld be used 

as n~e re et ons . 

~0) Tra.n s crilJt of HeG.: ri r.~ , Fi re ZY.:tin?;t.i she r A-J.!.Jliance ·ranufacturi:..1g Ino_u<':\ try , October 23, 1933 , 33- 3L-= , in the c· i s cusr-i on of 

Articl e I X. 

(51 ) Articl e VII, Secti or. G: 11 Pr erni ums a nc. Cm ... _,Jons. J o membe r 

of t he I ndus try sha l l i v e cou .'ons or oreini urns. T:he t enn 11 c r:mpons 11 

shall mean t he wr a.p_;_Je r of a bak:er;r n r oC.uct or otl:..e r :la)e r redee:nc>ble 

or exche nr,:;ea.bl e for ba~ce ry p r o(ucts or ot >1e r c:rticl e s of "'I~U ue, with 

or without the pa;yment of· D.clC:'.i ti on e l money. The term 11 p re!.liums 11 

shall mee..n c: ny a rticle of vr-l ue or use _-: i ven with b al-ery :9 roducts or 

exc:1ang eable f or ou ?ons men ti one cl he r e in. 11 

(52) Fo r exa1n~ le s ee Con s-ume rs 1 Advi s or y Boa r d einorenclum to 

-1iJe ld iv1. Stev ens, :B'ebrua ry 16, 93~. 

(53) Around. la:ee Mar ch, 1935 • 

. . 

( 54) J c>nuary 31, 1934 , 268- 310 . 

(55) See t estimony Ivir. Charl e s We sley Dunn, 288-279. 

Mr. Gira rd R. Willi ams c;:oe?king in favo r of t he yrovisi on f or 

the Ba~c ing InC:.u s try ( Mr. Wi lli::uns s poke a s a memb e r of t l1e Committ ee 

p ronosing the Code) a t a~e 282 , i ndicate s the 0r 2 ctice at which t~e 

L (l CcUS try a i me d this pr ovisi on. He mentions the g i vin.:; of t owels, 

al uminum i t erns, ;)enci l s , to y s, ho.r d..:ra re, wo od.enware, ;.1ov el ti es, 

cott on goods , ma rbles, v alentines, false f a c e s, an c Christma s goods. 

Th is s eems a l mo st a c~efin i ti on by enume r a tion. Ag a i n e.t Page 28b 

Mr. Willi ams s t a tes a s the Of~en t r ec:- n, 

"The cti~ e i s dis crimina t o r y Encl. n o t in the 

public inter est o e c c:us e t he cons1.JJ11e r may be 

t axed as much a s l /3 to l I 2¢ _per l oaf ''i thou t 

any opti on on h i s part •..•••. 11 

( 56) Bak ing I ndustry E·_;,Jpr ov e d. Code 1 o. •_'! D, Co0.e _of Fai r Competiti on, Vol. XI , ?0 , Art. VII, Se c. 9 : 11 Co;.une rci el '3 ril1e ry. N 

member of t he L1c"..1..,_s try sh? ll _3 i ve , }Jermit t o oe ,;·;iv en , or C.i r ectly 

offer to -:; ive ,· nyt in~ of v a.lue for the ,J\:.r)ome f inf l uencing or 

r ewarC:..ing t he a ction of c>n;y· ernpl oyee , a.:;ent or -~E-" _) en tive of 

another in relati on t o the business rf the em~) oye r r such employee , 

the Dri n ci pal of such en t or the re) res ented p2 rty , without the 

knowl ee.i:e of su ~1 em,_Jl oyer , pri nci p:> l or _!_)arty. s Secti on s!1all 

nr)t ·be construe <i to ~o~ ibit fr ee an6. _:;ene r a l c.i stribution f 

r rti cles c ommonl y us ed for eclvertisin·::; exc e._) t so f a r a s su ch 

~~~~c s a r e actually used for commercial bribery as he r e in define d. 11 
( 57) .n.rr 1..nd . ,, • l R, l 93b. 

( 38) SU1Jra , n . 56 , ?3 , Art. r:, Sec . 

( 5J) Ab mt ;.::y 21 , 1' :-'S. 

(. ) _D._ ) lrO P(.~_ Cuci ., :~o . u2 , .... tcc l Cast.in. ; InL1.ustrj, Coc.\.c of Fei r 

Co1 Jetivjol1 , Vol. II, )J~; . 

('"'·l) u• · ovcmbe r :37, l9 ~)2l , the St .c l C":·ti n._; Cor,_e A•1 t 110 rity 

iP.~>uo c. Con_ne rci.c:l ::e~o luti on ~To . r' l"'C2'-ill. -~ c.s iJJ l o.vs : 

~~ ~.::....:> LV:. D, tl1,""t Cast Stee l "")arts for n ew locornotives 

.r ot :1r r ~·i:1j s;.·eu. oc~1.. ct , buj] t by L-Olilpenies c-f.::'ili a t ed 

"i th the st cc.• l rom 0 r l e s n"'N'.ucin:; such 11a rt s , are not 

C"!ubjE.ct t o t~ 1e Stee l C· stin,g Coc:e , bu t repair and rel)lacclt0~lt )frts fo r suc11 finis::eL: _J c.·:~ "l.cts a re subject to f?aid. 

Dr d.e . t1 

( 62) Con t.wne ·s 1 Accv i ·~o ;:. Boc ~( ~1o r·Y.O.Hm to J . :3. :L're·Jnd, 

~ia;l 15, 1935. 'I'hc :Jro )Osr l r e·:G.. : 

11 Stee l C2stin;:;s ( vr~.e ~1e r :::'i.. i. ~>~ie C.., e;~1i-iinishec.:, o r ou~;h) , 

when solc'l for ;_:sc es re'J a ir o r re) l PC.e1.1en t 1arts for ~J du ts u_f 

another inC.:ustr ' P.J.rec.-,d.v in u s c enC sold l 1 coi we t i ti on 11'i th • t .• 

sirr ilr.r cc;stin;..;s ) r oduced. by otl1e r nembe rs o f ~1e St ee l Casting 

Inc.rostry, r c s~bje ct t o the Code of ~air Com,e titi on for the 

St eel Ce.stl::1.:-: Ind.ustn:-, re,:;c:- :c -.il cr;s of '';}:e t he r o r ::ot t he;y· c:.re 

pro(.:uced c-r. :"L /or old oy c?- cnm:_J;'ny v/·} ich i s O'Xn ec··. by o r aff ili ated 

with Pno t:t er COJ.l_l c:my .· c~ucing an(·./ or s e J.li <5 ne 1rJ p r oC'ucts of 

enother industry . 11 

The me1: o r andu.L s c id: 11 .Alt .o·c"c.:)1 the o ri ginal reso lution applied 

s olely to l oc omoti v e c a stin··s , the i~1ter ,r et ti on i s of c on si de r e bly 

bro<Jder scope , on; n e c e s s<' rily so . i.ic-:1y o t he r inc ustries B.re in a 

position similar t o thp t of loco!no tive hl ilc. in r:; , in th e ir dependence 

on steel castint:;s ruH: in the c oYlflict of 1 c:-' stin.:;s 1 v. 1 r epair <mC::_ 

replc: cemen t parts'. 11 

( &13) I b i d. : 

"There seems t o us c ne k i11c.: ,f trcnsPct i o!l at st eke naTnely , 

the SC' l e b;y a mc-c'1ine -l1uilder of ~-o te l ?sti ~s !:le c:.e by him , as 

re}air or r ep l a c eillent rts , f o r u : e in ma chines built e i t he r by 

hLn o r by oti2er bu1.1 6e rs o f t he s··1,, e ~dnc:!. of mechine. The Ste el 

astin ~ Code Autho rity claims j u r i ·: clicti on over t h is ty:1e of transacti on. The .:_)u b lic hec?ring on ::arch 13 ~. .. isclosed thu.t mcny c ode 

authorities represent e tive of t l'le Eia chi ne inc'::t.1.stries c~.is:: mte the 

c laim. To b e more s_)e cifi c , t he i"ollowlnt; c ode ,5 r o1J.ps a l so maint e:.in ri,_)1ts ov er ti1e above tr ::-~L:r ction, t hrough t he ir r e spe ctive 

oc~e c.efi;:-,i ti ons : Boile r lvlanuf[' C turinr-; - Comp res seCt. Air -

Electrica l LanufHcturin._; - Hb t .ux ch an_:; e - 2~~d ry an(_· Dry Cl e aning 

I.iachinery .:Ianufc-· ct:.-~rin g - Lo c omot ive ·.l c.nufac turin:; ( su.bc"L i visi on of 

l\i.API) - '..- C:Ch in er ' :::r-.d Al:!.i ec.i. Pro c. :;,_,_cts anC::. ll any othe rs of its 

subo.i visi ons - P· ~np MC:Jnufe cv.:;.rin_::; - ~~oed L~a chin ry. 

9838 
- 25(-

II I .L 

0 0 t .L "- h t J t , ... - " t l c .L 0 

v 1 s n.'.l e 2 JE r en v v .. 2 2 _ : ... ou:f'. vn e ;) t: e E s vl n::; c oc-e 

Autho rity eE- ~s j n ri sC:: .. icti on. o~1e r n;.,n -;__, f~ ct1.~ rers n f ma c' 1ine s or 

o t he r roc~ucts (in t lle EbovE: ··;:;_··oup) , vmeE en --;;?..:;e cl in s e lling steel 

astin ~; s ? S r e;_• 2ir or r e·) l ::-- ce e ;.1 t )~ r·t , t ili:,; ~~-.e Au t Lo ri t y can 

by n o stretch of t h e m,·,~~ ·i :- :t 'l on be .: ll ~ re ese ~tc:tive of f'. cJ .. ch 

mailUf a cturers. ~~X 8j)t in }) 0 :fe r es t l·1 ey ';if e re subj e ct t o t he Steel 

Ca sting Code in ot l1er r es_) ec t s , t he latt e r rr~e:n-lcf . .., ct,_,_rers had no 

p a rt in formul c: tin:_; t he co e anc" Lav e n o t .c- s::;ent ed to it. A-nd 

the re is much to b e sa c~ f o:c t J.1e s t 2te!·nen t rne~;_ e by .J2me s ::J. Andrews, 

of t he :Bo il e r Lenu fact·o.rin -o; · C'JC·. e ~o ri , at t '- 1e l1earin<-; ( ) . 127 ) 

ne.1ae l y , tha t: 

11 Th is we c ont eno .. , i s n ot en i j;_ t e r Jr e t a tion but 

an amen(jne;:_t of t he Coc'.e , ::.: c. tl ~- ::ncrec>sin --.; t 11e s c ope 

of the inr:J.ls try c:no. i lle --·: c:!. l;y so , \ t h e ~no nsors of t h is 

int e r ) ret e ti on J r mne nc~:! e~·l t <: r e no t ·t:n, l y r e) r ese;.1ta.tive 

of those whom they are att elilp ting to ree,l,llctt e , as· requ ire·d 

by Se cti oD 3- a-l of the i a ti onal I:aC.:: ...1stri a l .:?..e c ov e ry Act. 1 

11 In our o Jini on t he l:le mt;-;' 1 s __ ) r o xiseo. int e rn' et <:.;_tion of t he 

Stee l Castine; Indus tr ' (._e fLli ti on i s a :ooC:.. li t e:cpJ i nterJ.)r e t a ti on 

but a very· :Joo r p r ac tica l lic C1 ti on of t .1e 0.efi Yl i tion , anc. "Vr,_en 

seen in t he li:)1.t of o t h er overl a J>i::.:,_ ·:; co c .. e (_efini ti ons 2p Jears 

i mpossible. 'i e a r e irjlclinec'l. t o a ·::;ree with that pc..rt of Colonel 

Brac~y ' s ·brief st pt em e:1t, .<=l l Go me..de at t he he·.e rin:•; (p. 217 ) , when 

he sa.id: 

111 We have the c a sting s L1cJ .. •.s try , V•hn cn ,:_:;oe. s ·f a.r back, 

and. we h c; v e t h e -.1 ro (Lucti on of rc)(·~ ct s, w: i c;1 :so e s ba.ck 

as f a r as h istory oe s. As ~ e s t hese t wo tinds of 

industries exist, n o Uli..'-t tt e r 1.'Tho t we c .. ~ o r what Y'e put 

on Japer, y ou. are ::;oin_:_; t c ha v e t ile identical •w odu ct 

under two co d.es, cn cl I \'.efy ,_,- ou to '!lf ri t e it in any way 

tha t will. wo r k ot herwi s e . 1 

"In o ther ,,,,o r d.s the sar .. 1e C[·stir.. );~.; use d P..s re._)a ir c:mc_ r epl a ce nen t 

p arts will c ome unC:.e r t he:; .:~ eeJ. Cesti:n .::, Code w:.1en so l c3. by unc~.r es and 

unc3 .. er the machi-n e o r ) r oc.l_nct co d es '\':hen s old b y manufacturers of 

1i :nes o r orocll..lcts. 11 .J. 

( 5Ll) Eea rinz , A;ril 2 , 19 3 5. 

t he pro p osed. i:t:..t e r ·)retDti on. 

tTR..l\. ·,·ras r ~;o rte c as f avoring 

( 6f.) Offic e J.ilfpu.a l: 11 TJ:.e .J:C OJ;tlil. ;.::-.ti tJn of 2 11 emenduent to a 

c o<ie a~; t he same f o rc e r.m ( effect c:.s t he __ 1r o;·rn.u : ·a ti o:1 of t he c ode 

sinc e t he e:men drnent become s _)F.l rt of t he co Ce. r:i:l_1er e f o re, t he forrna tion c. nc1· e lJ_;_J r 0val of an .:mend!,! en t s'10lllc• .. be ·i ven t he s 2Jne balanced 

consi d ..e r ati on c:s a. c o de. rTo fillE' l < J_? r ovpl o r c· .. i s a _,jproval of t he 

_tJrolJOseC:L ame:11 c:tr~ie~1 t s rri 11 b e wade exc eq t over t l e si.;;;.1 r- t u r e of the 

A C:l • . • t t II ( S l .. ?10 t . ')'/'1 ·)) S l ~ - t ilTil.DlS ra o r. ee a so .., ..... , o -~~~c ..... . e e a_,_ s o , .Hl!le?l c.mten s, 

0. 0 86 , ~ay 3 , 1934. 

9838 
-:.;• l-

( ci6) $1 lp ra, this ChDp ter, Gect lon ;~ . 

( r..'l) ~l. )r " , :III. Th . Advis,..,ry c ()'lnCi.l 1'( co nn.en(ed: 11 c do n()t 

be ll eve th. t t e·): rt1.u:· ,) _ 1')'1. c ) .1rovcd •o l i ci 'S rLo1.1l<.\. lie 1.mciert'"' c n 

wi ~ out ,"l'.bli c :e. :rin;; . TharC:.frn , we re 'C'li C. t' is ;.cction of tbe 

... :-m.~-e..l es ir.a•p:..' '}Jl'i1.t< . 1:0···e..r~r . if rucl• c:se.; ~r to ['ri~c . "Ie 

OPlievc th· t the JJ•·linj;. trotiv Offic0r s. rmlU. COTISI.ll t th·· Advi '()ry 

C0u..rwi 1 c.., WPll .:-s he ..-encrHl Gmusel enc1 th .:.. conomi c Aclvi se r, :m d 

' ''8 rccnJ.L c1 C: th.,t t'.is section oc ctwn: .. ec~ eccorl i.n ·ly. 11 

( t"~b) A·visnr · Council recommend <", : 11 ·:Jc a: e co ,U!lel d. first , that 

vkt~ 1 t~10 :Cep:.1ty _t~.(~:~inistr: tor int TH.s to ~-; 1i~C~1.1.J e · Jl'O,)oJSP l for 

~ub lic heprin · no advi o ry }rocess shnul •' oe invo1Cl. ci. "..L nti.l ofte r 

the hearin ·· ; se co nC., thPt ·wh en t he :Ue :m t y A·'Jninistra t o r i£~ · i~ posed 

t o believe t 1 rt , 1,.1endmcnt n s ~rJu lc. De co;1si c.ereC!. 1..~ne:.e r t he ) r o c e 6.ur e 

01 notice I r tht.. fili 1·· of ob j e cti ono , re:;>()rts from t he Advis o ry 

:aoa rC:.s S 1"oulc: be r er•u.c te<l e~Ol'e t··· is i1 o tic e i s issued. Sinc e the 

notice of o,. >o r h ..... l i ty t o !Je .118ar(. i..1 'll iec; a. f:; vora·ole AcL:1ini s trati on 

jud,_;1:1ent, it ic:; •r o e r to ,•ennit L.s Acv 1so r j' 3oarc\s t o s:1eak -bef o re 

tLe Ad...nini trr-ti on ~:a s c o 1ui tt ed i ts lf 'Jl c before it 1 a s b een 

definitely r.ec il c;( t~ "t :ao ;·J.blic ~Jc:c: rin ·· i s n ecessa ry. 11 

( 9) The .Aclviso r y Cou . .~.'1c il r ecc . .. ner1cleC : 

11 Tlle vtea:~n esses of P1e )resent n ·.J c ec.-,Ee pre only 9artly c o rrect e d 

by the sull~~titute pro c ec;ure here _;rovi(Le d. It is c:~ till po ssible f o r 

an industry t o be confro ntec'L b,y AC::..1iniR trc.ti nn o,icndments of vrhich it 

has hac\ n o n n tice. It is c:- l so -·)ossibl e fo r a :JroJoser1 Administrati on 

mne11dliient t o Je i c~ei' i~.:l tel y t~e <-.yed , t() be r e j e ctec·l. without eX'Jl anation 

t o the a_;en c .: lJT0.:_;o-, i nc t he :--~: .enw!ien t, a r t o be b l ocked in case the 

indus try, UlJ"'l'l hec r int6 of the Ad.rJ i :J.i Gtrc ti on 2men duen t , wi 1c .raws its own 

p r ooosals. 

11 e r ega r c'. t :le f oilor·in.:z; •JrD.ctic e s es i ::n.)Qrt a nt : 

( 2J That any :NRA a;en o" iro Jusl::.~.r: 0.~1. emen :.;::-.c.n t be informe cl of t he 

cUs:posi ti on rn&.c1e 0 f it, 2s i.s vi c~e d. in Office l':emo r e nC.um 

r

7

o . 2S6. 

(b) That industr~ receive notic e r> nd b e pe r :.1i tteo_ t o att end_ a 

:1e:-> ri:n ~ 'J.:_>o-,1 'rn -·.r) s d Ao.:.linis tre ti on ein ,_c':.ler~ts •:ihich a r e 

about t o b e c0;·.siCcres·. by t11e :JeJlJ.ty. 

~~" e rec o::11.~1e:1C:: , t~ 1 Te:fore , t he t t he :foJ lo•·:in,-:; Jrovisions be inserted, vJi t h s-c.i tpo1e c:"-en ·'·es in other Jr ovisions to c:-·vo id c onflict. 

9833 

1l)on r e c eiJt of a •r o ,,;o s eci eme11L:.,en t from ; ny NRA 

A:, ency t he :)e _;t.l.t y Ad.!-:Ji ·:.i ·:; trr· tor , cft er '3UCi. C0nsultatio:1 as he .t::-J ··ish , shall :_ er.~; ii1e ~hc tl:er o r no t he 

is Ql Gposec. t o t.o lc1_ a _J1.::.olic he.:.rin,::-; r·._:Jo n t h is 1en&~ ent. 

If he is so cis. oseu. , he ~;,"111 r e f e r t }! e ,_J c.~o3e d. arnend--

uen t t o t he Coc.le Au t no ri t jr fr r it::; infon co.ti on ond comment 

before c a lling s heerin~ . If he i3 ~is)os ~ t o r eject o r 

delay c on::; i C:.e r ati on of' t he JI'OJOseC... ·~:1encu~te11 t, he shall 

notify the :.Jivisi ::>:n;:-1 .AC:uni:nistn· t o r , vdw ''.rill info rm the 

oJO~'len t of the alnenc:.. .e~1t il:. 'tri tin; of t he ('.i soosi tion 

t o b e mPcie of it anci. t l1e re <: so::1s t l1erefor . 1 
' Administration amendments sh...,.ll be cons i de r ed by 1ubl ic hearing ~ . ~ . . 

r r.ther tha n by notice of o-.; p ortuni ty to be he2.rd , unle :.: s the l e.t ter "Jrocedure i s a cc eutrbl e to the Code Authority .' 

11We c a ll a tt ention to t hree ga":ls in the ll{anual 1 s discussion of 

amendments: 

1. Procedure is not specified for t h ose cases in 1."·hich the 

De::_:mty Ad.ministr2.tor v:i shes to imn ose a n amendment of a code 

wi thout the consent of the Code Authority. J e b e lieve this 

urocedure should be de finit e l y inclic ,.t ed. 

2. It should be sta ted tha t wh en a "JUbli c hearing h a s been 

c a lled verbal change s ::-~ be made oy those p ro•?osing the amendment, but not changes in the substance of the matte r to be 

hea rd, urovided t ha.t this limi t c.ti on. shall not a1'J1)l y to efforts 

to arrive at a sa tisfe ctory c omurcmi se i n confe r enc e s aft er 

the h earing . It should c.lso be u rov ided that coue authorities 

and NRA agencies may request an ad.journment of a hea ring in 

order to consider any cha.nges in subst .. nce r:hich may be y roposed. 

3· The Advisory Council r.ecommended some weeks ago that the 

Divisiona l Ad:ninistra tor be re que steC:. to hold a p relimina ry 

conference of the Code Authority and the Advisory Boards nhen 

.proposed amendments or r~visions of codes e re Ul1satisfa c tory, 

or inconsistent with u resent IJolicy or so ee ing that their 

adol?tion would amount to a com-olete r evision of the au:::>roved 

codes. This recommenda tion is omitted fr o~ the u rocedure as 

set forth in the Dresent dra ft of the 1,ianua l. 7e r ecommend 

that it be included." 

See also, Yudel son v. Andrev1s , 25 F 92d) SO, 84, (C. C .A. 3d 1928) : and 

LegFl.l 1-:Iemorandum, No • . 35 by Bla ck.-,ell Smith, r egar d ing Hearings on Proosed Amendments, June 2, 1934. 

(70) Ibid . 

( 71) Freund, op. cit., 131-132: "Most ne'7l y formul a ted restrictive policies bring tem oorary ha rdsh i ps to legi ti!IB. te intere sts; 

and there is al1.vay s -pressure to temper tha t hardship in ca ses 11here 

it should aupear to be exce <.:. sive, and particulc?..rly in 'emergencies.' There 

is little ne e d to malce exp ress p 1,;ovision for the overriding emergencies 

of ca.lami ty or disaster, which t ake c a re of themselves. The economic 

emergency or cla im to sveci a l consideration sts nds in a different c a tegory. 

Uhe re a rul e serves merely a dministra tive convenience, i t is legitimate 

enough to mruce conce ssions to p rivate convenience ( e . g ., unloading vessels 

a t other p l a c e s t han u orts of entry unde r officia l ·Jermits (Ta riff Act, 

1922, Se es. 447, 449); but it is otherwise \o'There the rul e serves sor:1e 

non-a dministra tive uublic interest. In ~rma · both the Sunday 1 w (TrRde 

Cocle, Sec . 105 e.f) a nd the '.'Omen's hours- of- labor l a\'7 (Sec .l3Se ) p rovide for eme r gency exce-:Jti ons , attemDt ing to s a fegu a rd the p o11er from undue exe rcis e by c a r eful che cks (ru les of Fede r c?.l Council, ¥-;r ri ting , r e cords); 

in America it is gene r a lly considered tha t they t end to break do1.n the 

l aw , and they a re consequently avoided. The English Trade Boa rd 
··c '"' - i::' .. ... ,·-

wor l:crr (. ... .~-~c" , 1~.9 , S~c . G ~.) ; !1i <" '''I C '"., t 0 Q '--' 1· ._ it i 'lc'). t' '' J. (I i 8 

--·A l i · _, .... t;d;::t .... of t~1 ""'-· .-.. 1

::i1 c1 . Tl1 r un£inn I ncor .J 

"• i: ... .irt:;: t.lvc T LlllC cion of r ·lt s L1 the 

1 0 '7L!' t-:. -c~- ~s ·:l1er1 :-2.Jt: .i;.1 i·· u.,rt' ·c r , , .. '1ir.h til\. Lt''' '~.c'ic· t .... 

{';c.: ·ic"'l':V (si 1-11..~ , lo,,~· , .__tc . ) , r ,'ll.C,__ •J:1c ayin:-~ C():·Y'.Ci t y of the 

t :-t:'}"'·• .. r ( c.c . 1_ .. ) . .-}1;y_1c~ · v- ---- tor:·. ntL':; rue:ll ,Jo 1~.- r t o ."'..n 

r<ni.l i <- t:t thr ... 01'.Lici l , but'") Lf r ~o -, cif·· t'1 "":{C'..,~1 ionG L, ~._..., 1avr. 

-t ~ l. ~--l- ~- c L.-n .. ;1s.:..r..:; p) ;, _~s I.~C· 110r f:--.·qu(·T:tli 1:r .. ::.tG' .. i n Gc.T.:"!'l:'.n 

t ··:.. i:;-;. :Si.:~: i '-: or Ai'lvric·-:1 1cbi l ~ t::.. !1 , tl1, c::~.r cfu1 S'l fe :t.n rc.·.~ 

t:l t "'j ~ _ C"J2 c' L· t.!'l:- J..r .'if; for t he -, ·ot ct r.::.1 ,-f 1,-- bo r ··r_ b v no :·•c. '.ll 

t ::<..c ·l o:i.' c>· ot: r G.:r .:-:1 L1rt;:-:1ccs of tfl\. n "' V! "' ·c . 11 For .Y.:'l.i"J)Jl cs· of 

t ·.Lttc .,llo,~i·\.'; cue : ac'J,<i :li " tr · t ivo o.ctioi.l , sec , U. S...!..v . Shr0v cpo r:t Grni n 

Co . d 37 :. S. ~· (1'X> ) . ·T>.E.. :?ooc.c ~:1C. ~ru-G Ac t , ,-7 s-. '. L '!'::?. r eporte d 

t :1, .... ... J. C3L~ £ -~:1 ·.·,; rJ.: : 11 Th i r C: . If i n )r> :~·t; · f orm , t:1c qu.::m : ity of the 

t CO!l\; - t l . d . ., . ' t l.- + - , f t' 0:1 lJC llO'J :"'-- Ll =· •i1 CO:l Sp l CUO l. ~- :llt' .. r .':::oc ·! Tl 1 ... ...: OU"Sl .. c ':) l'l8 

p 2. J::- ··c: i n r: ·~ :n· ~v ci ;;1 t , moa s--...1.r , or· ~lum ri l c m:mt: :r o~1 id d 

hon0 v "' l"....!_ Tl12..t r c£' y_·_t..o l -: ·.7a:r:i.1 t io·1S sl'k1.ll ·b \.. JC i"l i t to , f~- ·t o1e r a!1C OS 

c~ c!. :-.l..o r;:...:r:·_t i :.ls --~ -v o s m&.l l lX'.c]:·'-r:;,, ;, sh'tll b e st ~ blis'!1cC:. by r ule s 

['_,.,_c:_ cwu~.c.·ti.:->!"l S . -_r 8 :.:.:c 'J.- CO:t'l.P..n c i7ith the- 1' risi .)'i. S Jf Se c t ion ' Thr ee 

of this ·~c ."; . ._~(".. S·':!.' Ok s v . ;;= ir:.:.:·o r c1 , ~3 6 U. S. ;:; ~ (1 932 ) . 

( 72 ) Loc;<" l .·ono ~--~ ,·m. , f l' :J': :Ol:. \':c l Smith r c: c;·· r cL nt?; ~T ti co Al1d 

A-1 ~) rt1.1 1it ~.- ~\) -:·o ~c 'r :. , J .·.:m.- r :r 1.: , 19 7 ·.'· : ~_ _Q_cx~~t ns .. '.nd. 

uxc o ... 1c:: : L 1e:r-c s~1n' i. J. ~~ ·oc 2 n o·1 n:· ·cu:li t • to b e l1e :.rd t o t he ma.::-:imurn 

Pr "ctic ~,·· : 1'0 -t 11 ... ... -,, cy"· . .., .;. o-"' ,_,., · 1 l' ci t ·; ··oc -i --r.· ,., -, )~'l'"' '" 'lt il""rl.-..,-,..,s .:.;;&, - ~ _ v I... J~v -... v , v_ .. _ _ .. ll . .. Lt ...1... . v_ .J... ... _ L ~ .... ... . _. \,...... _vL '--G • ,J. .... v .. l w ... _ ... 

so::le-,·,: . ...:.. t on \:·l:c~ ~l : t::c :x:c c··· i'"' , c 1· cx....r,1}Jtion i s gene:: 1 in n :: tur e . 11 

c~ 8. so , Lc- 2.1 l: cr.20~ [.1o:'l..lf. , _To . ..:~ , L'OU B::.. ,r- ckvrc ll Yl , quoting rto'o e r t 

P. P<... "' c.C;.: , cg::·- rc-:i 1t:: To c. .-,:1.u· H..::·· r.i.. :.g , J uly 30 , 3~V : 

11 ~!1G n the [l' n t i:1t; of t.,:: r,..:·· ti ns o::- c-xc e:•1 -c i Y:ts i s of c.. gc l 

na ture o:c is .:!:::•.c:c t o ~;:·~ ~- j to ·L ·Jc,~c: of::; c1£ .. ss i t is of a l vg i s l c>. t ivo 

:' ct~ . Se c . '31 a ) -;.-i v.:;s c~-h r:L ,- =::.-tto ·;;-~ P~ >- vvho·--.. })8 :CSO i.1S ent;::lGO cl 

' i n otl:.or st e·· s o:f t :1c ic iJr oc c :: s arc ·- lv od . 

:! Asi c"c !'r o·1 L1e -li.£.:., 1 .?.s::::- . ct c , ·:1c p r Gb·-·.b l :r ;.•\...:.cl !';, ·y..1bli c ·1c:::tr L1g 

o:-1 c xce·-q;i J112 OT c~:cr.r.' o;.~s ·.-:c::: c v c:- 2. suos >c :,nti >l a~1o 1. t of controVe rs y ::. s to ·..)e cx:Jcc c•.~. . ·- , c '~'- ::r,·.~ lt · .. ::c ,.:yt i ns , if '.c c o sso.ry , i n 

p a rticu l :-:'.1' Cc se s ; · lJ.t , .. ~ x ·.r ,_ ·-·"':!.C , .• i t:1o1.~ t iu.L>. :_, ub 1ic 1lCar ing plu s c r oss 

:'"l.i11i"t-~ c:· .. ti on of ·c.~ .:: <'..f:}"2.icai: t ~.- ::> ~...• ::o •J ± t h o }) --: u.r c o f c i rCUTJs t a ¥1c es . 

TDG g ~. 'l tL-_ ,:; of L :p r o,,c- r e x c c:n t i j1 S i s ~fttir t oo t h·::- Y!lcmb c r s of the 

l~_ ~~' i f not -.-:)si t iv" 1y i l l ct:: ·-.1.***" 

I- =2~3 32 23 3 

11 ( a ) Gc n e 1·.::- 1 . T'.1c r c mu s t c.l !!2Ys b e c-m D..:~ tive finC:. i ng of 

f a ct 011 ::hic:l to ·oc:.s c L1c g -c c? nt i :'l[' o:· -:;.n c x em·) ti on or st c:.y . 

11 (b) :By c_ CoclG .Auth.Jrj. ty . T~1e d. ~ Authority i s r e quire d t o ma l:e 

such i nv c stir·-:t i o .... s :-..s i s ;1e cCJss91-:· ~ :::.:.. !··J~. ~1c t u e ope r a t ive f EJ.cts . 

~:e AuL or~ i t ;; b"t:_,__·-, t: t i tc--.. s "1.12.Li. ~.- •-:Jr·ovi dc f or f a ct- fL.1cl L :g faci 1i t i cs 

for t!lis ::·u.T C" . At t hE r1 est i) OS ~i bl e :-'m,lcnt , or il: [!.ny e v en t 

9838 
within ten C:.ays 0f the i'ili_r.e; of n 2::' li c2.t1on~ t1lc CoC:.c Authorit: .'~ il_ 

for warc'c i t s fi nc: in(3 :11< :. Yf~cor'l. cnc ~ t i J~l[: th;:; reo·.1 , e.~d the r o£>.S0!1S for such 

r e c or·u cia. tions t o :J'A i n :·.'ashLl:<; ton . Il1 r:o case , l1owcv er- , ~7i l:!. t~1o 2:>oputy 

AdministrPtor 2.llow tht: l r,cl;: 0f Co lle kJ.L'1'lr ~ ty c:. ct firc.L~tZ f a.cili tics or 

t a r cl i ness o:.1 thG :_:;a :rt of tl.1: CoG.u A'tJ..t h:.;:r i -:;~.- un:r caso r:ab ~- to C:.E. l ay h is ac ti o:: 

11 (c) 3y lTRA . I f i t is 2.~;J1o :r c~~ t ~k">. t ~-::lc Codr: A1..1.t~1o:rity i~ unable to 

furnish a l 1 L1.c 11eccss9.ry f ac t E, t ho Del uty •(l[·.y r equ est t he Ch i e f af the 

Co mp li!=~- "'l e :Divisi on to ·ssi c;r1 ."'. fi (~. imrest ,~.:.~. toJ.· t o ~c.ke t ht,; necessary 

s urvey of t :·w oper::1.tive f ac t s . The c c:mo:mi c c-.n d stati stict? .. l fact - finC.i ng 

f nc ili ti cc of tl1. r::. P.esea:· ch ~l :r1 C. l9 .l1~1i1 b i~lisj_oll Ll:.~e also a vailable to ti~c 

Deputy. 11 

(74 ) Consluno rs 1 A0.v i sory :Uo 1 J:m.-no:r·-~. ;,,ci , ;;ay 22 , 19 35 : 11 lJ.lne Deput·r 

,...,ro·""o _}j l_--' serl u. to allo"'

__ vv ' ·.;.~J ·o-,.__ n .--o. ~- ! -' ' .,.:lo."- .,.-n l··~ -·- ~ J. lJ, ..... 

• ~ L ~ s-'-t.. ,

'-- -k ... c. ·- nt .. c""'l··n J..LQ.. _ :•_ 

)~'-' -· l· • 6 ~ ..., . t~1·1 ::::. 

b akeri es ' to work its emJ~ o~ ecs .(:c~-_b instep.,:': of 4.0 hours a ;·me:.:. :ie based. 

this lnt e:nti :; n u:pon the , f a ct. !: :. t ~11:.' t.:.~d. v i s i tc·C:. the plcmt f Ho::cn c-.nd 

H.::L r cl.J..rt .smc~ i··d1-is o~) n. ll t h e- e xc eption sllo\ ... lcl b e gr2.nt cc: . J u s t ."l .£.t 

r easo11 s tl1e Deputy 11r-. d. i:w c~ d. n ot d iscloso to h i s :<.C:.7isers unless it ·e.s 

a be li e f ~1a t cmr~!li c-. e co·'--·.l c1 11o·c ·0ossi bl;-- b e s·.:; cur e d . It -::'!ay ·Jc th'3.t 

t hu Deputy :·r·.:;.s perfect ~.r rig bt i:1 ,~y~t ~1c L:.t cn0.cd_ to c:o .~.nc. t' ,t sufficient 

fa c t s exi s t e d to jus t ify tl1c pro=.Josof. 3xc 0·--: tion. TJ.1e ~)o int r emains , 

howeve r, tha t :1o w2.s dq_c; tll€. ac vi ssrs to <.t. p:•_:.r o·re thi s except ~! YTithout 

furnis h111g them a. f .?.cts 111::->on vvhi c:1 to base · t h e ir "'.cti on . 11 

( 75) See Indus t ri2.l A.•·-rf;e r~_ls :3oS.l'C_ , .A:o· _-, e r.l of Con tra l V/e ;J.vinc; anC.. 

,...,l·n -1 n,.,. Co ·,..-,or··l+-'· on Sl'l1:---7:1 __ _ _._ l.l e ··1c u~t ··- ..,-,- a~rec~ Code '!\To Ll.A _::--' J. .l. t.=> ..1.. J.- - c..::t. \J .L t ..L- ~ t.., .l'~ro.. lJ ... -1o..,; ~ · ' t.: •• • ..... v - ' .L • - .._.. ' 

Cocle s of Fa ir Comj)e tition, Vol. I), cisi ~.- l . 18 . 'ihe Bo:-1rd s cid , 

in part: . . _ 11 Pr cis r ec ~' se tho~r ;,_ ;__--..;y ~1.:::- c. b e n i1al1lcica:::•:-:.ec, in on e or LWl~e 

o f these l'GSJ.:- e cts, the.. wo r k0 r s in the a:91::>ol.::mt ' s 2.~:.1t ma.y r eq_uire a.lid 

cle se rve n: so;.:e wi12 . .:; l ol g;c;-,_· }')O r i oc~_ of t r ·· inLw i n o r c'.er to a tta in nornal 

e ffici enc y . T:1e r.e co[:;n i ti o:cl o::.· ti.1 is fact r:".~l li es n othing de r ogator y to 

e itbe-:· t :1e ir a. ti ~r e a.b ility or t l1c ir c:x,)ac -i ty i'or c.le·,re l oprr.\_,nt . It implies 

me r e l y a r e e.listic c.:L1 r'. h o:;1 est ·-:~y- : cL~_ tio:1. of cor. ... i t ions ;·;:1ich noul G. h_·we 

provecl a n e quaP.y forl'li d[-'!.bl e ~. r:r c:c to t:~.:_ 1):Logr e£s o f any ot~1e r group 

of emn l ovecs si nil;·.rl': situ:tt oi..: • ..:. ~ . (.... .. 

11 o·.~e: for , 1ue thi::.ll: t hE t D. :nn.r tie.l excrnp ticD woul d b o f :tir to 

the appe lla :.1t , for tnc b e st int e r est of its empl oyee " , Jlot unfc:l.i~~ to its 

c ompe t itors 2.nd woul d a.fford t his company .s.n o-p~) ortmli t y to bring i ts 

l abor u;:) t o st.:~:L cla . effici enc ;· ('.:i.e i mprove its equipment and opere.ti on" 

so a s to e.l !. ow it to cont i nuG OT'~O .? ti ; ns u.ndc r tl1.c ,:>revisi ons of the Co c~e -- -'-

wi thou suffe: ring l oss . AccorC.i:J.gl ? , WG c:.r .:; o f tht" dl:p inion that t he 

Cent r '.l We ;-·.-rL1g o. c~. l) L'lninr; Corpo r·'.ti on sho,_dC:. b e c--r:.:.1tcc-:. an exem:~t i on fr om 

Arti c l e IV, Secti c n 1, of t ho oc e o f F~~. ir Com-' eti ti on for the Silk 

Te xti lo nc us tr 7 f o r ;;, po ri oc'. of s i x 1n 0~1ths fron t ho c~a e of thi s C:.ecisio 1, 

U})Oil t:lG foll owinc,: co ~l (. i t i ons :--- 11 

(?6) An ah.-. e vvo:rkL1e; 0.1 the- Southe :r:1. Rice Lillinc; I m:u s try , Code No · 

LP-5 , prOl:lose c.',. t o fr ee t he e nti:ce i nclustr'' of ". bard.ensone l::>rovision by 

t.\n exemp tion. - The ilo.t tE: r Y'E'l.S :1anC:. lecl. by ;::men(nent fi:L12.l l;> . No tice of 

Op po rtuni tr to b e 3en.:rc: , Aclministr·.tive Or C.o"' Yo . LP5- 5 , ~:lr i~ 2:3 , 1935. 

9838 
. . . .t~9 . . 4~5 (1919) . 

?~~) ?:1 .... ;_··,•ir;u··~ ..... PLl!. il r o .:•·lc"'ti::>;.!."' o ~.-nt l1.1)•11 tti"' : 11 ('S·J1 . n<l 

3.'"l,_ l) _,_\t.:: .: L,r _;_: i ~ioa. of st·" i ·c-;-_ 1:.-:t.lL'SC: .\'0 ·•,r:~.r··.-:-;.· ,,:.::: i;. i1 1t L " ~; I!Il, . 

Thc:r\ 'Y\. t• C' ~--o '' r o f Dt ,, "' ; t. )"' · ,,..! ~ch <. mo· ~ L to a ~ .... m;"lor •ry _,;rcJal• tion 

of 1. ' ... Yti : 1.:l··r , o-...1}-~ "'h t.'. J~'C' nl.iL' ~: t( · • < r .. ~;:il~.- r-1'; S\.. -.n nti:c i 1 U"'try 

f:·n 1 .• !C ~.-o• . .L ,-.: o--iri y.·. . T~b ~'fC < :J :

1

. ··· , ·' i ti·1 ;ui··} r, c~ . 'l'h~,.; ; · ' Y of 

:" l 1 .. ~l~ _.1::.·o·,·i ic':1 o.: 11 t. nti.\. i :1'.u"tl,., :1 ; 1uc.1 V1. f ore of ···1 ...... 1Cl1LJ11C.:lt . 

Proc. · -1.1·', -; _ . ..,ue!l nt r~; ho .. 1.( '0 ~>ot for~..o l T· l rc C1 ( r1y Fl·.n ic. one 

in t.1.i S0ct ~ 1 • 11 

( ry o ) ,. p] t.: • r. ~) ( ', ,·. '"' :~o ::: '.ll. lr ,_• ~_ , l' o . t Pul 1ir1'l t:: : :co ., St . p, u1 1905) , 7 . 

S C' v .,...ro .!) __ ,.!._ ''1'"1 ., V • "'·· ...J "IO"' ' <J )7 L- o l•- • A • (I t.:"r'r:. (V· L. 1c-"'or·' .J:J) , .._, l· .1< .. :..· · Cl · ·' (.\.,C. • 

( 80) :2 ~ c • . l T· ,,·..:: Co ···:· lis~ion v . C1.tr ~i::: PL".' .... ::.j"-111:1(_ Co~ny , 

;~60 U.S . --:-t~.:: ; --~_) ;- (l S-.i-]--: --Th~-- CO'\_ ,; t --v~t o·. :-.~l.· 'c -:-:-1"t"!uu[_Jl -tno·-,_;:sl.n1 ··Jrocc curc 

i"' to r,':.c.:'...1L t!lt c;.sc ;:o . Co ' ission i f' subs·c l c;vicl.o!".C(; is~ ... cl::in:; , 

t:10.t in ce·:t, in cirCl.lF~st 'l!.CCG ,_<1c r c 11 it cLcor1c --,,·. e: ::- -c:- t:1:.-..t , i::.1 the ii1-

tv ..... cst o: jur cic~ , the -.:.trovc;,~s :· c}-ouL co CCi <'.o~ '!li t:"lout; furt~'l'- r 

dcLJ.:1· , 11 t~~-- Co .:rt V!il 1 r'cc ic' c t~1 . c<· nc itrol.: . I t c.o r) s IlJt sLel1 t il.."'t t :1-.: re 

i~ 3.i1J' st. L-1..·to:·. '"'sir , O:l' ::0.titui~:.. :F l ·; ··si" :r'o ~ t.1:~. t:. .wt -- c r , for 

this st~tcnci1 , .--1 if L1c Coil.; sG·~ :Y 1 ic. co ·;]c f ct fiac~ ing agcnc;r , it 

ace ns .; ~nt it Gh:Y-.J.l • ·v so 1i -v ~: ut r c. fc-·c-::cc t o th.:.. i :i1-.. i vi c'.U£1.1 r cqu.i reLents 

of riou.s carc·s , £'..1 t .l0U[.:h t>:. ·c~., s s cF1\; thL1c; to b e s:'l.i ( for the po int 

t: .:-.t uo ·,!·L·occ rs of 1:·,-,.r ::11 .. ' no t be sc· ll.(~ 'uy (_,il',t'J-:·y i:~~. cti oT. just as 

Vlv11 

( 81 ) c~ . ALJl s.::. , _s~_oc 1.; v . E': 1tr ), Li l.w~~cs Eo ..,r s , 3 K.B., 756 , 

7G-4- 7G5 (1913) . 

( 8.'~) Ex l);::.rte :Jic;.1,j Unc , ( 1 :·~ (;:X) :.::39 (1930 ) . 

11 :t:e )n::£ i.: .: :-.t , b: Execuciv \... O::.·rcr !To • .)3;~9 , c~<:-. eG. Octo-ber 10 , 19:·: 3 , 

a)::'rovol .. t: .: .:-o 1'. n ';~_!-...:_, . :. <:: (~. ·c.:.t to Lh S.li _·· 1uiL i ·· -L :.nd S:i.1i·_-, :te:1':1.i r i ng 

Coco : 11 Soc . J . (c ) '}\) 0ffcctua't c. :fu Lw .~· tho ~olic o:, of L1e Ac t, a Sh i p 

5ui1ci ng ""- ~ Si1 · ~<• <::. ::.rL· c n:.:ustl-~" Co.-. 1ittcc is 1~ rc:.y c~es :?; c( to 

co cper~t .... vrj ~-~1 Ll\., _.,_u L·.istr-,_to r -:--s c:: P .h::: .L-..:'· ·.1'.· • .' ~:-.ir Pr:: cticc Ac;o11c:: for 

t ·lo <.:>hi-- ·bu.i l~L'-C r· i.1c.'. s~1i:o r c•1r irL:,~ L1c'u~ try . r:=r-1i s CorEL i ~tee sl12.l.. ·i_ connic:-t of -.:1 rGGCi:.t .-~ iv c, s 8f ~l;, s:li ·-, ::. ui1 c~_cr~ c-.. nC:. Sh i ·· J.ov:. i rc rs in such 

nurn.uu r 110t .

1

.CGS -.. 11:' .• :. si x :lS t:i.:; .t ( ·· lL.istr?·~.or i:-1 ilis C~ sc:L'C ti·J'1 ma._r from 

tir:.e to t i ;.:c C:c L ;r:":li :·· 8 , c 1.:.c t c .. :'. 'b~,- -". f .ir r ;c t~lo r·_ of sclccti 'J1l to be -::9:-' rovcC::.. 

by L1c "C..:-.li:·.-.istr ,..,_ tor , <~.;~ci. foL~' 1..:: -·n::; r :; vvi t 10ut v ote ~.)~ 'IJ ntcc.~ by t he Prosiclc t of tbe U:1i (.;~... St ."'.tC" . Such --.. 1

:.c;:cy l'i:.: .. · i'ro!.l ti 1•1c to ti:ne }.lrGsent to 

t hc AcJ,1ini ~ t:c:"L tor !'Cco .. lr. "ndc;. t i o:1 s ·o =- S (. .. ·_ 01.:. c oilc'.i t i ·):1s in thci r inc. u s try 

a s ~h ~- .:::1.:,- c'.o 1o~' fr o tL:1o to tL1c '.'~'l !-. vill t 1C~ · o cffoctUF.;.. to the 

operc:.t ion of tbo -,rovisl• ils '1i' t::ic· Co.·.c ~~.:· •. _ he:- ~)O~.l ~· of th.; lht;io~1a1 

Indunt;ci< 1 :oc ov _ r~ Ac . 11 

(8,~) 'rllis vns' issue· l!'. "'ffi~Jhlct fo'-~it. (8:'-11 v 11 11 '".nc.: 13 pa,::;o s) ~t t11C 

office )j_' :l.!.L co:.c- o~' 'i i:tce . 

( p --\ 0 't'- ~ . ~0 1 rn vir..[: r c;:,u1Lti o:1 s v-rh:!. c.l , ':n ~- ib e!. ~- l i: t er re t 2.t ion , the 

9838 
- 25bCoc"Le mi r;ht b e sai C::. to n.uthorize, t he Rul md~.?.. e:u ti s in e f fe ct cr.a ..._ ed 

t he CoC.e by: 

(a ) P tovidi ng :::'or 11 e{~ {:;9. tiol1 of tile shi pbuilding indu s try, 11 this 

b ej_;lg t i e 6 ..U:) with sp eci a l tra de p r a ctice p r ovisio11 s for the 

u_;~. t -~es Di strict : 

(b) Provic .. L1g for price f iling (with e.. thirty..:.. c..ay ':e..i th1g ri oQ) : 

( c) Requirii.1g the.t 11 ;:12. t c r i u.J .. sup ·) ec .. b~r shi :9Tep ...... irors .-. - - s h:tll 

b e Cl1c.".,!'f;e d at :;. _') t less than. the p r evai linG do l i -.r e r e d TJar~~et 

price p l u s " certai n fi xed ::_:. erc entagc s (in c lucling 11 10% for p rofi t 11 ·) : 

(d) Re st r ict inG b i Q. ing : 

(e) Requi r i Dg t he f iling of b i ds : 

(f) Fi xi ng maxi mum quantity di sco1-m t s : 

(g) Fi xing E1axi muJ1 c ash d i scount s o:'l t ills f or r ep air Or~~; 

(h ) Pres crib ing a f ormula to ·oc use d by sh re rs 11 i n the 

de t e rmina ti on of al l lump sum p ri ces , a n ( i n tnc bi l ling: 

of :-;.11 time D.n c

1

L !"lat e r i a l wo r k ; ;md 

(i ) Regul ating outside tr cto s usee\. on sh prc~:-=1 ir ng . 

(86) Ibid 

(87 ) Cov e r page Jf t h e 11 Rul es 11 • 

(88 ) 11 Rules 11 p r--G< 12 . 

(89 ) Offi ce Manu::tl: 11 102 7.12 (I I) In sor11e cast:' s , t he AC:.visors will' 

p a ss upon d.i f f e r ently d2 .. t e d r evisi ons of t h e s c:une name:; d code . For e::~le , 

t he Labo r Bot.'.r d ma.;y'· app r ov e a code da t ed Apri+ .20 t h , anC:~ t hE: nsu:~ !cr s~ 

Advisor y Bo2.rc .. , th<:: code as r evised Ar>r l l 25t h . This i s in order if the 

Deput ;y· Adminis trato r st a t es i nvhi s l e t ter (Vo l ume I I ) t:nt n o materi al 

change s ~w. e been maC:.e i n t he:; Code , s i nc e t~1e a p·orova l (or dis2·.y -r va l ) 

of t h e va r i ou s Advisory Bo .. c:'_ 11 

(SO) Memorc:.n C: .lJY:1 , Consume r s ' Ad. ~ory ::C o,_r r. to Cli i1 t on A. Berry , r e -

gar d.i:1g r::ot or Veh i c le i -3.i ntel:9.nc e Tr2.C1.e - nt :r ::-> ti 1 of Article Vii , 

J.u le 8 , Ap r il 3 , 1935 : 11 - -tl'li s l'ul e:; i s i mp r op e r l y i n the Code in our opin~ 

ion , sL1c e it we.s r.l t crecl .. ar.c .. the Ylo rcl 11 secre t l y 11 de l e t e,; a ft E: l' t !1e Code 

wa s l)a s sec:. ~• on b y- the T::> ri ous AC.vi s o ry Bo2.rd 2.n d Divisi ons, we c? .. r e v e ry 

de fL1i t e l 3T of t:1e 0pL1ion t h ·--..t the clmL'listr ti on is Eot in, a p osi tioL to 

mat:e a ny G.e c i sion r e l c..tL1g t o i t until it is moc.ifi ed . We hav e 1 a ssurEd 

t :O.c-. t i t vri l l be le deC' .. on proposa l of t he i :ilC::.us t:cy .:1 t .., n earl;) c'...ate . 11 

(91) Eemorc--..n 0_um to the Co11,sume rs ' Ac vi so -- :oo ~'~ .. , r eg,_rd.L!g Son In cidei1t s ?.efl e c t i:t1g The .h.ttitude (If Deputi e s , et c e te.r.a , J une 3 , : 11 I 

s ent t o ihe .'Deputy :. cornpl e t c r CJ}')Ort on the Co(.c a nd its a :9 :•e n( ice s , b ut h e 

i m11eC.i a.t e ly phone cl me 2.sl::inc t11Rt I cl a~ 7 the- !V r it L 1e; of t~1c :fi:n-::.1 Te:p ort 

until D.ft e r i1e r e t urne e, from 3. v a cc:.tion b e cc:ms e no wisho<i t hen to r oaa my 

9838 
r 1 ort :1c to 

v.:;.ca t i 011 , 'out 

0 .· rov~ l : '.lf 

o::s {~"J.v_~ J.--

iscu!:Os t! .... -,.,, i: t~ •,;i t:l. .• c . ·-· ... n...,ve;r rctur .. 1cd froL\ hie 

I 1: "'-' ·~ l .:trn"'d t t .1 .1·.1.c. '::L 1t L1' Co ·... to G j r t 1 J o;1.nsun 

-~ :1 .o, ·~ . .1. ~ .... r , 10 1 .. 1•1:1 ~ ~.. : .c '-:i · .(: , c to \..; L t.? our final :rcpo rt . 

t:1: t .~. i. . . 1 r. ·,o t _::-~ "' ; v1c· b~ '- n v•ritt n . 11 

( 92) I:;.fr2. , ·r , , r• I \ 0 

9838 

fo r 
-258-

i· OT"SS TO C .!J\..?T~~ XI 

(1) Corvrin, 11 ] asi c Doctrine of Americe.n Conc:ti tLJ io 'l::>l ::>~ 11 

12 J:ichi€..:1!. Lev· P.ev i ew 247, ?.75 ( ). 

( 2 ) Arizon::. Gro c e ry Co. v. A. (.; S . . Dy Co ., ?8~ 'G . S. rz.7. , 

389 (10'32). 

( 3) Di s t :;.·ict Court f or Distri ct of Oregon, "S- Q'7. 0 7, Ja.nUE.ry ~4 . 

1934. 0·0inion by r.;clTe.ry , D. . J. 

( 4) Atl1J rove o. Code }:o. 9 , Lumb e l' and Timber Proruc ts, So<' es of 

Fa.ir Competi tion , I, 95. 

(5) Tre.ns cri lJ t o f H'3e.ring, A<1DE'-'=' 1 of the ,, ill!:'met_te Cor!IJ::>ny, 

Octob e r 23, FY'~ . An i nteres:tin.:; r ote ori the c2.se i s founc~ i n 11Ve)i i ty 

of Allotment OrC'.e r under Lumber Coc.e; Sus--:> ension of Pene.l Pro ision s 

a.s to Li tig2.nts Cha lleng ing Order," 43 Y8.le L!:~ W Journ::.l 8?.7 (1~~ ). 

(6) Articl e VIII, Ar:nrovecl. Soc'.e _To. q, on. c it., q7-c8 . 

( 7) Su~o ra, n. ( 3) . 

"The 1f.iest Coest Division a g enci e s, i n m?Jdng the ir ihi tie.l e.llotments, v"e re confroD.ted with a com":~lex 'Jroblem, reaui ri11g consicl.erP.ti .n_ 

of m!?.ny fact ors; t:te p rime object b e:i.ng to r i st.ribute t he "0 roc"uctio_J]. 

qu.ota allm'.r ed the t ivision so the.t e.ll of the rr.ills rro 1..1.ld be 2.ble to ce.rr r 

on o:perP.ti on s and g ive emD loyment to a me.ximum number of emo loyee s at 8. 

self-sus t a ining w2.ge . 

"In vi ew of the econ olilies r em_,_irec. to meet the Dre ... ent low urices 

and marke t conc.i tions, 30 hours pe r v.reek is t he minimum Oi)ere.ti n..g time 

necessary for t h o manufacture of lumb e r '9 roc1.ucts. LH::e1.'7ise 30 hours 

pe r we ek is t he minirmJm o"9era ting time on V" hich mill er:rnloyees ce.n be 

s e lf -sUJTi orting. 

11 It is evi d.ent the. t if tho division 2genci e s had. rna.cl. e sueci ?l 

allotments to limit ed grouns on the bpsis of mP!l.uf-?.cturing ce .. e.city, 

proc.uctive h istory, or contrac tu::tl obli&:e.tions, it necesse.rily __ rrould 

have r equired. a great e r limitfl.tion in oDer?.ting time of othe r ill_~ 

anc. destroyed 1.1..x1 i fo rrnity in working C<?nciti cns, thus creating 8. situation in wl:i ch no s cheme of ci.ist rib1.1.tion of 1Jrofuct ior- or l e.bor . .?.s 

been, to the J:::rto'."l edge of the col.,_rt, o; ce iv ~d ,_,.,Lereby t he ii~ rustry 

e.s a who l e coul c

1 b e vi t a li 7.ed throu.[h the ouer'-' tion of t!-lo n.eco ·e r y Act . 

11 Unfort u.Jle.tely, cl.istribution o f e.llotments renuires some mills 

to make [ TeP t e r se.crifices in -pror.uctivo Cf?l)?.ci ty the.n others_, but thAs 

apuears to be l.l.Jl:::)_voicl.able by r e8.son o f the c' i vcrsity in mill OD r Pti o;. . . 

Hov1eve r, it i s olJvi ous the.t the adr·1ini trP.tive P.f,encigs hpve cl onte~_ 8 

p l an of 0.istrih1J.tim1 v-rhich, vrhil e not ue r fe ct, is tt.e most likel._ to nrevent COJ!.r"' l e t e C.isa.s t e r to the l unber incl.ustry , --- P -ol en b~r 1 hich Pll 

mill s e.re i n one cl e.s sific: .ticn, e.ncl_ ''hich r'oe s not, in the jurf· e!'_t of 

t he court , a.r b itre rily discrimine.te e.g? i n s t an, rni ll un it." 

9838 

.) 

jj 

-\ 

.· 
) ~-o tc, 11 rr> li c

1ity of Allot...,r, t C'rc

1 c r ·Fnr'er l l'ml)cr r.or'c; 

Susnenf. ion of ?en'"'l ?·ovi sions ~s to lit.i "''"'J1ts C' £1Jl c.,·ii2['; Ore' 0r, 11 

Op. cit. 

i 

(10 ) :::'01.' £."~"1 :->·, lo ·or1.s ·. oi'l].c;t ccc 1"'1"'rovecl Cor'c ~.,.o. 118 , t;ott.011 

Gnrment I no:P.stry , po .cs of Fpir Comntition III , t. T- 0 t1 · 

11 1!o memb~j J' of the Cotton C-2rrne:r. t Inc~-.1c- try ~hE' ll 01 cr? t e 1')roC'uctive mc chi··e ry u r. cd iE. :::.:1y of the ---:·ocosscs Cj1llmc ·:::.t~f in 'Sect i on 

of !'.rticl "" II , cxcoD t cut_tj.;w m.::>.~hi;"l.ery; f o:::- rri.o r tL!".n one c:hift- of Ll.O, 

hour~ ucr Pee':. " 

·~i_;h :~ 2.l off ici::-ls o-1. .t he -8ti o:1..el .c> cover:r Arr:li:ri tr~tion eco.r- ~ 

n i zed this Dl'O lei! ! Smi th, 11 Le::::::>.l ProbleP'ls CoJ'lfro:rting the i'T::>t on~ l 

?ecovery Admi:1ie t:c t~ on , !

1 8 ~ec'e:tr l "":->r .Associ~t on Jolrrn.::>l 12 (k'l:ril 

1934) : 

11 Fo1' .cxE>Er--le , o•;ere.ti oP.s in u~rt ict.• le r ~!'"' ~l.,1 ris "'s r:V·"'Y be on·· 0 

b2.sis o.f h-.·o .o1· mo:co s'_i ::'ts ,--h5.le ,.,i t h :l.!1 the s.::>me i :,/·nst:;.-y othe r o·,_t er-:-

1)rises vrill l~e oD e re.ting on 2. r::i ;· le shift b.::>c: i s . If t he a.lloc.:>tion. of :· 

proc'.uct ion is OJ! t he .lJe.sis _of e. flet number of l~ours of m8 r.hi:ne oncr2 tion 

for any mill, t he r e will be f' vestl;yr disnroT)ortioJle te e'ffect on 'mills 

runn int; tno or more shift s ~t iv o to mills on int~ e s:hift b::osis_. S9me 

of the a. tte:r ina.y not lJe re c~ l..1.c ec. il"'. n c rm:i.ssiblo Oller!:'· tior. to El:ry oxtE?nt 

v·l1e.tsoeve r e~h il e mills oTJere.ting sev-":te.l s~1 s mB.y lJe recl ~0 to e ~m? ll 

ye rcente.ge of . the tot? l B.mot,.Tl.t of o•"9r'ti 0l'. •;osf!ibl e b efore 'tho cor1 e. On 

the ~t- e r he.nCl., if mills 0'18l1::>.tin:· o:..1 ?. ~s ir. of ~· o or more sl:._ifts f"re 

:9ermi t tec1, t Q. r ote in t he se.rno r e J . .o ti ve "Jro·no r tion of t heir ;ycevious time 

of onere.tio:o.1s ?·S in. the ~ se V'i th t~1 e s·inf: l shift mills, sever9.l cliffi-

.cul ties. aris e . L 1 t he f irst -..,l~ , t he mill on s evere.l shi ·fts is Pi ven 

e crystalJ.iz eo. le ~- ..,~ f'''v::-~ ::- e i :r: costs of o~, ~·re ti n over the othe r rrills. 

In the secane ·.Jl 2.Ce , t he e.mow1t of rec1 uction n e c e ssg r y i ;r. tl:e s inr,le 

shift mills on tLe b!:'lsi s of thi~ t heory Y! onlc~ r e c.nce t'n.e numb'or of hours 

of O!)ere.tic.n belo··, the e conor1 ic mi n i rrn..1m enr. ':rou l c, close UD m?ny such 

mills. ~ue ·0rocess ·•rob l oms 0:re r e.iie cl. i n c' i ffict.'.l t f orm bv the en- , -

(1 G8.VO r to coDe vri t h these si tn.o ti'01 s . ~1 !''OY'.8l'?.l it is our n-"J: ~ ch to 

the :9r obl e~ t lle.t 2.ss1:min; tl'le vi 1 rr;ort~:..:.ce of ·limi ta.ti o ".S of ;ro0.uction for t ile n::>rticu l ? r inCl.ustry in orccer to 8Y'1

Pb l e it t o sust?.in the -· I • (. 

le.bor urc~e n iiT)o s ecl by the co~ , 'the most i

1

ea.sonfb le forrnule. f 0r limite.-

tion t he.t ee.!1 be devised ' i n vi.e,·· of t l:e e.bov.e anc m.o:0.y othe r · Cl.iffic.ulties 

sh oulc· be the o1.e rhosen . I f c C'm·•J.2L.1ts r

1Pmo _str ::> t e th0t the me thoo . .oc t -

'Llally cho sen h::u:· serious flex s vrhich can be remeCl.iocl by mor'ifir.::o tions of 

the fo r mula, t 11e a. c'ministr?..tion st!" :;_;_r~ s r ""·?r'y to coo'J e r::>.t e in the enr' e::>vor 

to i !rrn rove l1e f.or:·nJ.l e., c'.m~.!, istTPti oY~. f l e xib i lity shonlo. C:o much to 

elimine. te t he e):treoe c'.ue ·1 rocess c

1

.iffi n,_l ti e s . n 

(11) A-.·:nrovec. Coc'e !ro. 3 , 1i'iool Te:v::tile I n0_i.,_stry , Co c

1 e s of J'::>ir 

Co!W)e t ition, I, Art. VI I, 40. 

A-o 1roved. Code .To . 21, Le-?t~1er I nr.nstry , "ores o f Pe.ir t:orrnJ 8 tition, I, .Art . ~ • . 294 . . 

9838 
- ::: 60-

Ar;nroveC. Coc1 o ro . 6 , L» ce ! 7:=tin.1:::-r t 1J.r:l_l'.f I:-t3:c'.rtr,,r, ~o os of 

F2.ir Co )ei tion I, Art. ~' I, 66 . 

(12 ) --r -:; .k. :r5,J_lletin 'T l, Ju.:.1e 16 , l " r-; . ;:> :-: ::1_ '· - 0. - -·· ' r "7.' . ' :?nll 9t in ~ro. Lt . --. _,...._. 

ll Vihe r e, b e f o::-e J"LU1'3 1 r.: , 1C.''7,..t;, tr_e _::: er c: ·· ~of ~~_!", ~"'O:".tr::>ct

e(l_ to :- ul~Ch2 !" e E;OOC.S !'"'.t ?. fi:x:e(. -- :~ice for c.eli ' e r;r ~'1 r.:_::J. .f: the '?.r.:..o ' of 

this a[ eeme~1 t, the U..i1 68l'E i s:ned. 1criJ.l me.l:e e.n an·"~ro· riete 2.r1 j _cot e:1t of 

S8.i( f i xed -r,:Jrice to me et e.ny inc· ·ee.c.e in cof'.t ceuc9d b.r tho seller }-:.::>vine; si ~)'.ed this Presi de:1 t 's r eR: .. ..._ l c;y:'len t -?.{;reerie n t or h_;:>vinf f'C T"e . 0 1}1' ~ 

b y e.;,1y co C. e of f 2.ir c orr:·Jo titiol1 2.i)"Tovec1_ b:r t he P:cesir':'mt. 11 

The er>l?.ne.tion of this ree.r1 s e.s. follov-s.: 

"This e.greement vrill, US"LlE.lly, i n cre!?.ce the costs of thos e ':"ho 

sign it . The ~ur,o ~e of this ~~r::> r::>~h is to as c any s~ch incr e~s~~ 

co sts 2.lon; from one signer to e.not11'3 r, e.nd so on to the ~or.. sur:e r. 

!1I.f you hav~ a contre.ct. me.cl e oe fo:re J1.:me l tS , (\""~, t o ·Juy f OO .s 2.t 

2. fixed "J rir:e, yo u eg ree to me ~-.:e aT" a::.re.r-.ger·:e.nt ,-:ith ,rou se ller so tr:::>t 

you :pay him f or t he extra cost to 'r.i m causeC'. ;;~ h is h?ving si;-1 . t his 

2.g r eement, or l1ev ing come nncler a cod.e e.iT"rovec_ by !- e '?r-=sic'e_ t. 

"In some CEJ.s e s 'the fine.l b uyer i _s t he GoverTl.::,en t, v·hich, 1.1.nc e r 

existi:n.z l B.vr , is gene rally not e.llowe c. to ~~ v r~ the.n the contrect 

price. The Presiden t hg_s e.n:nouncer'. the.t he v.riJ.l :recormnenc. to Cong reFS 

th2.t ayp.r ~:Jriat ions be il'lf' ~o to allo,-,, the Government to u'l a, its J?rt 

.. b y :02.~,r ing Government contrac tors who he.-ve . sig ec1 the . ?.@: ree..,..e .. t for t heir 

i n c.reased cost's. The Pre si den t has ?. lso ·o -~e? e0. to the ~tat ~s ::>no. 

cities to t ake e.ction pe r:!li tting: t hen to cl.o li J?.:eP ~e . 

11 You sho1.1.lo. have no f ee.r tha t, b e ce.use O"Ll. l~ b1o_ye r 

you r ill b e l eft with t he i ncreaEed cost on ou.~lo ne . 

pects every emJloye r to sign this e.Greement." 

r. s not s ig::!ec., 

The PreFi ~ent e~

. (14:) Cormnent, "Some Legal Asuects of t ile r~tic ::. J. I nf"L1!"tri::>.l 

Re cov e ry Act," 4 7 He,rve.rc. LBY' -:J evi eY' r5 (1 9~~) , sugr e c t. c t:,e J:~ol:!.o Lg 

lin e of thouf,ht: 

I m)ossi b ili t y mee.n s e;rtre,..,e eC07'1 0.....,ic Y'B ~te, ::>;•/'. t'~ere ::>re 

f evt c,e.ses v.rh ich e.llor· t h is as e.n e_rcus-e foJ: bree c'h of "ontr:>c . 

Mine ral P2.r1: T.e ;"c1. Co. v. Eo,:'B.rc1 

. • l 'i6 P~ c. 458 ( G2 l. . 1°15) . It mi;-ht 

be t ha t 2. seller 1.'roul C: offer the c'efe!".SO t he.t 2. s>le s belo•- cot ""rovision of t h e code Ul!. c' e r v-rhich he "-8.s on e r ?.ti "~F T"'l' - ve!'t er' h.:...., f rom 

ce.rrying out t i"1e ccntre.c t . b::>sec:. on t.he t e cl.u1icel m'?'::>nhlf of f'~ ,-or'd 

11 s2. le" 2.s no t b e ing a cof"'·ol e t ecl. ns?c.t. io n 1.mt il t l1e " OO ' s ? re ?uuro3J ria t ed . He '!.'O"L1

.ld b e correct, but t:-~ e t e r m 8. <:: us .c_ :i.. _ the cor e s is 

y rob::> bly 'l'.s e c i E its colloqu i ::>l sense of " tc se ll." As en OX£'.f1-"' le of t .is, 

s ee Approvecl CoC.o 'Fo. 11, Iron encl. Steel I 11.6.1.'.str;v . Cor'l e s of "::>ir 
Comucti tiol! 1 

"1 roc,uc t 11"' ( 

t ' - 1: .... l :\C) . • . """.( c 

- · r) l1 'o1 I <:::c ,l,, ,., ...., ~" r"\ ')() • \ • J " ~L - J l ~ • t ' 

11 *· • * d"'livr ~v t 

'l''~S'\..1.''l'l. t to . o:~trr>r o f c? 1 (' ~11~11 lJ C r, o- ~ rr

1 r'(

1 " co 

!'t t. -.L ti.l C f '·i', C"' Sl". ~~ (' ilt '"Ct . It 

--'l'.t 1 cortr~ . -s the v i "''' tl:->t c,_·cn i f t.hc ('o"'r;--nc of 11 1~..,..,..r';1'i "' " 

js '\.:'.l:"cl , i t "'C1.''J.'1 l1 c 0:-•lv •·w vc --· t:i.'_: c::dr!:!o :: ·' i.i,~ry rc l_jrf' of ~11or -fii'~ 

'l.'r LO ~po:.-,,....c . 8C'O '"il ,_. :l · \ v . T~":\ lo .::- 1 '') .--!"' 11. 557 (18GCI). n ." m.n("('S C011.lcl 

:_1 rol.e .•. 1y '•c sc c1:::: ~ i ·1 2. s1..:.i t f'l.t l a,:· for brC'::-.ch of co11tr2r t . 

(11 ) o:-·~·lo:r·--e::Jlth . ~cff, l.l'l Atl. ';6 7 (P ... . ln ')l); ?iY1_ 

___________ re ,n _L;;_;, ,t;h~-~ _g_ . v . Gol, :b2:"-S \_ ""11° H. S. "0° 

( F'E') . 

(17) ~. d Te.nnin Co . v . [fosr.G r Co . , t'P "c0 . 7')5 C.~.Ll th , 

10 · .... ,.., ) .. ~ ;. 'I f 

• I 

( 18) Suu ra I n . ( 14 ) . 

( 19) 'tel e::· sc :•o . 1 ; , Jul;;r ~0 I 1 ~t , fro,...,_ t :1P. Sor'.e Autho ri t ;r to 

a l l r:emb crs o f t h o !':;-•.-on:•:-:: i rc-s I H1 \.'..C t·7: 

11 Shortly Pft ·: · t he e :·o,"'tiol1 of 011.r C'o·' c , r·c :eY' t ;rou ~"L, ll tin 1 1 

cxole.iniE~ t ::e sit '.~tir:-n v·ith J:'c:::..;err to ~o:l'lt ~er-ts . SL..,ce t l:.en \''e h-:>ve 

T i t te!:. to :rou u ;:o:1 tl':i s si t'I..'El. t i on more tl'>.:?.n onr.c . Eov·evcr, it seems 

the.t ce rt?.in !'1enbe rs of tl:.e T" c."L•. str~ f"re st::. J.l in r-o nc c~ ouot ?." to tho 

eff ect of t l:e ·Jrovisions of the c or'':'! on ,....o ,,_ -l;; r0.cts !:'lnr~ :: ~ J10t O''T! lvJ.ng 

rri t h the Coc.e. In or r~c r t h2.t t here ''le.y b e !"~C fnrth-c;r c.onbt on t hi>< subject, ne f" r c P..gs..in f"'C.~ Yising ~'011. o :: t he sit1.1.2 t i on on t h is sul: .je t. 

"Pursuant to <:::sct i on 1f"' of A!·t i cle '"~ of tho Cofle, e.ll s?l ";s rM'de 

by e a ch rneP1:be r o f t'r.c I:t{: ~try mn~ t b e: ?.t tf1.c "')ri ,....es .'i"~rl ci.iPC01.:'.n ts t hen 

on file as effec tiv e ,-,ith the Coc'.c AJ.t.l1orit :v . I n o t 1:e r ···orr's , !?.t t} l'1 

time a. se.le i s ma.d.C1 i t must be m•.:::-s'l'?..:!t t o t~ e ·•rices enr' 0isror:n ts 0 '1 

f i le; v; i th the Co d.c Aut:10ri t;y a. t tf1e time t he s21e i s ma·dc . 

11 A s~le docs not occur wn.en t r.e 1P~l f? ctur r .g re c~ iY1. ,--ri tir:.g 

of o t .-_eJ.··-- i c-e to c~_e li ve r mc rc f:e~ :c'.ise i:---.1. t ho future e.t c9rt"' i n sti·o,,:l::.tc(l 

"Driccs . This i s[' contrP.ct o f s e.1e or e..n e.['reeme;.:t to s ell. A se.lc 

o cc ,_ rs only ..- ·hen t t.e ?~ti "E l ~: ooC' s ::~ s clefi:n.:i.te l y 2T) i.; ori<'~t.'?cl. to the 

contr?.c t . 'El:.is· r:!e?.ns thet t l' e .n?;·n.,_f"'.Ct 1J.T8 r he s t he r ooc' ·s e:·C. !:"Cts them 

2~ t f or t he . br;er. 

11 I f e. ::-i!? i11:.f<>.ctu.re r t orle.y sLo'l'.l (' e:n_t 8•:- i1'.to.:, r- ~t ?ct to se l l f"OIJC1.s · 

at a. c.· e f i n i te )ri c e to 2 b1.wo-r e. l~ i T . for r's 1 i r9ry ove r . "9:r- o,:~ of 'rrccl-s 

or mo .. ths , it i~ EJ.Y)-.-')!'> re tl / o~:.: vi o"..'.f' tr.,et no '" !:'ll e OC !'~ Pt the time the 

con tr::..c t is :-:?.r'e . I.1 :.1 .. ch inst~ :'! C' ~ r:1os t. or. the n.-=> rc1!."'nc'i9c CPll e c f or 

by the cT tr t ·tv?y not even 1--e mf' .. ., ,_ !O'ctl..~:'.:" . et !" ~ time t he ('ontrPr.t is 

si ;necl .. U:nc' "' r such co11.··' i t ions E· s~le onlu' or.~"'n rs ?.t the ti!T'2 the .q:oon s 

ha·re been m=- ~! Uf2 ct ,_~_r :; cl_ -2.:1( set ?sir'e for r'1eliv e ry to t h e bnver. I t is 

obviou8 t hen ~? t a s? le ~n ~ occur not at t h e t ime t he contre~t i s rn?fe 

but m9.EY v·ee:·s su"oEectne r.t t here to . 

987,8 
- _.c2-

"The r e fore ~:our 5\ tt ent o!-:t ~ c;:!' lle(· to· t he ct t :'lf't e!'.t'3:r.· . .P ::"' to 

8. contre.ct of SP l e c' o.? s n.ot obvie.te t'::e -..,e cess:. t y o:"' co~-rJl~,.:. r: -- i tr. e 

'J ro ',·isiom- o'!: t ;_: e Co ce . If Pt t '::.e ti'?le rn.e rC'c.?:"c'ise :i.s se t ~.:.." e ..:'cr t..'!e 

bt,_yer and st.i·--meEt me.Ci.e, ~ me!•.ufe.c h.,_re r h8.S on f i']_ e ,-i th t ":.e "or'e 

Authority 8. c'.iffe re:;.'lt :"lrice (.hit::her ol~ lone r) the.n ~c t ce.llec' for b.' 

the COi1tre,c t, such sale must be at t!.:e ~ic e on file ,.,i t h t~.e CoC'e 

Authority. To me.~: e . such E se.l e .e.t t :.1e r;ont r? ct uri ce ,.,o1.:.l f const i h,_te 

a d i sti nc t iol~ ion of. t he Co de . 

11 We t h i n:·: 'T' $ have me .. c.e this tte1~ C11.J5te cl e? r. o r ?O'l_..,... i n forme.-

tion, we. he.ve te.ken t h i s u-.., '!'it4 t h,e 'T .-o.. _r:,._ , cie ls in r.: -? ~hir [ton PJ'l.d 

t hey fully co:t1firr.1 v'h?.t is ex-oresf"- ec:1. h e r e in. In conne c t ion "'i th 211 

l~ ovisio lS of t he 'e, it i s the L1.t ention of the ':'o c' e A1.:.t. .. ori t~r to o 

eve rythinf lJOssib l e to mP::::e st,_~~e tl-:::·.t n.o o;.le i s viol!=l.thtg Section l? of 

Article 10 by ent ri [ into so-cplJ. ed co~trP ~ts. ~ir~e ~e h?ve confirmation froo "-ie.shi n .::_:t oi:l on t he t, e.s stete c' hsrein, ,.,e feel son:E'j_ce!l.t 

t he.t the. Con, li?l1.Ce Division of T. · -::l, A. 'Jlri.ll .B.ssist D.s in 'l)rosecP.ti n·g 

viole.to·rs. 

As ,--e he.ve r eque st e0. be fore, shoulCl. ?J:'I.'j' l"lem11er of. the I n.G.D.!"· try 

know the.t m-?.r:ufe.cturers e.r e viole.tj nt; Section la of _t~_rt e 10 b:' e!lte ring into such contrects-, plea s e for':'e:rC.. l:. ~ :ri'fo.I'!'1~tio· . t o us :"'r~ r-e 

vlill be gle.cl. to e.ct u··'OYl Se.me irmnecl.i e.;tely . 

(20) ~; .::: l i<emor::?..!1CDm Yo . . SO, f rom B~~--:-<-·e ll Smi tr~ . re Co:_ trPr.ts 

for Future Delivery in Q-oen Price , Systems, : July· ?,7,' 10. '"2:.!! : 

~~ any auestions. r.ra.ve ::>.risel'l co;•.cerni nr. ~o,.,_trPcts for f'l.h.'.re 

o.elivery of gooc1s in . connection ·--ith ~"'en ·"lri ce ·"lrovi sion.s of roc1es . 

Typic?..l of this si tue.tion is '"here e. iJrovisiol!. i n e. co r'e "')rol"d.""' i ts s?les 

at othe r than the effective. filed ;,ric:e , anr ·11Plr::es no · .s'• eri!'ir me!'ti on 

of contracts for future de livery , tl:.e oue stion· bein:~ '~" '~'let J: er ?. "eli' e r y 

of oo s a t the contrac t rie e inst e~& of the ff ect ~e le~ ~rire ronstitutes a code viol ~i6n: . 

11 The cni.estion ce.nnot be ::....;e ol C' . b y rul €· of thumb but only 

on the -.Ja.sis .of a .ce reful e.ne.l ysis o f t l1e Dr evisions of the co c.c ?nf. 

t h e con tra ct . i n each ce.se lon. _: t he lir• e inr· ice. t ed in· e.rw lege.l i .. emor BJ!.dtU11 of ;·ay 13 , 1S34,. 

liThe next ste!J . shoul d. b e to errive e.t e. correct internret?.-

tion of t he corl e 1)rovision. If no aml1 i E,u i ty he.s bee;-,_ c:..·e ptor1 therei ·,. 

ei ther by the l e.n(i'u.e.c;- e of the c oc

1 e --Hovisio:r. i tE'!e l f or by other -oro -

visions o f t he coc'e or by ex :..~ sic f ?.cts, there is, o f course, no nee. 

for eri )l~e tio: 1. If t 1-:e r e is e.r."b i rui ty S'l'.Ch 2s to c?st ro'l.'.b t unon 

':·he t n.e·r .tse.l es 1 was intende d. to mee.n or ·includc 1 contrPcts to sell ' , 

such int e Tl)re t a t ion shoul c' b e r esolv-<> c. acco:·:-C'.in,... ·t.o the rnl e8 of st.Pt ,_tor/ 

con struction. 

111'i::e r e it i s cl e8.r t hPt the cor' ·e "':l :~ ovisj_o:n efers to Pr.h1

Pl 

S8.l es e.s C.i s tii1,::·u i she cl from co::;trf'cts, t lJ.er.. it s!.1o1.:.lcl. be r

1 ete r .. L~~(l from 

9838 
- ' .J 

the t e·"s o f l.~ contr"'r.t , .., . .., ~ .• c': ot':~r f' V .., c . ..... . ,. h" . ., r t in"'• t , 

w·hen the ' s- lc ' t :--1· '."'. . ] · " T':)l' ·\1" 1"' , i f' " vt11 .~ .. 0 1.1l' !:> b:::ncc 

r .1e L1s to b ., { : c '':.lC"' r U:e t ·"1 1c:o. of th0 Oi1 r~ t b o r e t i tl e ma y 1)f1SS , 

such e.r ic1cnt i r ic'"' "vi on o · t.' ,e ·· l' t )n,,rr ; oo 's, o:· ' ~n ,,. n....,ri"'i; o ' of 

t h em to the -0 .., ~t C'll' ~01 11 " ot ~"" r . ' c m"'t to r, t 11 c co·, t,..., t iq no t::::. 

SfllC, ont is .::>i! "' ! rCC "~ ('·• t t.o S • 1_, "' ... . ~ t l'.("' :-- -..,.., :i .r ·hln ~r ~,.,... ~ C f i1cc1 

u ri co 6ffcctivc on t he c of ~~ " t~~ l S" l c ... ~r ~n t the t of ~c :::. o 

of the me.':in,:-; o f t he contr::>r. t . I t i s io ~ tha t "'n (;:r ocmcnt to s ell 

.:;oo t s not .'o t .:::> ~1 nf.., tt1.rc <.1 0;,~1 ot 1 , H , f or t i tle C::' PnD t c: s to 

oC. s not in ciT'.g . It is e. J. . obv i 1.1 ~ t he.t in such c.:-."' e t1:e .rr:rnlir le 

-., ri ce is the t ~ e f f ect vrhcn i P f2 rt t i-e tr:'> ns f! r. ti r~. ertl.,~=>ll " bec ome s 

a se.lc. Othcr·,--irc o·.., on 11ric,., 'l') :"'ovi s i ons vronlc. b e ~e n0 r. c mi p·ptory by 

t he ex o~ t of formar~ con trg cts. 

lf l'"here t he e:,·n l i ceti on of t h e gb_o ve sugge c tions ··'oi.·•.lr: :to s,,.l t in 

mani fe s t i n ju, tice, c i th~::- to ::> n i n0 iviCl u.e l r,om11"'r o f t h e incus try or to 

t h e 1tL e '.( tr , "? .. O!TP) t en ti ·· ~ of e :;-e·l1"l tior' S ':'0\.l.l r. ~com to be . 

ind i c::>t oc

1

. , e.t e~ c- t ...., eY'Clinr- e.me2l.c.r.1ont of t h e CO (,e nrov i s i ons in such 

1"?Y as to me' :o them l.~ n roucrl y t he n e ed ?no. c

1 e s i :te <?f the inr1

,?.stry . 

(21) :.i F;h l a.ncl. v. ss cll C?r f': Sno' T Pl')" C0;-nJ::>J"-Y · ?.70. U. S. 253, 

.361 (lS29): 

11 It is e.lso v!cll esteb lis'te0. by tho r.oci si ons of t h is court the.t 

such libe rty (o f co n b':> ct) i s no t e.bsolute or uni vRrse.l, e.nr. t he.t Cong r _ess 

may re;ul0.t e t he J:le.lri :c.g £>.Eel. ·.-, erf orm8J1_f' e of snch co'!'l. tr!'>c ts 1rhene,rer re?.sonably nc ce s s e r y to effe ct e.ny of t he g r ea t DUI1JO ses f or which t he n8 tioPe.l 

b overn:-.1ent V'?.s cre £J.t ed ." 

(22) Se e Je c ob son v. T- ':B.s se c~:1.,.set ts, l 0 7 U. S. ll ( F'05) ·. ,..,ointing 

out e.n a~1 -s> lo ous ·b e.le.:l.c ing: L1 t l1e cese o f i nc.iviow.l libe rt;.r e.n c. its 

sac ri fi ce fo 1~ tl:e com. .on E::ood. 

(23) P.?.i ne s, The Revivf'.l of !_Tetur!'l.l IE.vr co~'1Se"Jts. ~a rv?rd ·· 

University Press 1''30), VI. The Fo1.1.rteenth Amenr.me!'.t to the "'ec.e re l 

Constitu tion anc Due ~oc ss of LB.V' . An e~: ccll en t st?.temen t of the 

court's feeli n[ is fou ~ i n the iDion ~. Jus ti ce ~5 Cl (not the 

:·1ajori t y OT,J iniol!} in Berb i e r v. Co n;.1oll y , 113 U. S. ':1 7, 7.1 (i895 ); 

Pou.!cl., "Liberty e.nc. Co ntr2 ct," 18 Y8.l e 1 2.\"' Journe.l ~:54 (loos). 

(24) 165 u. s. 578 (1 ~7). 

~25 ) ~0 8 u. s. 161 (1 ~08 ). 

~26 ) ~6 U. S. l (l~l ). 

(27) Texe.s a.nc

1. ~T v:r Orlca!!s ?.y . Co. v. Brot !.e rhoocl of e.ilr·?y 

2-nd Stee.::1sr.i ') Cler,..s . 281 U. S. 548 (F'JO) . 

( 28 ) Le - ?.:!.. : :emor?i1c1.urn , 1To. , fran Tllec:-.-,ell 8mi th, re 'Sffect 

of Coc,e Provisi :-:.s 1 Contrects, ?'""·Y 15 , 1,.., ~4 : 

~83 8 
- 2(4-

"The r e are mr•.:r:.y ill co11csi v 9cl questions ebroe.d e.s to l'l_et~ er 

co ci.e s ebroge.te co:1tr?.cts. Cocl.es :1 v or me.y n.ot .e.hrogl'> te cont:re.ct.s i n 

nhole or in iJ? rt, the correct S~.'T'')i. 'O ch beii1£. i r eve r y ce.se to eX?.miT.e 

t he ~Je rti f' r co c

1

.e :.Jrovisi -::·:r:. 21.nc. t he ")E'l'ticul~r coDt.rf'tct v ith some - -

ca re to ?.scerta.in t he · :; te ~1 t to ·:'hi ch co ~lie.nce ,~ i th t __ e CoCle mee:1s 

breach of t he contract. 

11 0f C01"..rse, if it is founc1

. that it i s i ::-rrn osPib).e to comnlv 

yrith the contre.ct to a ce rte i n e":te:.•t if the co rle i s co r~1 e<l -ith, 

then ~e have a case of ~a rti l ebre: ati on of the co ntr~c t and the co1rt~ 

me.y de cicl.e rrhethe r t his ha s t 'c.c eff.ec t of rel ea.sing the 1)!'0T.5.ssor fro'TI 

the contre.ct B.f' a who l e . This matter should be l eft t o "):dv!:lte co 1 .~el. 

The ra tion.ale is ~omev•he. t as f o llo,..s: 

11 The f edera l g over1'ne:1t is limit ed 'Pi t:':l_ r e f e:rer: ce to the 

sanctity of co n trr->c ts o:.'l.l y by clue ·o:-o cess re ,.., u i reme:r..ts . T'urt r_emorc , 

it 'i7 0UL'1. b e u tterl y i rrr; os sib l ?. to ce.rry out e. """~roE·re m su.c1: e.s _ th8.t __ of 

N!RAif members of indust r y cou ld, by estimeti?"'.g t ho conrse o: cocli::'irl'>tion, 

c'6ntra ct themse lves into situati ons which ':701..1.ld block the ePt?bili -ze.tion 

efforts of the administration. It is our ""~ird on, ?.:nc. has been our 

fi xed !)Olicy to c1eclB.re, tha.t all memb e rs of i ndu_stry rTL"_st com1J l y with 

the coc~. '3 s to yrhi r h they are S1.lbj 8Ct, irres"""~eC ti ve of con tj~? c ts. This 

some time s means conflict ~et~een co&e previsions and co ~tr~ct s, but mo re 

commonly a clos e e.:na.l y sis ·of the situa tion r evee.l _s th21.t t r.e roCl.e s5_ m-""~ l" 

irrmos e s more stringent requirements on the membe r o f i !'.c1.ustry ~JP.r. 

those r equirec". by his contre.ct, v•i thout the fe.ct e.nnu1ing or e.f fe cting 

the contract itself. 

-

"There s houlc1 be no ste. temel'.t by e.ny member of t he Lege.l 

Division that 1 co d.es abroge. te -~rior contre,c ts' but i -.:!.sof,_r as any general 

st9.tement is me.c'.e it should be a lon{. the folloni:n[ line : 

11 r.:eml)ers of I nr_ustry mus t corrr-, l y Y.ri th co des, riotwi thst~ .. . r.ing 

con tre.c ts , e.n c3. t B.ke t he cor..sequence s as to t he ci vi 1 si tue. tion hereb~r 

cree. teCl.. 1 

""Sve:n such a {. enere l st.Ptement sho1J.J. c' be l'>_vo;_feCl. so fl'>r e.s 

•)ossible e.r..Cl. the re.tio:n?.le he r e in 01!.tlinec'. sl:oul c be !'18.c

1

.e cl e2 r to th8 

i n t erested Darti es . 

"In so··•e ce.s ec o·f bincU.n-:· bo!18. fi0.e contrects, - i"h '."T01.1.lr. 

be a ffec t e cl. by co 6. c com·""~ li an e, justi ce mi r·ht- require exer1Dt ion fro'm 

t he c oc' e •1rovisions rrhich cree.t e t he co:,.:"'lict. 3Bch such sc sho 1.10. 

08 r e solvec' o::.'l i ts mrrn fe.c ts, i nclur" i nf 8. ctetermin.P.tio of t he gooc1. 

fai t l: o f t he con tr?..ct, its bir..::' i ng effect, e:nc. t he re sul ts in t he in0.ustry 

of g ra:1 ti·-1g t he exenr: tion . The req1.' ire me~ s of due l""~l'ocess m-3.Y ,..,.ell be 

me t in such a -o ro c eecli ng . " 

( 39 ) 2?9 u. s. 253 (1929). 

( 30) Don2.ld H. Richb c rg, Add ress Jul y 5 , J.<Y""A. 

( 31) Ai'Drovec. Co de }'fo. 43, Icc I:r.r"nst.ry , Sor' ::s of ;:'r->ir Co:-n';')etition 

I, 529 . 

S808 
. ' - - ,t , _ 

Const't lc~s 1 ./" .. ·~".:..!'- , .•• ·~ o'"' ,.,' . 11 T' .. , ' ,... 1 ' l "' r"T '".\ 

~----·. . 

( 37 ) Ibic1 .• 

( '<.8 ) This i l•f or:ne tion wP.S c: iv8n t he mrit e ::- iY' e o~we s? tion 1.rri th 

B!l el!l'l_:)loy ee of the Co C'.c __ ccorcl Se tien il' the s.,.., :,.·i,., r:; o f 1 f"\,..,'5 . 

Ll:'\ (1 ··t )r - ' .. .l • • 

( 40 ) I bic:. 

(41) lo l"eCol~c 3 .. "ist. ~;· it h Core n_e co i·c' . 'le,-,;··ty rh ~·: c-tl·~t.or 

Str?u,s st ?.::.·t ec.. to l:ev e q ,_ ~..,_ ?. re rorr· cof"T)il~r f ror;l 't~ forMer ""' e~,, t,· s 

files . He ste tec'. n+' or- ll : t1:et i:e be1i e rer ov e r t,-,o 'r:UJ1f~·o(' 8::'1DlicB.-

ti ons were i nfomr·.ll·· nr cl. e ither b,r t hf' le'"'.1.t.y or t h9 11 Commi ttees." 

(42) I ce L· c'.,_u:·tr;y Core Auti:o rity :null tin , "Acvice of the 8ore 

Authority, "J:lnne.:cy . 1°r:;t.: . 

( 44) Ice I EC'ustry, A-o·•rove \' Coc'.e 1·To. ,..,- oD . c it. Art. I Y. , Sec . 

1 ( 4 ) . 

( 45) i':r. 3 . n D::>_hr::- erg . 

( 46 ) EB.c'.c'ocl: , o:o . cit ., . 

(47) Afmi niftr?tive Or~e r Po . 4~ -1 . 

( 48) StP re. , n . ( 4, 7) • 

E:e.Cl.do ck, on. ci t. , 1 -1 ) . 

( 11..:,) Ad.ministr Ptive Orc.e r, 1To. 4~ 8~. August 18, 1C'<?;4 . 

(50) A-o··rcvec. Cor1.e Ho . t-=~ , Ice Inc

1 uctry, o·•. cit., Art. I Y, 

5"J4- -.:;6 . 

(51) Tne~ -fi vc aD~'HQVe ls il~. six Clen i ?.1 s . 

( 'J? ) Ee.cl.cocl:, 01) , cit., 18-1~. 

9838 
- 2b 6-

(:.J4 ) tl~e.u s, .Re: ort to t~CG l .·. I. ::> -'--' • A- ril 1':'35 , Gi ves a 

full msn t of t h eso h~n es . 

(::Jo) _c'.oc l: , oc , c i t. , 2.:J- : 8 : 

"In e· er.lber , 1c ;;11= t he Lo ce. l C0:mitt ee of Ar b i tr:-.t i on e.nc. 

A}nee l in h:,ls c~e ~>l-J. a r e Cl_U3st ;; C1. t ile G!.3'Ge li ~r:1P i.1t of a. ' be..sic o r Eor.rtal 

me.rke t l~ a 1 to i ::ic !uc".e onl y the Ci t :;r o f :F.".. il C.el"")~·~ , L1 orC.e:!.' to -prev ent ::tn ice rw-.::.uf2 ctu r e r :i..n :: c~e • .i.:ev: J e rsey, f r om r.. ~::~~ i·1~ ice 

i n to PhilC'I.c'.e l ):-_i2. ::tncl sel lL\_. it b e la':· t 11e ~s bl si~ed. :;ri ce o f 70¢ 

pe r cwt. exi :-" ting L1 Ph i h ·.c'.eL:h ia. tefore t he R:i. v e :csi c.e :.:a.r!uf e.c t1.;.re r 

1 inva d .J d.1 t he Pl1i 1?-.c'. e l ·.)l"..i a ma r2cet. 

"This ma tte r vre.s no t e~s::.~ eC:. to 1~e Adv i s ory :Joa.rds unt il 

·ea.rly ir. J a mJ.2.ry. At the aC.v i s :coy c.oiTLi i t tee rr.e e t h:.g V.'hen it v"'a s cons;de r'"'"l · ·r· 'r:11 - ":::.- .,~· elJ ("' ~~or . .;"' ;_ "' c,...., ,,., c:;e l o .t:' t ,ne leo ('oc· "' A,,tr o·' i ... y ) • v 1...L , ! .. • • . • \.J _ . ; _ v .... . ::... , ; J ,_, -:: l, \.J '....J .... u. ... ~ .L _ '-' v ..... \.- -- .L - L t 

D.nd Mr. Rich:;.rc. l:J he ~ (che L 'lE'.i'. o f the ~oc::-·. 1 Cor.1E1ittee of Arbitre. tion 

and Ap _) ea l f or Phil c~el~9h ia ) Y'e r e :!)resent to ex-p l ?.in to t'1e col'Iffi1ittee 

the n ece ssity for fa.vor~· 'b e P.ction on their :.:>.p•) l i c£>.ti o:c. . D1..'.ri:1g t he 

0.iscv.ssi on, l\'ir. 3 irche r ~. sDD.ll y me::!.ti oneG. t:: e fe,ct t ha.t he ·.-as e.lso 

the e~( o .r' t,1e ID h~ l P':e l ·-,', ; p I,..e ·-"' <, +i .r: " ~e~ i ce I I PS·.-"ri ,'",!Dt _...L J. l .4 . .1.. •. \. . .~ 1- .L~ ,.., .1.:-·· ·· -'-' v-l.l.b U ... . . • ~ _'\.. c::.; .... _ y, l. 

that orb2.11ize.tio11 d.icl, e.n c: Vle. s .:::.e fii.1i t e l;? DSSlE'8Cl both b y I.ir. Ce.ntr e ll 

e.nd L;r. :B irche r tl'19. t it C..ic1

. a.b solute l y notl i nG e::;-~ce~) t e.C:.ve r t i se ice f e r 

Phile.delp hie. ma nu ct :c rs. 1T0 t be h 1s fully se.tisf i ed t l""..a t t he r e YTa s any 

::hcc :::; it; fo'i~ f e.vore.ble action on t he <.: ~)~ lic ti n, I req:t).ested t h e Depi.'.t y , 

a ft er the r:1o eting , to c.ef·3 :C ::>. c tioi: l...'.n t i l I coulC. se cure s o ne L1f o n.1e.ti o:11 

from the ;.1 swne i~s 1 Co-..J ~- Coru.·1c il 2. t ?h ~L £" (6 ~ . .-_: :-:..i a . Ee a s seE ac~ . ~K I 

t e l e::)hon od the rme :;! o f the Cou:~ y Co"c.mcil .s.t Fh ila.C.e l ·_:::ie. . Fot b e i Yl_g 

able to r ee.ch he r, I .;o t i;.:. to'\.."LCi.:.. with t l1e ai:cr;, ~1 o f t he C::.mden Cmn ty 

Consmne rs Cottn cil, a skL':.t; him to inv e ~ t i 6 E. t e l.c'. "l.:~.J~) ly me 1.7 i t~1 i nfo rme.-

tion about t !:1e Ph il?.L e l·ohi a i ce sit"Lw.tion . I r:c.s ot a.v.r:::.l'e t he.t h e wa.s 

a n.e vr s·oe.~)e r e·::>o:. r 'll..i1 til t he ;1ext cl.E.'.y,. when t he Pl: il ?.c.'.el-~J~: . ne ·e,~)e: . ei'c. 

carri ed. 2.::.1 item to t he e f f ect t l'k"l t I we. s r.12.k i r.::.;, e.n i nve sti£,"e tion of 

cha r 6es of o'i. po ~· in t he Ice .:. l..l ~· tl~v t he re. he. t e.ft e l-·noon I r ece i ved 

a tele;re.m from i.tr. Julien Gol{b e r g , a.ttorne;r f o ::..' t l e Inde})enc.'.ent Ice 

Deal e rs' Associa.tion of Ph ilac".el·_) h i ,. , st atii'lt; tha t he had s ome i r'}orta.n. t 

nf ti o~'l to L n<)e.r t. L2.ter i n t he day , I ·wa s aC.v i so d by t he Deput y 

t ha t the CoC:.e Aut ho rity Yl2. S V L:;:t··y much i :t: t e r asted L 1 knmvi ng wha.t I \ .. B.s 

cl.o1nt:, a nd v1hy. l l' v i er.r o f t:1e~e cLt C'l'...1r.. t e.T .. c e s , I beli evec t h;.t a tri: 

to Phile.(el ·.:l:.ie. n i 2_,h t b e wort1;. '?'h i l e, e.ucl. l s~)en t s ome s i x hours t here 

t he n ext c.ay . 011 my r e turn, I e:p :::> .r eC. e. ;·_;_ emo r :3.n0.um t o De:puty lm st:c~-- tor 

Stra1..1.s, c'.a t e Cl. J e.i.!ua ry 21, 1935 , L1c.i C'E·. tin.:; the :ce sult of my i nvesti u ·.t i on . 

. :::: ri e fly st a t e.<'l., it -?:)·_ )=>·:· i·e c;_ t rJ.3 t t he Ic e l.:e,nu.f?.ctu re rs 

of Ph ilacle l :-?hi a. }le.c, ent c- r e ci. i 11 to 2. n Eg r cement t o f i x ~) ric s e.nd. to c'.isci lL!e me.::.:.n f o.c t u.r e rs 8.nC1. C:.es. l o rs v;rho r ofusecl. to e.bid c by t l1e p rice s 

fi xcc1 b y t he Ph ile .. Cl.e l.) a Ice L::tr Le t ii1g Se::.. vi ce , v.rh ich v7ou ld ~U.":J9 vs.st 

quanti tie s of ice a t ri c'. ic lo us ~r lov-: cos i n t he te r r i tory o f any 

manufe. ctL1rer 01~ c'.ce.l e r ':.ho r efused to CO:i!tribute to the Pililac,e l...,h i a I ce 

Ma ti n~ Se rvi ce , or ·follov' its nst ru ti !! s. 

9838 
"As. a :·e~ ul t o J~ t hi~· .i., o r t, t ~ ~ • .--:• ,_t~ to o: U10 r.v- t tor t·n 

,.,itll t he Coc', A.:'mi;·j_• t ·· tion Di!~t·cto , ·h::> ·~ .'.': : '•t,t" t 1y·· t t , e Icc Code 

Aut hority ~ (i" ct .t· to • ?.: . · .... i ·· ~.ti .. · .c. io.1 of t 1\C' •!!')t t o r. I f thi s 

i nvosti.;;>:- tioP ,u.;rt~---· ··tc d t_ ·,~ i ,. oj::,:-> ti o o·, t· •. J" i ··1 .1~' r t; o rt , t he 

Co c.i.e Ant .. c-r ·t~ n c...;_-, ·rt '. t o 1-..'!t v •:· t '·.e loc" l Cornmitt oc 01· Arbitr ti on 

end AT"eels for i~ ..,? :.l"Lcl ·r",:J• '.:- , ".:· ~· ~- y-,oi,_t :->~1o ~1·.r committee 

com'os d o f .. :en !l2. '.ril~.::; I'.o .coJV.:'I"'i. i c.,: • ·i t~1 ~1~~ PLil "l~ elr>~l a I c c r.;arke ting 

Servi ce . }iothLlt, f urt her r as C:.o!'8 ~.r r t he ~~ tt c~r w~s r efe rred to t he 

Co c'e Aut:10.~.it~ . !=:O f?l' as I ,l r'Ft~. out . 

11 Follo•.·i:1 t h i !; rc'9ort on t h:; ?" .il ".t oJ::hi a ., i t t1.2t ior. , De·n,ty 

ActminHtr:: tor Stre.us rcfus eC:. to oste.b l 1sh a. 1bq·,ic or r.o rma l .1? r ke t 

:·.r e: 1 :'t t e. t ·.:,> l 8cc , ~.nc' £tn·.1otl."lC_( l:..i c- L:. t r.mti on of est:·blishL1[; no othe r 

such J.~eas Ullti l a ::cl tml e s s the Ice Co de Y'B.r. a.rnEmcled.. to ve. more 

e.c'.equl:>te ')'1.1.-o lic s-c.:'"!e rv i si on and co:·.tro l ove r the ind-cu:.try vri t hh1 such 

areas . Ho fu:.: :el~ me l~~:e t .::t :rea"'. 1 were est ablished cin1·in0 ~1 e r cne.ln ._ e r 

of t he life of t l.e coc'.e ." 

(56) Co:r-sL.t· e rs 1 Advisory :::- o8.r6. i er.1or£~ c: urn to 3 . K. StrB:us, re 

=:e corn.:1em .:o· ti: ns -- fo1~ .F.evisi on of t ne Co c" e -- 1~ t he I ce Ir:.:·:L1stry , 

Ef. rCh 1, 193:J. TJ1i S me;-_:o:t? :l( Um, t_;11el~ o~r Creo r "-e :. Hadc.'. c~: . '.:as 

collabo l'a t eo. i n b y the writer. 

9838 

(J7) Ibi( ., 2. 

( 58 ) ru i0. . , 4-5 : 

11 1. I s t he r e a o~) Ol ;.'/ i n t he lot:? lity unc:e-r consic:ere.tion; 

or c:o mo :: oli tic T::e.c tice s e;~ist ? 

2. Are a:~~·- e.~_.re e·1ent s :!.. 11 e;:i~ t er: ce oe t ween mem1ers of the 

L1C:.ust1·-y with r e s·-7ec t to ·: rices; servi c e ; e.lloce.t ion 

of route s , t e r r i tory , se.l es o r -..,ro( uction? 

3. Are pri c e s s~· sone.' • .1 le ?l1C~. )ro~::- er ; v::-:p t effec t y·oul d 

t he e r e ctio;l of ~1e .. c~ 0::- ci ty, or t he ~. 1ie. l o f ue rmi ssion to e 1e c t nev. ce "~c ity he.ve o:1 ·) rices? 

4 . Is }: stin~ s e rvice e.t".eq'l'.!".te anc'. s:-ti rfe.cto ry; would 

t h e ei:e ctio;.1 of e ne:: e:. t i 0:"lrove e;dsti nt; service? 

.) . V:h9. t if:. the de e of bs :~es en e o f exi stin; ) l B.nts; 

e.rc t hey cayO'·ble of effi cie!lt ·~'G 'a tio ; ::.~e t he ir cost 

of ~) s. tio n r ee S0ila-ole enc~ 'lJ:ro·..,e:r? 

6. Are exi stin; e~ ts ~e e( 

and how much o f e ithe r? 

·:· :ro f i t o r a l o s s , 

7. d ermi c~ to e r e c t new a~ qcit y t end to c'.evelop 

1evr 1'!18.r.t-ets ·or ci e t e r the l oss of e xistil1g me..rl~et s? 

8 . .7o':~ld t he ci.en i e.l of t he ap ·li c!O'l. tiorc he.TTD e r or telay 

tec}l..no lo ic l y rog ress .~ the inc~_ustry by :oreven tin; 

t ::e i:n.ste.lle.tion o f a ne'.·' t y-:_)e o.f i ce i~nuf£·. cturin t; 

rna. ch ine? 
-----------------------------------------~----~- ----~~-~--

·. : 

... 838 

- 268-

9 . '." -he.t effect ( o -") 12.11ts, L1 loce.lities sur:-ou_nc'.ing the_t 

unc'.8r co;1si c'.e r :o.. t i o11, he_v s 011 y rises , cs rvice, 2.nc,_ 

f..' il~.b e sD:-:r :- ~- of ice i11 the locf:'. li ty unc'.er conE i (era.-

tion? 

· ( e.) J.Tuir'ib er, si ze ~'l0_ lo ce t i .:-n of outs i d.e -J 12.!.1 t s . 

(b ) Dist2.11ce from :o ro:::o se(_ ple_i1t. 

(c) rrice s che.l•r_ ec:. b y ou t si de ~1 e_:..1ts . 

( d) Loe_d fac t o Ts of out sicl.e -Jl e.nt s . 

( d ) Cost of tran~ rt ti on of ice from 

outsicie p l ants to l ocB.li ty unG.er 

cons ide re. tio:n .. 

(f) Pe_st ancJ. ex st ~ -·Jl'e.cti c es o£' 01., -l:. ~ic,_ e - l ants with 

es~J ct to e~. yri J~l' 11 t e :':c· __ c .c·: u~-· .e r consi( ar2.-

tion. 

(t; ) Ase 2.ncL o:j so l e scs:1c e ~ ouJ, lC~t' ·1 .::> --_ts. 

( h ) nne sh ~ of out i~e u l qnts . 

10. 'iiha t woul c_ be t he . e ff ect ol'i. s::.. :~_e ~.J le_nts, · anc~_ -Jrices 

throughout the entire e.re8., if .}-•~o li ce t~on were 6l'e.nter_? 

Eovr l e_rge an e.r .. -:?. shoul G.. be cons i C.ereo_ in t l:i s co r'.nect i cn? tt 

(59) Ibid. 10-11. Th is p Yob l ern involve s: 

ttl, Is the p· lic nt fine.:•.1Cie.lly e_bl e to const ruct anC._ 

OlJer e t he lJ ro ser~_ ~. .n ? 

2. Vlill t he lJ lican t bnilcl the JrC _)J sec: -~ .L E\ nt, o r will 

he l evy a ute on existin{; in:o·.::1J.f <:>.ctui·s rs i n considere.tion of l1is de cision not to use tl e p ermit? If 

he constn)_c ts the p l e.n t, will he OlJ e r e.te it, or 1-:rill 

he ·sell it fol" its :.1uisE.:.n ce ve.lue to existing me.i1Uf e. cturel"s? · 

: . I~ t he ro os ~ p l a nt of prop e r siz e 1 to o large, or too 

Si118.ll? . 

4. o1.1~d the ~1ro ~~Josed Jl2 t sell e.n;y of its uro duct in 

other localities· the.n t he one in v-hich ers c t s C:_ ? 

5 . H::t s the ~:J li c2 11t al1Y r 38.Gona.b l e e.ssu.r e t y of S1.lccess 

i n h is venture , or vdll he just throw his mo~1ey ar e.y if 

t h e p enni t is {:,Te.n t eE!.? 

6. ';:hen t wo or mo re P~J li ce. tions e.re me c.e, rrh ich -she.ll have 

ha.ve :9re c ecl_ence, or sha ll bo th ~ .;;r:e.nted , even thou: h 

t he tota l ca~Ja ci ty rrould be i n exc e ss of rea s one.ble 

anticipa t ed de man~ ? 

7. Shall the Ac~ rtl i s tre. tion an t 1J e rmi ssi o!'l to inc e2.s e 

ce.paci t y of 8. ~9 n t nov-_r l-:2.v i nt.; a mono~J oly? If so , shoulcl. 

t ha t a.ctio;.1 ~!) ev en t t he £_ r e:r:. t of· a ~utu.re e_~ ~_ ll C2. tion on 

t he g round t hat a ~:t 'J oly e xists, even hot1 ;l1 excess 

a.~:a c i ty is shovm? 
- 2 ':'-

1

· .. !: ~),o·'ol· · to,_ .. .n·.·J·.-.··.·t ···j1o :o-~ i1ot ..,t ) r esent - 4 \.,. • I ' J I. • ... • 

~ "'' .., ~o.:.o··o l; . L' "O, i ·- tl\C ; c ministr tion rcquircc1. 

t o r: t ~ ., .... , bs ... ~r-i.. · t n., ·li · :- t i ons cc ..a c o1 the 

o ol ~. ' 1! 

(60) Ibid . , 13-14 : 

unc e.~. r.·.ost rorns of .) i'u lj.c 1.tilit~' r ngu1a t i on, c e rt.::> in c"uti e s 

.., l' J :J""' ~e C. u:-_"''Jn t >.e i:H.'.1..rt ry fC' r t he · . l~otc::- t i on of t he uub l ic . Among 

thcr.1 0.r:: t he f ollo,--L1: : 

1. ~: e 1.'- ility must reul.cr r ·''"'. S0!1a.b le ::::_c~ f- .C';f!_l'.~ te service , 

s e .. :vin[; ::.11 co>.lf' rs v-,; i t hou t unrea sc-n:-.·o 1 e c:.i s c ri L.--~e. t i on . 

2 . _or this service t l:c l'..tilit:· mfl.y not cru-r..-· c more t han 

a r easonable tc . 

3 . This service must be re:1c.e!"c c. ,-.r i thout c'.c lg_y . 

4 . :?.ulcs a.ncl. re._,ule.ti o:;1 s 6 0Ve l':'1 in,_ t he co~1c~uct of the 

tusL 10 s r:ms t r~ ot !. e cant _f' l'Y to the -)u') lic int e r est. 

..; . C "'l't3.L1 :;. c~ t:;:·ic-tions e.r e . .., l 2. c e c: U") O:i.1 e.1 E•.:ndon i n-', t he 

s s::::vice . 

nu::.cle::.· t~1e Ic c Ccc.e 8.s it i s fr:· ·~ec· .::> t "' rsum.t , t he AC'.ministr=- tion :1as ~:.o eL" ~lc-dty to co:Tel t n e L:.C.u:.: tr;;· t o follor· 2.ny of the se 

req'l.ire"ne:-..-:ts . • ... t.et!... l~ t hs Act itse l f confers sufficie nt a.u t hori ty U·"'O:l 

the Aclmini f tl·=-- tion to L'l<:Le ·"' o ssibl e su ~1 l'e( ule. t i on is e. stion for 

the l e 0 e.l Divis i o:-... to ~;p [,s LL )O~l . 

11 L1 r e t1.·.rn f o!" c.uti c s i m.,oseci_ 'lr_"' on t he u tility, ce rta in 

concessions e.nc_ ·Jrot e. cticr:s :::. :.·e ~h-en it in orc.er t l-.2-t it may be a.b l e 

to o·.,e:re.t e Sl.'..Ccess:f1.1.ll;y :;.!.c'. e tt:L~e. ct fin-?.li.C' ~. l ba ckL1€:; to enab l e it to 

}~ rform the c:e c:.-L·Lt i e.s . T:1e :!l~j or ;;;r fl.,: t :.ls.ce y t he st e is t he. t t he 

·L1.tility she.ll be )e r:-.1 ittet to c:J.~l. 8 e r::otc c::.lcul£"t3( to result in 2'. 

re:c· SOi.1abl e r e t u rn U'10 ~·1 8. '3r~ Oi1 ::' e i '1Ve<. t ment C.eCl.iC?te(. to t he ")L:bl iC 

usc . Ana tr.er .:::, j:- ~1 t, of nen.rly eq_u2l i :-no i~t r- :r-e , is ;11e cce to m2.ny ty:)e s 

of utilities - t het of ono~ol . Unfo ~ ublic utili t y rc ul tion, t hese 

-u.tili tics :9j~ovi ".ed they :9~ i'orm l~~ c'.t.··tic s l? ic~ 1.1:_.o:-..1 them) are E;ra;.lted 

e. vest e d l~ ht to ::.·s.:·:- in L 1 e:;:i ~ t~;" ce , ~·:h ich v e stee::_ ri c..,!l t i s •;Jrote ctec'. by 

&re.i· tinc viTt uc.l mo;·.o· olios in the r ..; q_-L'.ire .. ~E: :.-: t t h<:\t no :18\7 com;- et~t ion 

may ent e r C e f i clC. exce .. t 1.'-~"0i l t he issuencc of a c s rtifice te of '}JUO lic 

co~ve~i e~ ce 2. n~ nece ssity. e ~as s of t hese ce rtificates i s no t t he 

r:ceds e.nl: ~:; fil.' ,£· of the in c~ try, eyce·.., t i nciC.en tall:· to t he oaj o r 

que~ t i o:-..1 of v·:he.t ':· i l l be st serve the )U'b lic \:7i thout e.l lo -- i n::_ we.st eful 

~)rf' cti ce s or us e l ess e.-_J~ cit;y- , e.nc'. e 1e :.·e2~ o;1 f or t~-.e il~ l'..se st?.nC.s u- oi1 

the co Ce) t h~t i n c e rtEin c.::>ses t~e ~es t anf he~ ,est service i~ not 

E-ffor,·.et" ·o-y· tl:e c or.r_}e titivo systei11 . 

11 It \·:ill oe. ob s e:..'r ec: t 1-.? t suc.c:. c e rtlf i c:c t <"·S of • t) lic co nvenience 2.m 1

• ;1 e cess:.ty e.rO; "\..l.s oc1 o:.1l .. : ·.-118 i'e t Le "''l'. lic i nts:L·s st is e.(equ.? tely 

se.f c:c:,w:>. r c". cl t~ ot.! el~, ·J o s i tive re· uiJ.~e :: ;1t :- . ·.:.1-::.i s i c. no t true o f their 

S838 
.. - 2?0-

use in the Ice Code, which ,places no requirements on the industry other 

than specified minimum .wages and maximum hours of employment. 

11 If the N .R .A. is t.Q enter into the field of public utility 

regulation so far as the Ice Industry is concerned, proper administration ::o 

will require the establishment of a large, techincally skilled staff, 

qualified to fix rates, supervise operation, evaluate existing plants, 

and maintain a constant vigtlance to prevent unauthorized agreements, 

financial manipulations and other actions contrary to the public interest •11 

(61) Consumers' Advisory Board Memoranda, April 10, 1935 and April 

15, 1935. 

( 62) Infra, XV !r 

Further details of tne Ice Industry's self-administration are 

reviewed. 

·m 

(63) ~nis term is used to include misfeasance and non-feasance. 

(64) Freund, Administrative Fowers over Persons and Property, 

(University of Chicago Press 1928), 160. In referring to the Arlidge case, 

the author says: 11 The decision settles the important principle (before :a 

adverted to) that in administrative determinations the nominal authority ~ 

need not tcl~e actual personal or mental cognizance of a case, but may 

assume responsibility for conclusions vicariously reacned." 

(65) Brookings Institution, The National Recovery Administrationan Analysis and an Ap-praisal. (1935), 279. 

(66) Ibid, 274-278 See particularly p. 276. 

( 67) Ibid., 272. 

(68) Office Memorandum No. 318, December 13, 1934. 

(69) Legal Memorandum, No. 60, from Jack Garrett Scott, April 4 , 

1935. 

( 70) See Deputy's files re 11 Rules and Regulations Issued b~r the 

Executive Committee 11 of the Copper and Brass Mill Products Code treating 

with uniform contracts. See memoranda of Assistant Deputy R. M. Richards 

on this subject, . March 22, and April 15, 1935 to advisers, and their 

replies. 

(71) Approved Code No. 308, Sup. No. 3, California Sardine Processing Industry, Codes of Fair Competition, X 645. 

(72) Code Authority Bulletins No. C. A,-1, C. A,-3, C. A,-3-A, 

C. A,-27. 

(73) Code Authority Bulletin No. C. A.-2. 

(74) Code Authority Bulletin No. C. A.-11; No. C. A.-14. 

9838 

le 
- ·, ? 1-

( 75) Code Autnori ty '!o. C. _ . • -10. 

( 76) Cost Account i n.,. s t e1n for tho industr ,r, and Appr oved Code 

No. 308 , Nation3 1 Fisher y Indu str;;r, Co de s of Fair Compet i t i on, VI I , 327, 

Sec tions l pnd 2. 

( 77) Approved Code Jo . 19 , \V a ll Paper Manufacturing Industry , .Code s 

of Fair Compe tition, I, 267. 

(78) Art. VII, Sec . (c). 

( 79) Deputy David H. Tulley ; cmd Assistant Deputy Administrator 

Francis C. Lowthorp . 

( 80) 11 WH.EREAS, t hose members pre sent at sa id meeting accept ed by 

unanimous vote the follo wing a s a 1 Schedule of Minimum ttAdequate 11 

Differ entials for W11olesalers and Ret a ilers 1 • 

11 :BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the following ruling sha ll be 

ado pted and promulgated by t~e Code Auth~rity of the Wall Paper Manufacturing Industry a s binding upon the Industry and to be obse~ved by 

~11 manufacturers: 

11 Differenti als between wholesalers and retailers shall be not 

less than the fo~lo ing: 

On papers carrying list or road prices up to and 

including 181 • ~ • • • • • . . . . •. . . • • 10% ~ 

On papers ·carrying list or road prices over 

l8i anQ under 30¢ • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15% 

On papers carrying list or ro' ad prices from 

30¢ but under 40¢ • • • • • • • • . • . 20% 

On papers carrying list or road prices 

40¢ and over. • • • . • • • • • • • . • • • individual 

11 For the purposes of the above differentials purchasers of less 

than $3,000.00 per year from all mills shall be sold as retailers. 

11 The group of purchasers above $3,000.00 while made up largely 

l

of wholesalers nevertheless includes a number of large retailers who 

becaus~ of their dis~~ibutio~al methods are_ in some cases capable of 

render1ng a wholesal1ng serv1ce to the manufacturer and who cannot be 

exactly or correctly defined for the purposes of this classification. 

It is therefore the opinion of ' the Code Authority that manufacturers 

shall establish their own differentials between wholesalers and retailers 

included in this group . · 

11 Nothing contained in this ruling shall be interpreted to prevent a greater differential to wholesale purchasers whose purchases 

aggregate over $3,000.00 from all mills per year. 

9838 
- 272-

11 Every manuf acturer shell set up viTi thin five days after the 

receipt hereof full schedules of list prices for retailers ond shall file 

a signed copy of such list prices· with the Eiec~tive Secretary of the 

Code Aut hority. Ti1 is provision is to ensure the maintenance of proper 

differen tials between. ·re.t·ailers ahd wholesalers. 

11 The Code Authority, t hrough its executive secretary, or other 

impartial agency, is empowered to establish and pub.lish an .Ann-ual Classific ation· of Buyers-~ ~d Upon Total Individual Purchases from All 

Manufacturers, such classification to indicate the proper classification 

of each buyer only as over a:nd under a $3,000.00 purcha.ser from all mills; 

in no case shall the dollar amount of individual buyers' purchases be 

published. 

11Wi th the advice and the approval of the Ad.m±ni strator, the 

Code Authority shall be empowered to furth er revise or ~od ify this 

ColTIJilercial "Ruling • . 

r 11 T'nis Ruling is an emergency ruling arrived at with the underst anding on the part of both Code Authorities that when and as such amendments to this ruling are presented to and approved by the Administrator 

this ruling shall be modified pursuant thereto. · Furthermore, the Administrator may at any time suspend, or cancel this ruling. 11 

(81) Administrative Order No. 19 - 17, April 18, 1935. 

(82) Minutes of the Code Authority Meeting, Sep tember 27, 1933, and 

Commercial Ruling No. 2 on :Base Prices adopted at that meeting: "Until 

further revision base ·prices· adopted by the Ad-visory Commit tee at the 

Lake George Meeting .shal·l be adh·ered to ·and '8.11 quotations lower than 

such base prices will be considered sales below cost, unless justified by 

the mills making such quotations." 

Minutes of the March 22, 1934 Meeting show how the ruling worked: 

11 The file of pending compla-ints· of Code Violation were re ceived. 

The executive secretary reporting that subst antial progress was being made 

toward the clearing and closing of all pending complaints ar1s1ng in 

relation to the Lake Ge0rge · Schedule. He· reported having received cost 

figures from the following concerns: 

:Barnes Wall Paper 

Commercial Wall Paper Co. 

· · ·William Vernnold Co. 

11 Wi th the exception of Commerci a l pers.onal contact Wc>.S established 

in each case. ' This -concern· has submitted figures regarding which complete 

agreemen t has not been. reached ~ However, a letter to the trade indicating 

withdr.awal · of· all prices-below the Lake George Schedule a s issued by this 

con,cern has come to the executi v~ s ecret ar y 1 s att ention. Satisf actory 

closure of the compl aint regarding Commercial is contingent upon official 

verification of this l etter as a gene r al policy, or final agreement on t he 

cG-st fi gures. n- · 

9838 
- ? 7 2-

( 83) Approved Code No . 120 , Pup e .. · and ?ulp I 1dus tr J , Co des of Fnir 

Comuetition , III , 115 . 

( 84) P per nnd Pulp Industr -Propos ed Amendments to Code of 

Fair Competition, 1n~ 10, 1935 . Transcrip t , 85 , Mr . J . A. Austin , 

ec.~. etary , Nnpkin _ s..,ociat i on): 11 The Pape>r Napki n Industry i s ver y much 

in the s ame posi tion a s r . :Boyce outlined . We have nnd a divisional 

st atus and everyth i ng excep t off ici a l r eco gnition , which , a s a matter of 

f ac t, we t .. ough t we had since a ~r ear ago l ast Januar r or February , and 

at t he.t time the napkin group s epar ated f r om t he tissue di vision wi t h 

t he consent of t he tissue group . 

11 An applicat ion wa s made to t he N. R.A •. fo r divi sional st a t us 

under the Pnper and Pu l p Co de , a11d as r. :Boyc e exp l ained, t hr ough some 

slip , that was never of f i e i a lly gr a11 t ed. However , an executive aut hority 

was el ected b:r t he industr y and it has been functio ni ng as a s epar at e 

di vision cmd as a. sepa!'a t e entity . We have botl1 our assoc i atiqn and the 

execu tive aut hority , wh ich of course has !10 t been offici a l because it 

was never confirmed down he r e , as I understand t he situation . 11 

( 85) App roved Co de No. 2, Sh i pbuildii.1g and Sh i pr epairing Industry , 

Code s of Fair Competition, I, 25. 

( 86) H. Gerrish Smith, Chairman, Shipbuilding and Sh i pr epairing 

I ndustry Committee , to Assistant Deputy istrator H. Newton Whittels ey , 

J anuary 17, 1935: 

1

' 11We not e your st at ement that speci al exemp tion from the maximum 

hour provisions of t he Co de must be obt a ined either by an amendment to 

the Co de or by an exemp tion of a temporary nature. 

"We no t e further t hat you st ate no authoriza tion exists for 

t h e in clu str r t o work in excess of t h e maximum hour provisions in the Code 

on emergencies. 

11 This matter wa s t aken up this date at a meeting of t h e Code 

Au tho rity at which Colonel W. W. Ro s e and yourself were present, and the 

abso l u t e n ece ssi ~r of work ing beyond t he Code hours on certain emergency 

wo r k wos shown , and at t ention was i nvited ·to t h e discussion of th is 

matt er t hat occurred a t th e Code Authority meetings in 1933, the minutes 

of one of wh ich mee ting s da ted November 8t h of tha t year cont a ined the 

followi ng regarding emergency work s: 

9838 

" 1Th e Co de Committ ee f or several meeting s was confronted 

v'.'i t h r equests from shi pbuildi ng and shi p repairing firms 

aski ng f or exemptions i n hours worked du e to emergency 

wor1: . It was f elt by t h e Commi t t ee that some letter gf 

i nstruction shou ld be sent out covering is class of 

work and t her eupon the Chairman of fered a draft of l e tter 

and f orm for approyal. The letter was gone over and t he 

followi ng was adopt ed: 
- 274-

. 111 The ·code Committee has not granted any general 

approval of emergency work, and will not do so. 

For the time being the ·code Committee will consider 

special cases o~ emergency work, and will approve 

them wherG the facts justify such action.' 

('87)··, tibid:, 

11 Mr. ·'William H. Davis, our De01ty Administrator at that time 

ac 

was present at the above meeting and discllssed, and approved of the letter re 

quoted above. That letter was sent out to the Industry under date of 7! 

November 16, 1933 and at the same time was printed as Interpretat ion l o. 2, :1e 

of which N. R. Ao has a copy. 11 fi 

(88) Assistail:t De:g_uty Administr.;:ttor H. Newton Whittelsey to Consumers' 

Advisory Board, Jqnuary 22, 1935: 

11 The Shipbuilding Industry since November 8, 1933, has been 

working on the supposed authority of the Shipbuilding and Shiprepairing 

Industry Committee to permit such Emergency work. However, the Code was 

never properly amended, nor was an Exemption requested, or granted by the 

Administration. For this reason I advised the Code Committee that I could 

not find adequate authority for the Industry to continue to exceed the 

maximum hours of the Code on Emergency work. I advised them further that 

the Code should be amended and while an a~endment is under consideration 

a temporary Exemption might be granted." 

(89) Approved Code No. 15, Men's Clothing Industry, Codes of Fair 

Competition, I, 229. 

(90) Interpretations of the Code of Fa ir Comp etition for the Men' s 

Clothing Industry- Men 1 s Clothing Code Authority- 225 Fifth Avenue, 

New York, New York: 

9838 

6. The word "substantial classes 11 as used in 

Article II subdivision (b) are to include 

20% of the total number of ernplo ~r ees employed 

in any establishment. 

If, however, there is any individual case in 

which 20% seems inequitable, the full f acts of 

such case are to be communicated to the Committee 

provided for in Article II, subdivision (d) for 

their further consideration. 

Approved September 26, 1933. 

B. No provision for closeouts or clearance sales 

for topco a ts is foun d in Article X. The decision 

of the Code Authority is ~~ t topco ats, either 

for the Spring or Fa ll, may be closed out at such 

periods as the manufacturer deems desirable. 

Ap:?roved September 26, 1933 . 

.. 

•' 

. ] 

,I 
-275-

Eighteen of the s were issued. N. R. A. never took row officic:1l 

action in regard to these , ns f nr as a t horough check will reveal . 

( 91) .Approved Code :\! o . 15, en 1 s Clothing Industry , op . cit., Art. 

VIII, Clause 9 : 

11 No member of the Industry shall accep t for credit or exchange 

returned merc'1nndi se, excep t for defec ts in mnnuf acture, delay- in deli very, 

errors in shipment or f a i l ures t o conform to specifications . No r e t urned 

merchcndise shall be accept ed for credit i f retu rned aft e r ten (10) days , 

from date of receipt by the customer, excep t on ac count of defects in 

manufacture not discoverabl e b.: r easonable inspection. No member of t his 

I ndustry ~1a ll accept for credit or exc' an:;e worn and washed gar men ts, 

except as hereinabove provided. 11 

(92) Approved Code No. 408, Undergarment and Negligee Industry , 

Codes of Fair Comp etition, IX, 935. 

(93) Undergarment P~d Ne€ligee Code Authority Bulletin- Vol. 1, 

No. 2. Se-p t emb er , 1934: 

11 It is with the last four lines of this Clause (9 of Art. VIII) 

that we are presently concerned. If a retailer accepts a worn and washed 

garment from his customer because it is cl aimed to be defective either in 

manufacture or ma terial and he sends it to the manufacturer for credit, 

who is to determine whether that return is justified? Remember that we 

are deali~g with a garment that has been worn and washed . Is the manufacturer to be the sole judge of whether the return is or is not justified 

on the he or r t hat his merchandise is always right, or shall it be left 

to the judgment of the retailer on the theory that his customer is always 

right? Who is to determine· whether the garment ( t a.ldng price into consideration) has given reasonable wear? Who is to determine whether the 

garment bought was not several sizes too small, and finally, who is to 

determine whether the garment has been pro perly laundered. 

. ' 

11 It is this problem that your Code Authority is attempting to 

solve. With the view of finding a method that would be fair to the 

ret ail er , consumer, as well as the manufacturer, the Code Authority is 

establishing a Bureau, at its headquarters at 261 Fifth Avenue, to receive 

all returns of worn and washed garments manufactured from woven silk. 

These gar ments will be examined by t h e U. S. Testing Company, and if found 

de fective, t he manufacturer will be ask ed to pass credit to the retailer. 

Otherwise t h e garment ill be returned to the retailer •. 

11 Th e many ret ailers that have been consulted are of the oplnlon 

that t his is a constructive step in the. stabilization of t he Industry. 

11 The following ·is a brief outline of the plan., - full detp,ils 

of which will ·be mailed to you in t h e course of the next few days. 

9838 

11 1. Manufacturers are to notif~r retailers that under 

the regulation of t h e ·Code Authority they are not 

permitted to accept the return of wo rn and washed 

silk garments. 
- 276-

11 2 . Retailers should be ad vi s ed t o s end parc el 

direct to Code Au thority , 26 1 Fifth Avenu e. 

11 3. A sticker, outlinin15 t he pl a'1, t o be us ed on 

i nvo i ces, will be fur nished t o manufactur ers 

by t h e Code Authority . 

11 4. .The garment will be exami ned and test ed by t he 

U. S. Te sting .Company ru1d a report sent to manuf acturer ru1d retailer. 

11 5. It is not cont emplated, for t h e present, to make 

any charge for the service rendered by e Code 

Au thori t y . 11 

Undere armel1t and Negligee Code Authority Bulletin- Vol 1. 

Februar y , 19 35. 

J3uxeau of Returns - Worn and Washed Garments 

No, 3. 

11 Ret a ilers and manufc:.ct"lrr ers ar e by this time aware of t he verjr 

good work that is being done by the :Bureau of t h e Return of Worn ru1d 

Washed Gar ment s . 

11 To those manufacturers and ret ailers who have not a s yet availed 

thems elves of the services of the Code Authority , it m~y be pertinen t a t 

this time to outline the procedure. 

11When the ret a iler or manufacturer returns a garment to t h e 

Code Authority- he is asked that the return be accompa..11ied ;ri t h a st atement 

showing the nrune of the ret a iler and the name of the manuf acturer , approximately when Ul~ch sed and the price paid, also t he cause of t he compl a i nt. 

11 This is recorded by the Clerica l Staff of t he Bureau and t he 

gar ment i s t h en read~· to be s ent to t h e U. S. Testing Co. fo r exami nati on . 

The first ·step by the U. S. Testing Co. is t he determination of the comp l ai nt and the exten t of t he damage . The result of t h i s damage is .recorded 

under th e heading of 1 0bserved Da~age .• 

11 The technician then makes t he necess ar y test s and st udi e s 

covering the follo wing items: 

11 1. Construction of t he f abri c 

2. Compo sition, d or pure dye . 

3 . Cu t of gar ment, stra i ght or biased. 

4 . Slippage or shift i ng of f abri c . 

5. TJ'}) e of s eams . 

6, Amount of f abric t aken i n a t seams . 

7. Sewi ng t hread used i n s eams . 

B. Colo r f a st ness to washi ng and cro cking. 

9 . Pr i ce (Whol e s al e). 

11 Adc1it ional t est s ar e made depending upon the nature of th e 

damage . For examp l e , if the ~~ag e is a br oken or rup tured fabric, it is 

:n: 

af 

:a 

uC " 

t! 

m 

\( 

o: 
-''77-

necess-u-;r to cl_etc;r"'linc t h.., tensile st1 Cll6t h of th0 f · bri t o ...,ee •:•he ther 

or not t he complaint of n wenl.: fnb ric is justifi d . ll of ill~ <1bove 

inform tion is listed OE t he rep ort uncler L1 e eading ' Ft. bric ConsLru tion 

and Worlantmsllip ' . 

11 Uncl.er the heading of 1 Conclusion' t he rep ort st a t es t hat 

either the ' Retail Store 7eturn is Justified' or t he ' Re t a il Store Re t urn 

is no t Justified '. Tl1is conclusion is fOllo wed with an explanation of the 

cause of the druaage based o~ t '1e i nspection, ext~ninDtion nn d t ests. In 

addition , the re·por t is st amped 1 Gnrment B.eturned to Manufacturer 1 or 

1Gnrment ::teturned to Retailer ', wh ichever the case may b e . 

"St andard.s have been established coverinb t l1e con struction, 

tensile stre~1g th, t ;J-pe of seams, 'vvorkmc.nship ancl all other f a ctors, so tha t 

after making the necess a ry tests and examina tion, the proper conclusions 

mn;r be dra:w:n b ased on f a cts and the garment returned to the p roper part;y-. 

11 Cop ies of t~1e report are mailed to the retail store, manufacturer and Code Authority. The garments are retuTned to the r e tail store in 

cases where the returns are fo-und t o b e unju~tified and to the manuf a cturer 

where the com~laints are justified. 

11 The Bureau wa s est ablished Oct. l, 1934 and our records show 

that for four months up to Feb. l, 1935, there have been examined 4192 

number of garments , of which auount 2231 number of garments were returned 

to the m~1ufacturer with the notation 1ClDim Justified', and 1961 number 

of garments were returned to ret a ilers with the notation 'Claim Unjustified. 111 

( 94) Approved Code :'io. 7, Corset and. Brassiere Industr;y-, Codes of 

Fair Competition, Vol. I, 69. 

( 95) r onthly l3ulletin Corset ::md Brassiere Code Authority - 232 

Madison Avenue, l'Tew York, ~Je J York . -Vol. II. FebruarY, 1935 . 

~ ~egul a tions GoverninE; Infractions of Sect ion (d) 

Delivery, and Section (f) Datin~. Discounts ~d 

Reba tes of Article IX of the Code of Fair Competi tio~1 

for the Corset and Brasstere Industry 

11 1. Within 30 days after knowl edge of an infraction by allY 

customer of Code p rovisions as to discounts, and/or the service charg e 

notice of such violation with full particulars must be filed with the Code 

Authority: 

11 2 . Assi c;nments of claims for excessive discount, unearned discount ~1d/or t he service charg e sha ll be made and delivered to the Chairman 

of the Code thorit y a t the time of notifica tion. Forms for assignment 

purpo es will be :ou:pplied to each member of the Industry. 

11 3. T:'le cu stomer's account may be credited onl;r for the amount 

of the payn1ent plus allowable discount. ~ne ~~allowable d~duction must 

rema in as a bal~ ce orr t he ledg er a ccount, but a fter ~ssigning same to the 

Code Authority the customer 1 s account may be b alanced and the i tern may be 

transferred to an ac_count headed 1 Code Authority As signments 1 • 

9838 
- 278-

11 4. At each meeting of the Code Authority, the Chairman will 

report such notices of viol ations and assigrn:n ents and he shall t a.."l<:e such 

ac tion A.S t he Co d_e Authority may direct. 

11 5. A copy of these rules shall be sent by each subscribi ng 

memb er to all active customers on t heir books. 

11 6. All of t he foregoing shall be in addition to the handling 0 of such vi tio~s through the machinery afforded by t he National 3ecovery 

Adrni ni stratio.n. 11 

( 96) Memor andum by E. W. :Brand on t h is subject, April 6, 1935 . 

The memorandum ·state s that t he Legal Adviser t hought t he Code 

Authorit J.~ to be 11 fv.lly within its rights in adop ting t his pl an ." 

(97). Brookings Institution, op. ctt., 253. 

(98) A study made by the Consumers' Advisory Board, entitled 

"Experience with the Open Price Provisions of .Approved Codes", off ers 

some excellent exam les~ Recommend2.tion No. 3 was 11 In regul nting price c

filing, Code Authorities should not be permitted to exceed the powers 

giv~n by their codes over. te~ms of le~" 

Two of the many exrunples are given: 

"Pap er and Pul-o Industry (Cardboard Manufacturers Division) 

Code No. 120. 

11 The Secretary of the Code Authority threatens an unplea sant 

inve stigation of costs if filed prices are not r aised. 

"(The code contains an open pric e provision with a 

waiting period and a provision again st selling 

below incH vidua l cost except to meet comp eti t ionl ) 

"Letter of January 23, the Secret ar y of the Code Aut hori t ' : 

11 iYour fil ed prices were roughl y 10 per cent l e ss than 

those filed by your comp etitors . In view of t he i r exper i ence in t he an~ ctLu~ ng of a si milar grade, they 

f eel it doubtful t hat you could justify such pri ce s . 

Consequently , I fe el sur e that ~,ro u will want t o r evise 

your prices so t hat t hey ~ll bear a c lo ser r el ation to 

those of your compe titors . They point ed out· that i n t he 

event you found yourself unable t o cooperat e, it was t he 

op i nion of some of t he members that t hey mi ght have t o 

r esort to pr oc edur e provided •••• by t he code . Under this 

provision a member may comp l ai n to t he Co de Aut hority 

. in regard to your price schedul e . Thi s will l ead to an 

investigation to a scerta in whe ther t his pri ce can be 

justified ••... Such a. pro cedur e is of cou rs e unpl easant 

and costly . I am sure t h i s matt er c~1 b e stra i ght ened 

out without r esort i ng to any such action. 1 
- ,·r. -

'It was po int ed ou t t hat in the event t he in ec- ion 

pr oved t 1 t t hi s pri ce schedul e coul d be justified on 

t ne b nsis of • our o~~ st, h~ t t he memb ers 1oul d then 

be fo r ced t o mee t 70ur pri ce . This wou l d t en destroy 

.rour xi st ing competitive advun t o.ge and merel y s er ve t o 

l ower t he exi st ing pri co s tr ue t ure to no av:1i 1 . 1 11 

11 1\:otor Fire Appar a t us Ef g . I ndustr;r, Co de ·~ . 108 

11 The Code Aut hority s ent out a list of sugge st ed p ri ces although 

not aut hori zed to do th i s b, its code . 

11 Letter of larch 1, manufactur er of fire appar a tus . 

11 'We have been holding strictly t o t hes e price s for fe ar 

they were authorized by t he Code Authority and mi ght possibly ge t us in bad if we did not sell a t the s chedule 

price for extr as. Th ere are a great many items priced 

in this list t hat we can produc e probably a lot cheaper 

than some of the bigger corpor a tions who have terrific 

overhead. 1 11 

( 99) Approved Code No . 349, Hayonnaise Industry, Codes of Fair 

CompetitiOi1, VIII, Art. X, 283. 

See Releases of the Ma;r om1aise Code Authority, No.7, 8, 10, 

11, 14. 

See also Tr an script of Hearipg , Cast Iron Soil Pipe Industry, 

January 23, 1934, 25. A letter by the Fational Association of Master 

Plumbers, Shoreham Building, 15th and H. Sts., N.W., Washington, D. C. 

11 Now we are asked to pay the Cartage of these fittings back 

to Chicago which we are willing to do but we are told by reason of this 

Code that iV e are to be penalized 25% of the price which this company 

agreed to s ell u.s these fitti ngs for}~ to be deducted if we return these 

fittings. 

11 The Soil Pipe I ndustry has alwa:rs been more or less of a 

racket in the way of price fixing, but today since they have been given 

a Code by the Unit ed Sta tes Government, it is impossible to deal with 

them. They have set t hemselves on a pede st al and anybody that wants any 

of t heir products is at the erc ~r of that Combine which exists through 

the medium of a Code. In the enclosed copy you will note all of the 

stress is laid to the f act that t h ey cannot viol ate the rules of the Code, 

but you vrill notice t hat in their letter that this rule was made by their 

own com.'lli t t ee • 11 

Puge 29 . . A. C. Olson, Crane Co., 156 N. Jefferson St., 

Chicago, Illinois:· 

11 Dear Sir: We have ~rour letter of J anuary 12, We note your 

cu stomer H. P. Reger & Co ., seems dissatisfied with the service given on 

this order . 

9838 
- 280-

11 It is very positive violation of the code we are orking under 

to hru1dle this billing or to accept settlement other t han just as we have 

invoic ed it to :rou. VVh ile we r egre t t he situation as you explain it, 

still most positively our company will not knowi ngl y viola te the code 

that we are work ing w1der. 

11 The code co~mittee in charge of its enforcemen t and by aut horit.y 

given them in the code h ave passed a l.~eso lution t hat an~r goods returned 

must stand a deduction of 25% and t he pa.cties returning them pay all 

freight charge s. Persona lly I am not in favor, or in accord, vith t e 

full amount of that charge, at the same time. our company ill observe 

until the cocle committee can be persuaded to ma.'ke socne amendment. 11 

Page 85. "Deputy King: Do you think t h ere are members in your 

Industr~r vrho, if t hey had a t wo thousAAd ton order offered them ou ld 

like l y file a more attractive price if it was pecessary to get the 

busi ne ss? 

11 Mr. Hamilton : We have had to sit up at night with them to 

k eep t hem from doing that, but they have not done it yet . 

11 Deputy King: You mee1n you have used pr:essure on t hem to keep 

them from doing it? 

11 Mr. Ha;.11il ton: No sir, not pr e ssure, but we have tried to show 

them the errors of their way . 11 

Page 101. 11 Deputy King: Those are recommendations from whom 

to .whom? 

11 i.Vlr. Hamilton: In the association: 

11 'We reco~m end that goods of manufacturer's own make may be returned by payment by purchaser of fre;3ight both ways, with t ;v ent;y-five per 

cent as a handling charge. Speci als ru1d obsolet e goods m~r be returned 

at scrap prices. Return of any goods to be made only if permission is 

given by the mru1ufacturer. t 

11 There was no reason that t hey may not have--he is a salesman--

could not have allowed this man to t ake these goods out a t his own expense 

from the warehouse and return t h em at his. own expense. 

11 Deputy King: Yes. E~t :,rou are t aking a refuge i n the code here 

in that letter to one of your customers, justif:ring a charge of t went,,r-fi ve 

per cent, vvhen, as your own recommenda tion s ays, it is wen t~ five per cent 

on standard goo ds, and onl y scrap prices a llowed on speci&l 5oods. 

11 Mr . Hamilton: On obsol ete goods, which are specials. 

Tho se ar e the fittings I was t e lling ou wer e made up spec i a l 

for a certain job. 

11 Deput y King : We have nothing to do with t he ordinar trade 

practices withi n an industry, and in the or dinary olic ~ t l:1at any manuf acturer wishes to pursue in t he or nar~r co nduct of his business. 

9838 

., 

... 

:s 

:o 

~ 

l 
-· ol11 i'le hnve no right, in the :rtccov er,r Ad.Mi ietration , to question 

tha t, if it is an honorable nrocedure in t he matt er of policy . 

11 :But we are ver~: se 1si ti ve to t e ac tions of an manufa cturer 

who , i n the tr eatme11t uf his customer , re art s to 1)racti cs , claiming he 

is 110 t per mitt ed to do differentl y under his code , wl1en h is code does 

not cover th· t situ a tion. 

11 ivir . t~ ilton: I agr ee 'Vith you one hundr ed per cent , sir. 

11 Deput :,r King : ou :1.cli11it in this c ase t hat the company was 

11 ro;.1g , and I assume that you v.rill t ake stt.;;ps to correct the situation? 

11 1:1~. Hronilton: I abso ute ~r admit it, sir. 

11 It was some bod;-{ tha t did not Ul1derst and, and he used a word, 

he used the 11o rd 1 code 1 in t he p l a c e of something e lse, but t hey a re wrong , 

regardless of that . 

11 Dc:::ut:- I~ing : This document t a t you just read fro:n here ; 

that is a cop:r of the acti on t aken by your code autho rity? 

11 l1~ 1~. Hamilton: Yes, the minutes of t he association. 

11 1\;r . W. A. Brecht: The associ a tion meeting setting up rules 

for t he industry. 

11 Deput;r Ki ng : T'nen you have not al~en this action under the 

code; it is just an asso ci a tion matter, and represents recommendations? 

11 ll:r . :Brecht: _'h.a t is right . " 

(100) Testimony of Th oma s Bl a isdell . 

( 101) Ta te, ~enoranch::m, Dated 21, 1934 , on t he GoiTL"ne rcial Relief 

Printing In dus tr~,r pointed out t hat t h e Cod.e Aut:hori ty gave the impression 

to the industry t hat t he so-ca lled "Franklin" schedule must be followed 

by t he industry; 

Hadl ey , ge-norandum , Ivia;>r 29, 1935 , on the Electrotyping and 

St ereo ~rping InC:.us-:· r~r , 'lThe industr;y- follo vl"ed a cost accounting s y stem 

never appr: v~SC. t . .r J.L R . _ .. . ; Ha dley, Memor a;.1dum, Hay 29, 1935, po ints out 

a similar sivuation in the Phcto EngTaving I ndustr y . 

(102) Approved Co de o . 287 , Graphic Arts Industry , Codes of Fa ir 

Compe titio:..1 , VII, 1 . 

( 103) :iadl e:r , remorandum, April 3, 1935~ on the Graphic Arts I ndust rie s , corru,1e:.1t s upon Division Administrator George Buck ley1 s actions in 

this reg ard . 

(104) Sup r a , n. (6 8), Fa ctual Ba sis. 

(10 5) 3roo ings I n stitution , op . cit., 268 

9838 
-282-

(106) Mackenzie , l

1

iiemorandum re Improper Code Authori t y Activ tie~:> 

by Motor Vehicle 3.etailing Tr ade Code Authority , June 23, 1935. 

(107) Approved Code No . 445, :Baking I ndustry, Code s of Fair Conpetition, Vol. XI, 1. 

(10 8) The c omplete story is set r~rth in a memo r andum _entitled 

":Baking Industr~r Code 11 , June 8, 1935 , by the writer . 

: . 

9838 
tra tion -

-283-

NOTES TO CHAPTER XII 

See a lso SU}Jra , X. 

( 2) Ibid. , 266- 267 . 

( 3) Ib id., 267 . 

(4) Ibid., 260. 

( 5) Ibid. , 270. 

( 6) Ibid. , 270. 

(7) Ibid., 267. 

The National Recovery Adminis-

(1935) 

. ' 

(8) The basis for this discussion was furnished in conversc?.tions with Messrs. Howard C. Dunn arld John B. Jago, both formerl;v 

of the Comyliance Staff. 

(9) Ibid.., particularly the statements of Mr . J o.go, who was 

a field adjuster. 

( 10 ) JRA Bull e tin No. 5, Regulati ons on Pr 0 ·· ..:. 0·;_:i. e for Local 

NRA Compliance :SCP rds, September 12 , 1933. 

(11) .LbiJ.. This contains the admoni tion ., a·~ _ 

"ub.J whole tone of any notifi~c: cion Hhether 

"T ~ -~ c ~r ... , telephonic or p:er"'c 1<-t : hould be 

.. . ~· H of o.ssUJning tha t the rr~j l_o ;>?e r is comply-

:;..n0 and that the compla int is due to rome 

misunderstanding which the employer can clear 

up be explamning the situation to a representative of the Board. The employer should not 

be g~ven the nrune of the cowJlainant unless 

the employer requests it arl.d the complainant 

agrees. " 

( 12) NRA Bulletin No. 7, Manual for the .Adjustment of Com-. 

plaints by State Directors and Code Authorities; January 22, 1934 and 

amendments dated, April 6, 1934 and May 12, 1934 . 

( 13) See Office Order No. 7S, v1hi ch under the heading 11 Fi eld 

Contacts" sta tes: 

9838 

11 - - - - however , it was not intended tha t the 

Compliance Division is to undertake the administr~tion of all codes for complia nce and enforcement. 
4-

This remai ns the responsibility of a Code Authority, the administrative member and the Deputy and 

Division Administrator for each Code." 

(14) Supra,· V: 

See, Federa l Trade Commission v. Baltimore Paint Color 

Works, 41 F. (2d) 474 (c.c.A.:-4th, l93Q) . 

( 15) Handler, "The National Industr.i al Recovery Act 11 , 19 

A.B.A. Journal 440, 443 ( 19·33). 

(16) The Act, Sections 3(f) and lO(a) - Stanley v. Peabody Coal Co., 5F. Supp. 612, 614 (1933):. · 

9838 

11 It is a singular fact .that the Industrial 

Recovery Act provides no penalty for the violations of the Act. The only cr.imes denounced in 

the Act are for: (1) Vio~ting a Code approved 

by the President; and, .( 8 ) for violating the rules 

and regula tions prescrib-ed by the P:eesident to 

carry out the ·ourposes of the Act." 

(17) Section 3(b) and (c) -

Comment - "Some Legal Aspects of the rJationa l Industrial Recovery Act", 47 Harvc>rd Law Review 

85 (1933) 

(18) Brief for A.L.A. Bchecter in Schecter v. U.S., 70: 

~Accusations have been made, tried, sustained 

and punishments ':i.m})osed and with relatively few exceptions no effort has been made to use the methods 

of enforcement provided by the Recovery 1Act, but 

employers have b een kel)t in line by using the coercive force of Gover1nnent boy cott, com~liance has 

been enforced b;y depriving persons cha rged with 

code viola tion: of the use of the Blue Eagle, of the 

right to compete for Government contra cts, by forbidding all cont~actors engaged in Government work 

to purchase ma terials or sup::_')lies produced or furnished in whole nr in part, by one who has not complied 

with the code, by ithl~o lding financial a id extended to 

industry by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, 

add by threa tening to revoke t he licens es of r a dio 

"broa dca sting stations which do not deny their facilities to a dvertisers ' who arc dis) osed to defy , i gnor e 

or modify the codes established by the 1-.iRA.. 11 

I 

-" 
(19) Blachly and Oatman, Administra tive Let;islo.tion and 

Adjudication (Brookings Institution 19r4) , 152 : 

The nuthors suggest th~t t he NRA, by its 

compliuncc c cti vi ti cs, " urni shes t he r.iost stril:ing 

and complete example of an a t teJ'Tlll t to settle difficulties by way of medi.:: tion, conciliation, o.nd a dmini strative procedure gener ally , r a ther t ho.n by 

judi cin.l or qua. i-judicia.l action. 11 Of course , e. · 

the au thor s 1oi:1t out , the 1'1RA it self had no power 

to enforce tbc Act, being forced to r ely upon the 

Depa rtment of Justice 0r Fcdora.l Trade Commi ssion, 

which enforcement ha d in the past :;;roved inadequa.t e 

in r el ntion to the less compl ex anti-trust st8.tutcs. 

Sec a l so pp . 253- 354. 

( 20) De~m·ing, Homan, Lorv:in and L;;,ron, The .ABC of NRA 

(Brookings Institution 1935 ), 97: 

"The set t ing for t he enforcement probl em i s 

s een in the fact t hat neither the NR.A. nor any 

agency established by. it has any l egal po\7er to 

coerce any business enterprise into co~~l ing with 

the terms of a code. All its elaborate mechanism of 

complia.nce i s therefor e de si gned, first 1 to es t e.bli sh 

the fact of violation of a code, and second, to 1persuade1 t he violator to mend his way s and to ' adjust' 

compf.aints. Only a t the end of ~11~ pro.cedur e is the 

ca se :;:> assed on to the Depa rtment of J~stice. or the 

Federal Tra de Comrniosion for the exercise of the 

government 1 s power to coerce. To .sum t he matter up, 

the viola t or of a code is viola ting the l aw , but the 

Recovery Administration has no power to enforce the 

l a.w . Tho wo rd 1 compliance 1 i s not therefore a mere 

euphemi sm for ' enfo rcement. Itt 

(21) Bro oki ngs Institution , op . cit. 268: 

"Wha tever the s ervices of prom;1t justice in 

discouraging crime , t he customary theory of justic.c 

does not permit legal officers to overlook the 

offences of known wilful viola tors of l aw. This 

is exa.ctly what has been done under NRA compliance 

machiner y . The out-come ~s e. system of se iv e 

justice : under which a few violators ar e sel ected to 

be rrk~de examples of, ~ith no pretense of rosecuting 

other ca ses of simila r ne.ture. 11 

(22) (7211) Opinion of the Attorney General to the President; 

June 21, 1934 : 

9838 
- 236-

11 I have also given corsidera tion to the question 

of whether the· Nat ional Recovery Act authori ze s the Presi dent to co m~)romi se civil or crimine.l liability arising t hereunder, and, in nw opi nion, it does 

not. do so. I find nothing in the Act which exo)ressly 

or ii1111liedly auth0ri'zes such :.?.ction . Nearl y a ll ort ant laws contdn provisions authorizin~ some executive 

officer to establish regula tions to ca r ry out the purposes therof, but it has never been ~eld that the 

authority to compromise liability arise s und8r such l a .rs. 

As above indica~ed, the power to make regulations does 

not include the power to al te:..· , amend, or add to a l aw 

(Merrill v. Jones sul;ra). It is clear that a regulation 

authorizing the compromise of lic?..bili t~,. a rising under the 

National , Industrial Recovery Act would be in effe ct 

legislation and, therefore, invalid. II 

(22) Blachly and Oatman, o:p. cit. 

(23) Jchnson, The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth (Satur~y 

Evening Post, February 2, 1935), 86: 

October 31, 

11 If an individual voluntB.rily at:;rees with the 

President to pP..y standard wages f or standard hours, 

in consider2tion of being a llowed to dis~lay the Blue 

Eagle, statute or no statute, this difficulty has 

been i ab a ted, even though the only remedy for violations 

in intra state commerce is removal of the Blue Eagle." 

(24) 1-u.s. Law Week 49, September 26, 1933 : News Papers 

1933. :c· 

(25) l.U.S. Law Week 49, September 26 , 1933 ; 

Note .... "Possible Me tho-ds. of attacking the N.I.R • .A.~ 

28 Illinois Law Review 544 (1933 ) 

of 

(26) In Ral a dam Co. v. Federal Trade Comrnassion, 42 F (2d) 

430 (C.C.A. 6th, 1930) there was brought up the fact that the Chairman 

of the Federal Trade Commission had advised newspapers that there would 

be prosecution against those who assisted the Raladam Co, At pages 

436-407, the Court says: 

9838 

11 It appears tha t these methods of influence, aarried 

on in this case before this cross-suit for enforcement 

was co~ne nced, and while it has been pending, have 

destroyed a large part of pe~ i tioner 1 s business through 

r efusals to acce-pt this a dverti s·ing , and only the i nj unction of this court is needed to mal-e the elimination 

complete. We have no occasion to deny nor, indeed, r eason 

to doubt, tha t this elimi n.1. tion woul.d t end to the public 

good; but we cannot think tha t Congress · had any conception tha t it was crea ting a t r ibuna l for that ·kind of 

a ction." 
-2 7-

(27) Executive Order, Anril , 19 3~ . 

(28) (7 Jll) Opinion of the Attorney- General to the Pr esident , 

June 21, 1934: 

11 The .rati onal Industrial Recovery Act docs not 

provide for civil penal ties Section 3(f) of Titl e I 

(c .llO) provides th t a violation cif ·a code of fair 

compe titi on approved by t he Presi dent shall b e a misdemeanor ar1. d upoL convi.ction thereof an offender sha ll 

be fined no t more than S500 for each offense. Section 

10 (a) (c.827) provides, int er l~ , tha t viola tions 

of rul es or regulations mp.cl.e ~y. the President shc'lll 

be punishable by fine of not to exceed $500 ,' or i mpr iso~~cn t of not to exceed six months, or both. 

Thcse· pro visions clearly contempl a t e judicial action 

through crimina l proceedings. A criminal sta t ut e 

may not be enforced by civil acti on. United Sta t es 

v. Claf lin, 97 U.S. 546. · · · 

11 It i s also urged by the Administration that payment of the civil penalties .to be assessed by the 

Administration would be entirely voluntary. However, 

criminal prosecution or rmit revocation might and 

probably would, result from a refusal to pay the civil 

penalty, and I find it difficult to reach the conclusi on 

tha t such payments woulQ be held to be enti rely voluntary. 

"Viewing the matter in the light of the above considera tions and the above-cit ed authorities, I am cf 

the opinion tha t t he PrE<sident has DO authority to impose civil penalti es for violations of codes and regul a tions, and that violators of such codes e.nd r egulations may not l a,.lvfull y be pm1ished in a manner other 

t han t!ia t provided b~l Congress in the Nationa l Industrial Recovery Act. It f ollows, of course, tha t the 

President has . no ~o~e r to delega te such authority to 

the Federal Alcohol Control .Administrati'on and tha:f 

the i ssuance of phe propos~d Executive Order would be 

unauthori zed." 

(29) Dearing, Homan, Lorwin~ and Lyon, The AJ'C of the NRA, 

17: suggests this method of enforcement •. But s ee Purity Ice Case Co., Inc. 

20 F.T.C. 2?8, Docket 2203, April 4, 1935 : i .ndicating the Trade Connnission1s refusal to follow all code provisions. 

(30) Blachly and Oatman, op. cit. 172. 

( 31) Ibid: 8- 9 

(32) Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court 

(few York, 1927). 

9838 
(33 ) The Clayton Act, however, a llov1 ed i ndividuals to sue 

to remove restrictions in co~aer ce upon t hem. 

(34 ) General Investment Co. v. Lake Sho re & 1ichigan S. R. 

Co., 260 U.S. 261 (1922 ). Particularly see ca ses cited at page 28 6, 

and D,R. Wilder Mfg. Co. v. Corn Products Co., 236 U. S. 165 (1915); 

Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co.L 194 U.S. 48 (1904) ; Paine Lumber 

Co.v. Neal, 244 U.S. 439 (1917). 

(35) Progressive Miners of America v. Peab od,y, 7 Fed. Su:py . 

340 (1934); Western Powder Manufa cturin Co. v. Interstate Coal Co., 

5 Fed. Supp. 619 1934 ; Stanley v. Peabody Coal Co., 5 Fed. Supp . 612 

(I933); and P~~vis v. Bazemore, 5 Fed. S~p . 230 (1933). But see 

Sherman v. Abeles, 269 N.Y.S. 849 (1934) contra, but be.sedupon the 

New York Schackno Act. 

(36) Brookings Institution, op. cit., 59. 

(37) U.S. v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1910); and Illinois 

Central Railroad Co. v. McKendree, 203 U.S. 514 (1906). 

(38) Comer, Legislative Functions of National Administrative 

Authority (New York 1927), 126 n. 2: 

There is doubt in the minds of some writers 

as to the constitutionality of delega ting discretion to name penalties for crimina l offenses not 

named in the sta tute. This practice is followed 

in England, with the limitation of a fixed maximum 

by the sta tute. On this point, see .Hart, the 

Ordinance-Making Powers of the President of the 

United Sta tes, 151-155. 

(39) Sec. 3(a) 

(40) Su~ra, VIII, n. (59) et seq.; and Legal Memorandum 

No. 39 by Black~ell Smith quoting a memorandum by Robert P. Reeder, 

on Examination of Books, June 21, 1934. 

(41) SUJ)ra, n. 8 and 12, which furnish the basis for the 

brief outline of the steps in the compla int - com:;;liance - enforcement 

pro(jedure. 

(42) Supra , IV. 

(43) See the discussion of this point in this Chapter, supra. 

It should be noted tha t it is r a ther well-established t'hat delegated 

legisla.tion should not authorize the imposition of penalties: Carr, 

Dolegate.d Legislation (Cambridge University Press :1921), 53. The basis 

of this dictrine is said to rext in the Case of Proclamations, 12 Coke 

Reporter 74. 

9838 
-G8r-

(44) Johnson , Tpe Blue Eagle from Egg t o Earth, Now York 

1935 in a number f ac s susGcdts that : 

, .. 

gs3s 

11 likc the Draft Act the whole l aw was v1ri t tcn to 

depend on co- operation and popula r sunport , r a thor 

than on statutory compulsion. That i s the very basis 

of N. I.R. A. and N.R. A." 

(45) Brookings Institution, op . cit., 263 ct -~· 
- .290-

CHAPTER XI I I 

(1) The National Industrial RAco;vArY Act, 48 Stat. 195, Brief 

for A. L • .A.. SchechtP.r Corporation i n SchP.cht r v. U. S. excqllentlv 

analyzes the powers granted in t erms of the sta.tutP. . 

( 2) Title I, ctio n 1. 

(3) A. L • .A.. Sch cht r Co rn . v. U~, 295 U. S. 495 (1935) 

Panama Refinine Co. v. R•ran, 293 U. s. 388 (1935)~ 

( 4) Titl ~ I, Section 2(<1.), (b) and_ (c). 

(5) Sta t e v. But1 t=n·, 73 At1. 560 (He . 1909) ano. State v. Poulin, 

74 Atl. 119 ( 1-.h . 1909). But contra q~ , Carson v . i~L~ cl , 148 s. E . 

584 (Ga .• 1929 ); and CochnOT1!8 r v. U.s., 248 u. s. 407 (1919) approving 

thP. powP.r if 11 the delegation- - (has) cl0ar r.:>xp r P.ssion or i mpiicati0n. 11 

Childs v. Statq , 113 Pac. 545 (O:d . 1910) approv8s the delegation of 

power to fill an office creat ec1_ bv th8 l P.gislature . 

(6) Title I, Section 3. 

(7) Title I, Section 4(a) and 7(b). 

(8) Titl ~ I, Section 4(b). This pow~r ~as nP.v8r exe r c is8d, and_ 

lapssd by its or.rn terms at t he exo ira tion of a ygar. 

( g ) 

C1o) 

(11) 

(12) 

Titl e 

Title 

TitlP 

Title 

I, 

I, 

I, 

I, 

Section , ~ 7 \ c;. ~ 

Section 7- (b) and (c) • 

Section 3( -=> ) 

Section 8(b). 

(1 ~) Title I, SAction 9(c). Panama Refininr: Co. v. ?.;,ran , 293, 

U. s. 388 (1935) involv8d this s~ction. 

(14) Title I, Se ction 9( a). 

(15) Title I, Section 3(a). 

(16) TitlA I, Se ction 1. 

(17) Title I, Section (b). 

(18) Title I, Se ction 3(a) 

(19) Willoughby, Constitutional La~ of t hq United States(New 

York 1929) I, 89. 

(20 ) 19 Ruling Ca se La'"'T. 11unicipal Co rpo r ations par 75 and 106 

and cases th8r ~ cit ~d. Th1 doctrin ~ of strict or narrow construction 

of dol ogated pomq r is rr d to.. It is also statod tha.t rv~ r cannot 

9838 

b 
- ;.:'')1-

b e r ede l ogatad to private persons or to subordinat ns unl ~ss it is 

merqly ministnrinl in aturn. 

( 21) JTRA Organization Stndir:s, HistC'IrY Unit is r "'DRring a full 

r eport up n th subjnct of Po~~rf . Th~ mrit ,... r has bAnn ask d to 

anal yze and 1'!Tri t,... uo th'"' mat ; rial that has bo -;n gC~.th . The uroblc:m 

is distinct fr om th.":\ g" n'"'ral scop. of this stud". 

( 22) I nfra, XII discussion of ~nfo rr. mP.nt . 

( 23) Infra , XII discussion of ass~ssm nts . 

( 24) Sup r a , XI, 1. 

(:?5) :Barre tt! 11 Is the r 8 a rational Polic P. Po"t?nr, 8tc. 11 , 

14 :Boston Univc.rsit" La\'7 R"vi i1"'T 243 (1934); Dickinson, "ThP. Major 

IssuAs Pre sen,;od by t ile Industrial RGcove ry Act 11 , 33 Columbia Law 

Revi qw 1095 (1933), 1101; :B ro"m , 11 Th8 Constitution, Th8 Sup r P.m8 Court 

and th8 N. I. R. A. 11 , 10 Oregon Lavv Rrwi t:? 10:? (1934). 80.8 also Field., 11 The Consti tutiC'na l Th-,or:r of the National Industrial Re covP. r y Act, 11 

18 lVI inn" sota Lar<T Revie''T 269 (1934); Cor in, 11 Congr qss' Po1'1'1 r to Prohibit Comme rcr'l : A Crucial Constitut:lo rtal su 11 , 18 Corn8ll Law Journal 

477 (19 ~3 ); Ellingwood, · 11 Th'3 liT DP.al and th; Consti tution11 , 28 Illinois 

Lavv vi 'l'liT 729 ( 1934); and Cormin~· " ll Tr·rrli ght of the Supr.,me Court 0 , 

YalG Univ8rsity Pre ss (1934), 45-46! 

"It· vrill b P. ur·ged no doubt t hat, · conside r <Jd as typifying or 

for -shado in g a p GrmanAnt syst m of l 8gislation, Nira spells the 

end, or at l east th8 complofr;'· subordination, Of statP. pO'IVP.r OV8r 

busine ss anr. industry , and_ h "'nCP. 'thA end Of the dual f Gde ral principlP. '!'l!i thin this pr'3 do:nina~tly · i.mpo;tant · 'fi eld of govP.rnme nta.l 

action. Nor do I SP.? ho w. this assP.rtion can bG gainsaid. :But thG 

simple and suf:!'ici0.nt anso.r.., r is 'that in so doing the act · y 

sounds thn kn<1 ll of a d '3uartP.d da~r, and for thG r eas0h stat P. d by 

Profe ssor Gulick in his ~ddr P. ss at Ch icago last summe r: 'Nothing 

effectivP. ca n b ., don"' i YJ. th ~ r ..... guletiC'n or stabilization of e conomic affairs unl P.ss th~ area of planning and control has the samP. 

bbundarir;s as th., e conomic st:rU.cturA. tn 

Profe ssor Corwin's statP.rnr.) nt should· not b P. r P. ad in the sens n of an 

opinion as to t hA court's course of a.ction, but a.s a criticism of its 

past act ion. 

(26) The Constit tion, Articl,... 1, Se ction 8 ). 

( 27) Gavit, The Comml:\rco Claus8 (Blooming ton, Indiana., 1932) 47: 

11 Re.sul ts 1mder comme rce clause and PuP. ProcP. ss ClausAs ma:r b e the same . 11 

Wahr8nbrock, 11 F"l de ral Anti-Trust LaTo~T and thA· N. I.R.A. 11 , 37 Michigan Law 

Revi e 1009, 1045-1065 (1933). 

(28-) Coo_e Rnvision, HP.morandum· No·. 3, May 27, 1935, 11 Sorn<=l Legal 

Conside rations in Conn8ction rvith Int8rstat o Comrnerc811 cle arly r e cognized this. 

9838 
- 292-

(29) 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) . 

( 30) Ibid, 189. ' . . .. : 

( 31) Ibid, 69: 

"It is not int ended to sav that thesn wo rds comorehqnd that 

commerce which is cornpl ly intr- .rnal, '11'Th ir.h is carri ed on betwe 3n man and man in. a state, or bet '11'J'Aen different parts of the 

r 

same stat e , and. T'hich do As not oxt rmd to or affect oth8r states. Sub. 

Such a pow~ r would be inconveniGnt, and is certainlv unAcessary. 11 

(38) 4 Wheat. (,16, 415-416 (1819): 

"It woulcl. hav8 be sn an unwisG attempt to provide; by immutable rul~s, for exigenciGs whiGh, if fores 8en at all, must have 

been s8en dimly, and. 'I'IJ'hich can · best be provided for as they 

occur. To havP. ~c lar d that. the be st means shall not be used, 

but those alonA '-tw i thout · which ·th8 po~ers given would be nugatory, 

would have be en · to deprive the ·l egislature of the capacity to 

avail it self of ex:P·8ri enc0, to . r;xGrc i se its reason, and to accommodate its l"lgislatior~ to . circUJnstancos. If WG apply this principle of construction to any of' the pow'< rs of gov7rnment, e shall 

find it so p~rnicious in its op '" ration . that WG shall be comp qlled 

to discard it." 

(3~) :Brown v. Marvland·, 12 Wheat. 419, 446-447 (1827). 

(34) Ther~ is little· need to discuss fo~ ign commerc8 as the 

courts find no comp etition for jurisdic~ Jn tper 8. Here Con~ress 

has a "cornplnte powe r. 11 w:'?JGr v. Freed, 239 u. s. 325 ( 1915)' 

(35) Warran, The Supreme Court in United States History (:Boston 

1926) discuss·e s thG r gaction of th8 Taney court. 

(36) Supra n. 29 (1824). 

(37) U. S., GX rel Attorney General v. Delawar e and Hudson Co., 

213 U. s. 356 (1909); Southern Rail'I'IJ'aV Co. v. U. S., 222 U. -S. ?0 

(1911); Th8 inn sota Rate Cases. 2~0 U., S. 352 (191 ~); Pennsvlvania 

R. Co. v. Sonman Shaft Coal Co., 242 U. s. 120 (1916)~ Davton-Goos e 

Cre ek R~. v. U~ S., 263 U. S. 456 (1924); and U. S. v. Michigan 

Portland Cement Co., 270 U. s. 521 (1926). 

( 38) Wisconsin Railroad ComJTli s sion v. C. B. Q .• R. Co.. .2.57 U •. S._ 

563, 589 (1922). 

(39) In r e bs. 158. u. s. 564 (1895); and Northern Securities Co. 

v. u. s., 193 u. s. 197 (1904). 

(40) P8nsacola Telegraph Co. v. Wnst ern Union Co., 96 U. s. 1 . 

(1877). 

(41) The Pin 9 Lino Cas e s, 234 U. S. 548 (1914). 

9838 
?J~

(42 ) Th8 1otor Carri11r Act qf 19 7 5 , Public , o. ?.55 , 74th 

Cone-r ess. 

3 

( 44) I bi ., ~03 . 

l 

4~) bid, 381 ; Ch '"'mnion v , Am -- s , 1 88 U. S. 7- 1 (1901) , 

lotte ry tick8 s ; Hole=- v . U. S, ?')7 U. S, 308 (191 3) ru10. am in tti 

v . u. s. 24~ u. s. 470 (1917) Whit ~ Slav r~ ; Breland v . ~~ 236 

U. s. 16 (191 5 op ium irrroortation; Brooks Y , U. S., 267 U. S. 43? (1925) 

stol ("') n autom0biJ8s; and Thornton v. U. s. 271 U. S, 414 (1926 ) quarantining and disinf"'ctin ca ttle. 

(46) Cushman , on . it., 400 ; Cl a r k Disti1ling Co. v. CJs rn 

Mar vland R. R. Co., :?42 U, S. 311 (1917); and U. s·. v·. Hill, 248 U. S. 

429 ( 1919) . 

(47 ~nns, lvania v. ~s t Vir ~i nia, 262 U. S. 553 (19 22) ; Kell ey 

v . Rhoads, 188 1.7 ,· S. 1 (1902} ; c:mc. Public Utiliti'" s Comrr1 ission v. 

Attc l eboro Stna r n and El8ctric Co., 273 u. s; 83 (1927). But SR"l , 

P -=- nns,rlvania Gas Co • . v. Pub lic Snr,ric ,..., Co"11'l1ission, 2fi2 U, ·s, 23 (1920) . 

' 

(48) .In Cha rl "ls A. RaT'lsa,, Cn. ''· As9ociated BilJ Postf"lrs , 

260 u. s. 501, 511 (1923) .a co~bin~tiQn of Qill postnrs throughout the 

country tried. to s e cur·-; a monopoly a nd ~s troy corrmn.ti tion:· Thn. court 

says little about commGrcn though th; counsrl argued t hat nting 

sale s and shipment i s a n intorfor ence wi t h c01;nr:18rce . Said the court: 

11 The pur-aose - - - is to d8 stroy ~orrm titin n anc1 s e cure a monop oly "bv 

lirni ting 2nd r "3 stricting co111w~ :rc G to chann " ls dista.te d b:r thA conf e dArates.11 

(49) Infra , XIII, discussion., of l ab or ca s ... 

(so) A. L. A. Schs cht " r CoTD·. v . u. s., ·295. u. s. 495 (19 35) . 

n Arn "'r.ican __ C.q.n Qo. v . Ladoga -ca:m:ling Co., 44 F. (:?a.) 763 (c.c.A. 7th 

1930), CGrtiOr? ri d '::">n i "ld 282-U. S, 899 rl931) a p ackinp COrnnany i"TaS 

p Armi ttAd to r 8covr: r trinl8 darqa . .o:!=l s und.sr thr: Clavton Act, although an 

ovGr wh"'lrnin-'S pA rc nt ag~ of usin ~ss WFl.S intrastat"l , u:9on th ~ grounds 

that it might affe ct int CJ r '"l statf"l busin"'ss . BriAf on Aon'Cla l for U. S. 

in A. L.A. SchPcht "'r CoTD. v. U,' S., 56 . 

( Bl) . 196 u. s. 375 (19 05 ~ . 

(52) . :?58 u. s. 49 5 . ( 19?2). 

(53) 62 u . . s •. 1 (1923) . 

(54) 259 u. s. 44 (1922). 

(55) 156 u. s. 1 (1894). 

(56) Federal Trade Co::rr.tission v . Pa cific Coast Pan8r Association, 

273 u. s. 52 (1927 ) 

9838 
- 294-

(57) Apnalachian Coa ls. v . U. ~, 288 U. S. 344 ( 1930) , saicl. l.ir. 

ChiAf Justicr> f-:~1--s a"t parr. ~ 360: 

11 In applying this t:Jst (tha,t thtJ c rntr a ct or combination 

pre juclic8s t h r:} nub1ic int 0r -:sts by undul y r : st:ricting competition 

-or unclu1y obst~cting th"'l coursG of t:r F~ o_;) , a clos "'l and. obj ctive 

scrutin:r of particular concHtions and. "JU!'pOS"'l S is n -: c "'ssarv in 

oa8h cas: . R.""a,li ti "' S must dominat « t h8 judgrnGnt." 

(58) 291 u. s. ?93 (1934) 

(59) Brief for th"'l U. S. in A. LoA. Sch'-l cht r Coru. v. U. S., 

23, 31, 57, 62, 63 and' 71~ 

(60) But ssa U, S. v. CalistAn Pack8 rs, Inc., 4 F. supp. 660 

(1933); and U. s. v. Spotl-:ss Dollar Cl "'lan"'lrs, 6 F. Supp . 725 (1934). 

In conne ction with this last ca~ 8 a~ , NotG on c8nt Cass s, 82 UniV8rsity of nns~r lvania. Law R":lvi:nr 864 (1934·). An int e r .esting grou:-9 

of cas: s ar., found in thos8 on .A.AA Markr; ting Ar: as. O~mos 8Cl. to such 

agr""3m"'..nts soa, u.s. v. ?. un dorf, 8 f. Suup. 403 (19 ~4) ; U.s. v. 

GrGenwood Dairy ~s.· Inc., SF. Supp. ·398 (19 34); Doup.:las v. Wallac"'l , 

8 F Supp. 379 (1934); Edg8'!1Vat s r Dair;y' Co. v. Wallace ,. 7 F. Supp. 121 

(1934); Colu.rnbus Milk Producnrs Association v. Wallac"'l, 7307 Co!l'.lJ'Tl.,rce 

Cl '!aring HousG, F Gderal Trfl,d.e R8gula.ti.oh · S" rvic "'l , . Vol. 11 A (D. c. '1 . 

D. Ill. 1934) and. Hill v. Daig"'lr, 8 F. Sunu. 189 (1934). Contra: 

U. S. v. Shissl: rt ~. SuplJ. 123 (1934).. - On this quP.stion S88 , 

Puan: , "Markot in~ r.,~JmGnt s unclAr th"') ·Ag r"L 8Ul tural Adj1.,1stm ~t ~ct, 

ThAir Cont ents and. Constitutionality, 82 ·Unive rsitv of nn svlvania 

La~ R8view 91 (1933). , 

(61) Illinois C"'l ntral R. R. v. l'-fcK8ndrAs, 203 U. s. 514 (1906) 

in trastat" quara ntin -o. s; F "'l d ., r;:~ l :BasP.ball Club ~r. :Sal timor"'l Int e rnati0nal 

League, 259 U. S. ?.00 (1921); and ~lum nstock BrothGrs v. Curtis Publishing Co., 252 U. s. 436 (19?.0). 

(62) 247 U. S. 251 (1918). S~CJ 8 Cushman, op. cit. 452. 

(63) He isl "" r v. Thomas Colli.,rv Co., 260 U~ S. 245 (1922). 

Bacon 'r. Illinois, 227 U. s. · 439 (1915). Como are .:Board .o'f Trads v. 

Ols; n, 262 ue s. 1 (1923). ~"'l also, Coe v. ErrP.l, 116 u. s. Bl7 

(1886). UndAr thA Anti-Trust Acts,· thn courts hav'1 sanction"l d th-: 

'!njoining of labor from int~rf9ring with local prooncti0n, mh~n th8 

sourt sa~ an affnct u-pon int r:'lrstat "" comm"l rc , Coronado Coal Co. v. 

U. ~I. W. A., 268 U. S. 295 · (1925). 

(64) Utah Pom~r and. Li,ght Co. v. Pfost, 286 U. S. 165 (1932). 

(65) Public Utilitir.s Commission v. Landon, 249 U. s. 236 (1919). 

( 66) Wi s consin Railna~r CoTI}fl'li ssion v. C, :3. & Q,. Railroad Co. 257 

U. s. 563 (192? ); and Nashvilln , Chattan0o ga & St. Louis Ry. v. Alabama, 

128 u. s. 96 (1888). 

(67) U. S. v. DP.vitt, 9 Wall. 41 (1869); and Illinois C"lntra.l 

R. R. v. BAhr.,ns, 23~ U, S. 473 (1914}. 

9836 
( 68 

2 (1904 

- 205-

J"'., Y0 rl<: "' X r 1_ Pf'lnnsvlvania R._QQ. ''· Kni ··ht_, 19? U. S. 

Paul v . Virrri11ia., 8 WaJ 1. 1 68 (1860) . 

(69) Kid~ v . PnArson , 1?8 U. S. J (1888 ) statut ~ prohi itin~ 

manufectur" --;f1 ir,uor ; .:.~~ ic1 v . C 1or :~d 0, 18? U. s. 137 (190'3) stC~tut A 

r gulating i mo ortPtion of c p ttlA; ThP. Ma ror of th9 City of Nn Yorlr 

v. iln, 11 P-nt. 10 ( 1837 ) City Orr:!. i.nanc J r · .ouirinp r Pp ort from shin 1 s 

mast '"' r as to h"'alth of passnng-=-rs ; a nd ca s Ps involvi'Ylg pub lic high1111ays ; 

Kan"' v. Ste1te of' N,-..'17 J --·rs·'3Y, ?42 U. s. 160 (1916 ), and HAndricl<: v . 

Stat8 of Marvl an~ ; ?7 5 U. s . 610 ( 1915). 

(70 ) Lemk'" v . Fa r m8r 1 s Gr~in Co., 258 U. S. 50 (192?.); DahnJ:::A-

-Walker }. illine Co. v. Bondu-ra nt, ?.57 U. S. 282 (J9?1) . ~-:. also 

Robbins v. Shr..lb'r C01.mtv, 1 20 U. S. 49 (1887) hold.inp nAgotia tion for 

sal s of oods in anothAr Statg is so in int ArstatA comnP.rce to p r eclude locPl licP. nr-9 taxa.tion. 

(71) Corwin, on . cit. 

(72) Ibid, I: Dua:l d~ral ism VP.rsus Nationalis.m, and. thn. Industrial Proc"'ss: 

Th~ langu~ge in th ~ shr "' v~ ort RatP. CasP.s is of particular 

int P.r "'st: 11 \VhP.rGv"lr th-; intArstatA and intrastat8 t r ansactions 

of carri""rs ar., s(' ·r "l latAd that thg gov..,rnmFmt of th'" _onA involv ~" s 

· thA control of thA othnr, it is CongrP.ss, · and not th8 stat~, that 

is entitled to prescribA th<=< final and dominant· rul"'l , for otherr<is8 

- Congress would b"'l dP.niAd th' ':)X9rcisr: of its constitutional authority 

and th~ Stat~'~~, ~d not th~ Nation, would b~ supr~mB within th~ 

national fiAld ••• • n 

(73) Ibid, 49: 

11 Appli d as a r ·"'striction to ste.tP. pOT11P.r, th~ t~rms of the 

claus-; wnrr.o iv n a lib<:ral intArpr~tation which be camR a material 

factor in furth ring th ~ r Aorganization of Amnrican busin: ss on a 

national seal ~ and its a.tt -;ndant subj 1· ction to a hi ghlv concrmtrat8d manag-:mrmt . Appli , on th11 oth:r hand, as a g rant of national powP.r, thes <: sam"- t r: r ms suff"'lr~d a markod. contraction from 

the doctrin' s of Chi "'f Justice Ma shall~ comm "" r~ ':) ' bAing confinAd 

to transp ortPti0n mainly, and thn po,.,.a r to ' r""guh\t"'' it bAing coniv ncl a.s chir:fly a -oonr"'r to p r ot:;ct and p romot "l it by t.hq ad0pti0n 

of asur s be·nAficial to it nrh"'n r "'ga.rdc:; d as a pur "'lY pri vat ~') 

ent P.rprisn . 11 

(74) Pag"' 50 : 11 Th -- Shr'"'VP.port Ca.s "' brusquAl;r dismissP.d dua.l 

f nd0.r Rlism as having no longqr any -o ':) rtin"'nC8 ·to th ~ que stion of 

rail'"7ay r at..., l "gislation. This '"7HS in 1914. Eut F.J lr ~ad.y a dAcadP. 

earl i "" r , Ho 1T'l" s' op inion in th ~ Snrift Cas e had. laid down tho guiding 

lin"ls torrard a siMilar r psult i n th' fi Ald of busint'lss r Agulation 

g~n8rallv, lin s mhich mor ..., 8mnhasiz8d and ~x nd d in Chi "'f JusticP. 

Taft's op inions in 19?2 . 

11 And NJRA purports to build unon th"'s"" r "'s-q;tts, Rxt onding thAm 

9838 
I. .· 

- 2)6-

in spons ~ t 0 th ~ sso ns of th~ d~ ~s sion. It uosits the 

solidari ~r of Am'-" rican qconomic lif "' , tlP int <r d 'i)nnd<mcA of all 

its phas'1s, and it p roffnrs 2 concept io n of unfair m"' thod.s of 

comp : titirn ,,hich is a "1 ssary ~· ducti C'n fr ~"fl this solidarity 

and int-:::rd8p"'ndnnc::1 . In s0rn8 · esp~ cts lHra is a volutiona.~r 

statut n , t thn r '"'volution ,,hich it "'lffi )od s is only th0. l ngal 

COUnt rpart Of a r :voJ.utiM+_ alr~ad,y C'.CCOmolish"'O. b~r SCi"'nCA1 

inv ntion, and busin...,ss manap.:,.,mP. nt in th"' fi e lcl of commArcR and 

ind.ustry, and r :pr: s'3 nts an P.f :P ort :-- not n "' c P.ssaril:v t hg best 

concPivP. d gf f ort -- to g iv·'1 ostablish<"'ld --·conornic tr8nd.s a socially 

beneficial dirlc tion. 11 . 

( 75) Ibid, 38, At pap;8 19, th0 auth0r . savs: 

"But l.,t us suppo S'" also that thr.\ Court coul o. b n convinc d 

that in the lonP' run child labor, ano. oth~r ino.ustrial practic~s 

of -r.rrhi~h child. labor ma r b8 taknn to b P. typical, injured intr.J rsta.t G cornm-:::rc., -- '!Jhat, in liP-"ht of th8 ca-s As, mould b P. the r Asul t? 

Tha.t th3 official d ---f , nclr:> rs of th" N. I.R.A. mi~ l have to ansT~TA r 

this qu sti0n, I ent'<rtain no doubt. 11 

11 In brinf, in th::'! v 0.ry act of' sPf"l~arding thA dP.vnloumP.nt . 

of interstat 8 commercA from int qrrupt. ion b~r th ~ statP.s, the Court 

·un:av0'idably built up an ·nnlarged con cApt i0n of th "l subj e ct rna tt8r 

whi'ch ·thP t·comi'n:;rcA.i claus e in express. nerds .subj Pc ts .to Congr.P.ss' 

po-iv'8r to r "' gulr-'l.t P. On th"' oth'"r hand, it built up at the sam< 

time a grs<dl:r mi tigat.ed conc r:;ption. of_ the mord 9gulat . 1 It 

c8as8d. to think of this p0''70.r in th'< terms ••vhich Marshall had 

laid d.omn, as th"'l po~rn r to govqrn. Inst ~ad,. it. t9nded to vi~':'T 

CongrP.ss 1 pom8r und "lr th8 1 cornmerc8 1 claus'J. in th,? se3:me light. as 

it did. its own, nC~.rn ly, as primaril~r pO"!P.r to. fpstP.r, prot<:ct, 

and promote commGrce. And so proc8"'ding, thP. Court convgrt qd the 

clause into a broad highma:r for business to ove rspread thA country 

without r P.gard to statG linAs, and. thus to eff ct an organization 

which has put itsP.lf beyond effectiv~ Statn control. N~v8rth ss, 

mrhen Congr11ss, di scovt:.'\ ring '\'That. nras happ nin , nnd8avor ""ld b8la.t "'ld.l y 

to follo'I7!T alon.::- this sam~ hi ghw r it founr' its ~"~ lf ~onfront d at 

every turn ''ITith th::'! sign 1 no thoro~cz:hfar8, 1 "'3 rP.ct Gd ostensibl~r to 

saf8guard ste.t :: po w~ r and. thq princi~l 8 of d-q,al f e dAralisP.l. 11 

(76) Barr(-d t, "Is thP.r8 a NAtional Polic8 Pon"lr 11 "'tc., 14 Boston 

University Law R<> vi 8v:r 243 (1934); Maur<:lr, 11 Somq Constitutional Asu "' cts 

of thq National Industrial R8cOvPr~r Act a no. thq Agricultural AdjustmP.nt 

Administration", 22 Georg"ltO"'ffi Law Journal 207,222 (1934). The author 

suggr.> sts a n8nr theory of harm to comm"\ rC·':'\ Tihich he say s mas not p r e s P.nt 

in th ~ Child Labor CFI.s::s. 

(77) AddrGss by th<=> Ad..ministrC1tor, F->'oruary 27, 1934: 

11 Intrastat ~ comm8 rc "l anr. industry comp"lt~s -.:tri th int 8rstat8 comm""r ce 

and industry . " Unl r-> ss m'=) could find s0m . rul ~ to put th"'lm on th" samP. 

basis of hou:rs a nd '\"TPfS"'l S ~'8 '1TOulcl n0t hav'"-l :;P.en justified in doing an.vthing a t all, b P. CaUSP. intrasta t ·-" On "< rF!tio n s, rroulo. simpl:V· havo ruin"'d 

int rstat: nt erp ris 11 

98 38 
(?B) ri nf fo r A. L.A. S~h '"' ~t ~ in Sch cht ~r v. U. S., 77- 83 . 

Couns 1 ""~ n t ion d such r.oo ""' s a s I nfants' mel Chil e r r:> n ' s W-=- ar. Fun ral 

Se rvic.; ann R tail !. onum '~ nt ; Transit Industry, co -=~ rin , by its dnfini tion 11 Automo tiv~ buse s tnmsuortin,,. passrmg8rs sol ~l~r within StatG 

linl'") s , "" '=~T) t "l'h .n gag0 d in int-:rstF.t.t-: comme rc -; ; 11 J3 rb r Shop , 

which cov8r"'d barbe r S"lrvic-: , bootblack S8 1vice and manicurA s "'rvicP. ; 

J3orylin.e; nnd Billiard Oo 1r a tin§:: Tracl "' , Motor hicl '=~ Storae:"l and Parkin , Cl aning anr Dv.,in ; Sho 8 buil<tin , ~hich trac e also cov d 

boot-blacks, AdvArt i sing Di sp l av , Me rchant anc1. Custo:r'l Tai l.ori '11-'!. , RP.al 

Estat P. Broke r <> F-n; Rotail TrPd8 , :3url P.sque Thec:1t rir. F.1.l IncJustrv and 

Laundr y Trade. ThR couns l a lso cownent upon th ~ fact t hat small 

inCI.ustries :nnploving as fG"'1 as 1!100 "' IITOlOY '~ -=lS in th" "n tirr> country 

could harc1.l ..r b " consid'=~ cl. to R.ffect int e rsta t '=l comm'"' rCA unl -: ss soms 

defini t a findin,g nra s ma de . 

(79) Bri1f for the Unit8d Stat-:s in thP. Gas P. of Schechtr>r v. 

U. S., 35! In th"' concurri ~ ouinion of Hr. Justic8 Cardoza in the 

Sche chtAr ·c a s e , he sho':!Ts an awar""n'"'ss of th..., vi8''17 of causation cont'Clnde d for by the GovernmAnt: 

"Motion at thP. out Ar rim is communir.a.t 8d p8rceptibly, though 

minutP.ly, to racordine instrum.., nts at th<=l '~ nt r • o •• 11 

Tha Justice th ~" n quot CJs thP approval from LP. a.rned. Hand in tha 

Court b~"'lo"T : 

"The la"T is not inc1.iff"'rrmt tn considP.rati0ns of dAgrCJ8. 

Activiti a s loca.l in the ir im.mP.diac:r d0 not b8come int 8rstate and 

national cc:1:us e of distant lJ r~ussions. 11 

(so) H::> ndCJ rson, The F•'3 dAral Trad8 Com'! iss ion (Yal q Uni v"'rsi r 

Pre ss 1924), 1-6; Blachly and. Oatman, Administra tive LP.gislation and 

Adjudication (Brookin s Institution 1934), 20~: 

lfYears ago th"" F8deral Trad8 Comnission, ':vh en att8J:tiPting to 

i introduc8 into thA conc8pt of 'unfairmP.thods of competition' certain practic.;s now r qcogniz e d as unfair by various code s mao.8 

1.md3r the National RAcOvP. r y Act, found itself blocke d at evGry 

turn by th8 courts, wh~ch r sfussd to go b8yond the common la~ 

doctrine . Tho old common la,-r s.tandard of '.r easonablGn ° SS' was 

read by tpe courts into th·~ ShP.rman Anti-Trust Act 11fTi th such 

GffP.ct as to change en ti:r8l Y the char.acter of the act . 11 

(81) Exc 1l ~n t examp s ~ill bs found in F8dAral TradP. Commission v. Gratz , 253 U. S. 421 (}.920); and. F~d8ral · Trad~ Commission v. 

Sinclair P.f nin ~ Co., 261 U. s. 463 (1923). 

(82) ~d rel Tra d~ ComMissi"n v. KAunql , 291 U. S. 304 (19 ')4); 

F8d_A ral Trach C0nTYi issi0n v. Alae oma Lumb "l r Co., 291 U. s. 67 (1934) ; 

and F8dera l Tradl"'l Co m.T"l i ssion v. Ro;ral >lillin,.e: Co., 288 U. S. 21 2 (1933 ). 

( 83) Anpalachian Coals v. U. s., 2ss U. s. 344 (1933). 

(84) Cor~in, ou. cit., 44-45; F8de ral Trad8 CoMmission v. Beech-

-Nut Pack ine Conn nv~ 257 U. s. 441, 453 (19 22). 

9838 
- 238-

(85) William s v. Standar d Oi l , 278 U, S. 235 (1929 ); Tyson v . 

Benton, 273 U.s. 418 (1 927 ); Bl 1G. U.s. v Trenton ri_~ , 273 

U. s. 39 2 (19 27). See Hale, 11 The Co nstitution a nd. the Pr ice Sy stem: 

Some Re f lecti ons on Nebbi a v. Ne vr Yor 1.c 11 , 34 Columbi a. Law Review 401 

(19 34). 

6) rrarne r and_ Guterman, 11 T\'1 0 .Asp ects of l·I.I.R.A. · - PriceFixing a Jid Labor 11 , 14 ]o ston. Uni versi 0L__Law Revie q 221 ( 1934). 

(87) Consider the Corset a nd Bra ssiere Co de, Article V (c): 

HNo person shall L:norringly purc;ha se materials used in 

his p roduct which _have not been made in a clean and sanitary 

f actory ............ ~ ..... 11 

Of course, it must be admitt ed that t h is .mi ght have an effect upon a 

comp etitor usine a cheap and unsanitary ra·a.terial, but the direct bearing seems to be upon the goods sold ~o t i1e consu..mer. 

\Then the term 11 historicall3r 11 is used it is ·with reference to t he 

past c.ase.s of ou.r courts. It is_ recognized t hat in early England, 

particularly the fourteenth century, price-fixing and restrictions .by 

law upon trade arid 'labor more severe than those imposed by NRA were not 

uncommon. 5 Po:t-lock and Maitland History (Cambridge University Press 

1899) 581; 2 Holdsworth, History of English Law (3rd ed., London, 

1923) 459-466 : 

acan -Fe in the b ;:rentieth century; who li1:e in an atmosphere 

of _,free competition, .tempered .by strikes, lock-outs, and 

rings, say, as decisively as the economists of the midclle 

of the nineteenth century, t~1El t the :Views held by the legislature . in the fourteenth ·century \' ere unreasonable? 11 (at 

page 463) · 

(88) Comment - "Judicia l ReYiew of Administrative Orders under 

NRA and_ MA11 43 Yale Law Journal 5.99 (1934) • 

.. (89) . Tyson v. ]anton, 273 U.S. 418_ (1927); Williams v. Standard 

Oil Comp an.x_, - 278, U.S. 235 (1929); . and Wolff Pa cking Co. v. Court of I 

Inc1ustri.a1 Rel a tions, 262 ·U.S. 522. (.19 23) •· 

(go; 94 ~· s. 113, 126-127 (1877). 

( 91) Hamil ton, "Aff ect a tion with Public Interest 1

•

1 , 39 Ya le L. J. 

1089 (1930); Adler, 11]usines J~ri.sprudence 11 , 28 Harva r d Law Review, 

i3b,- :i fiB ( 1914) : 

"Under a true interpreta tio.n of the common law all business 

is public,. 8.nd the· phrase priv te. _business' is a contradiction in ter~s. Wha tever is pr:ivate is not business, 

and t hat ·"Hhich i s business is not Dri_;.a te. Every man engaged 

in business is en d i.n a public _profession and a public 

ca lling . The parties to business -a r e t he merchants on the 

one al1ncl a nd the public on t he other. II 

9838 
Of coursA the con~~pt is not so undf) sir~ P. if fr ~~ OO T'l i s l "'ft in p l a -

cing busin"ss fr0"1 Cln"' class to tlF' othnr l,v ..,~ isl r' tiv o '-riJ.J . Evr.. n 

Chiof Justir.P. Wait '"l 1 s quotfltirn r0"1 L0r Hal('\ illu tr t '"ls this . At 

p . 127, r ~=> rrin , t0 uuhlic 'Vhf',rv'"l s, it i s sugg~s l'l d tl1 t th ~=>y SA8m 

to have thE~t Ass"'ntinl cha rflctor 11 n. r.~us "' th "l;r Rr ~ t h" vrharfs onlv 

licens ed b'r thA A"l n - - or bA cnus <"' thAr "' is no othP.r h Ftrf in that 

p ort ." 

Soe Als0 Th<=! Pipq Li A Cas s. 2~4 U. S. 8 (1914). On thA 

"Vhol~=> probl ('\ro , S A ""l CBro"ntor, 11 Const i tut i0n 1 i t~r of thC\ Nat i.onal Ind.ustrial RAcov .r v Act anc=l the Agricultural Adjustm"lnt Act", 7 SouthArn 

Califo rnia La-rrr Ro,ri qm 1 25 ( 1934). 

(g""') Sup r a n. 89 . EvP.n l l=lgisla.tion thf'.t is ap··)rovAd i s d.iscussP.d 

in t<?rms of 11 affectatio'Y1 "Ti th a uublic intor Ast . 11 :Budd v. N8m York , 

143 U. S. 517 (1892) ; HoblP. Bank;.. Haskoll, 219 U. S. 104 (1911); 

and P C\ op l a v . !JP.bbi a , 891 U. S. f)Q2 (1934) . 

(93) WarnAr ancl Gut ~r"1an, ou. cit. , n .• 86; Eld.or, "Somq Constitutional AsT)~ cts of thA Na.t ional In0.ustria l P. cov~=>r'r Act, 11 ?. 8 Illinois 

La~ R<=>v i Aw 636 (1934); and Hal<> , 11 ThA Constitution and th8 Price Syst em: 

SomA R<=> flqctions' C'n Nqbbia v . P. ~"T York, 11 op. 'cit. n . 8f). 

(94) Ibid. 

(95) Peopl e v . Nebbia, supr~. n. 93 , at u . 523: 

"Undl=l r our form of gov"'rn'TI8nt the Usr-> of prounrt" and thA 

making of contra cts arP. nor'"le~ lly m<:~tArs 0f private and not public 

concArn. Th P. general rulA is that both shaJ.l l_:)q fr<=l'3 of govC<rnmental int rfer~=>rc . :But n e ithAr u rOl) Arty rip-hts nor contract 

Tights arc absolut P. ; for gov ernment can·not e:v-ist if thA citizen 

may at his will usP. his urouC<rtv to th~ d"'ltriroent of his f"'lllo-rrrs , 

or exercise his frepdom of contr act t o nrork th<=lm harm. Eaually 

fund.amr->ntf'.l '"'l ith tho urivat8 ri p;ht is that of thP. ilUblic to r egulatq it in thA comrno n int8re st. 11 

( 96) The l a nguage of Pe on l e v. Ne bb ia, .i hid.·· , is in ma r ked contrast with ·tha.t of Mr. JusticP. Fi~ld in :Ba.rbiAr v . Connolly, 113 u. s. 27, 31 (1885): 

11As in our int"'lrcours8 nith our f ""l llo"!T- men certain principlP.s 

of roorali t'! a r q assumed. to e:":ist , 'Vi thout which soci~t :r wou ld be 

impossibl e , so certain inher nt ri hts li8 at the foundation of 

all action, and upon a r P. co gnitinn of them ·a l onA can freq institutions b~ rnaintainP.d.. Th se inheront ri ghts ·have nev~r bP.An mor e 

hann il··r oxo r essqcl than in tho D8clara.tiC'n of Ind~ne nd~ncA, that 

n~m ev[1ngel of lib P.rty to th8 p8o-ple; ' We hold these truths to be 

self-8vid.Rnt 1 - - that is, so plain that their truth is r "'l cognized 

upon their ro r~ statem8nt -- 1 that all men are 8ndowed 1 --not by 

~diets of EJ'!ll:)"'lrors, or decrP.8S of Pa.rliam'"lnt , or a.cts of Cong r e ss, 

tu'J ..t ~" :bhe'!h- C r ea tor with certain inali en abl e rights' - - that i s , 

rights \'hich cannot b e b a r tered away or g iven away, or taken a way 

except in punishment of crime - - 'and that among these, a r e life , 

9838 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, .and to secure these' -- not 

grant them, but secure them -- 'governments are instituted among 

men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. 1 

Among these inalienable righ_t .s, as proclaimed in that great 

docmnent, is the right of men t9 pursue their happiness, b~ which 

is meant the right to pursue any ·lawful business or vocation, in 

any manner not inconsistent with '- he equal rights of others, which 

may incre~se their prosperity or develop .. their faculties, so as to 

give to them their Jgighest enjoyment·. 

11 The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades 

and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been foll 

:·.owed in all communi ties from . time immemorial, must, therefore, be 

free in this count~ to all alike upon the same conditions! The 

right . to . pursue them, ?ithout let or hindrance, except that "7hich 

is applied to all p§rsons of the same age, sex and· condition, is 

a cUstinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and 

an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their 

birthright. 11 

Or the C.ourt in Allgyer v .• Louisis.na, 165 u. s. 578 (1897); Adair v. 

U. S., 208 u. S. 161 (1908); and Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. s. 1 (1915 ). 

(97) Peonle v. Nebbia, supra n. 93, at p 536: 

11 It is clear that there i~ no closed class or category of 

business affected. •ri th a public interest, and the function of courts 

in the application of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is to 

d.etermine in each case whether circumstances vindica te the challenged regulation as a reasonable exertion of 'government authority 

or con~emn it as arbitrary or discriminatory-----. The phrase 

taffected with a public interest' · can ----- mean no more than that 

.an inctustry for adequate reasons, is subject to control for t he 

public good." 

9838 

,. 

(98~ Ibido, 532 and 539: 

11 The thought seems nevertheless to have persisted that there 

is something peduliarly sacrocanct about the. price one may cha r 5e 

for rrhat he makes or sells, and that, however able to regulate other 

elements of manufacture of trade, with incidental effect upon p r ice, 

the state is incapabl e of directly controlling the price itself. 

This view was negatived many years ago. II 

11Price control like any other form of regulation is unconstitutional only if arbitrary, discriminatory, or demonstrably irrel evant 

to the poliny the legislature is free to adopt, and hence an unnecess ry and. unwarrented in.terference vrith ind~vidu l liberty." 

(99) at page 537. 

(1 00 ) a t page 525: 
- 301-

"Tney (the fifth and fourteenth amendments) merely condition 

the exertion 0f the admitted po•;rer, by securing that the end shall 

be accomplished by methods consist nt with due process. And the 

guaranty of due process, as has ofte~ been held , demands only that 

the laP shall not be unreasonable , arbitrary or cap r icious, and 

that the m ans selected shall have a r eal and substantial r elation 

to the object sought to be attained. It results that a r egula tion 

valid for one s ort of business, or i n given cir cumstances , may be 

invalid fo r another so r t , or fo r the same rusiness unde r other cilcumstances, because the reasonab en~ss of each regul ation deoends 

upon the r e l evant facts. 11 

(1 01) Br ief f or A. L.A. Schecht e r Corp. i n Schecht e r v. U. s., 

34 : Counsel sug.c;ests t o the Court t he p o·•e r of the gove rnment to r egul a t e f i el ds of natur a l or ac tua l monopoly , such as r a ilroai s and r a&io 

broadcasting , t he implication be ing th a t other u r i va t e bu sinesl: es can not 

be r.egul ateC:.. This has consi de r abl e ba sis in the public u t ility con cep t 

ancl &evelo1Jment t he r eof, but when con si &e r ed a s a limita.tion upon t he 

porrer ol Co11gress to r egul a te comme rce, it appears t o be anothe r exanpl e 

of j u&i c i a l eg is~ t~on. 

· Again a t page 148 in treating the r elation of ~age and hou r 

provisions. of codes to the Fifth. Amendment, counsel say s: 

"Interstate shipment of poultry is purely private 

business." 

To hei:i.~-ru in, ci it seems tha t ·this means that t he libe rties of contra ct 

outneigh the Gove rnment ne ed for regulation. This·, of course, bring s 

up tha t lJe culia r doctrine in American La\' of affe ctation with the public 

intere st. 

(102) Carpenter, op. cit., 134; and Maggs, 11 The Constitution and 

the rt.e cove ry Legislation; The itoles of Document, Doctrine and Judges," 

1 University of Chicago Law .Review 665 (1934). 

(1 03 ) Johnson, The Blue Eagle from Egg to Earth (Saturday Evening 

Post, Jan ar~ 26 , 1935), 85: 

"I must call attention he re to another fundamental of 

NE.A. In vi e':" of · an unin~erru d course of ·Supreme Court 

C'Le cisions, ve did not believe anybody could write the labor 

p rovisions of that Bill into substantive l~w to be enforced 

by pains and penalties. Like t he Draft Act, the whole l an 

i s written to depend on popul a r support rather t han on st atutory compulsion. Tha t is the ve rJr basis of NIRA and N?..A. 

It is h~t is i~g forgotten today . It must not be f orgotten 

ss NRA is to rail. Those provisions can no more be contionally in,cluded ~n this Act no~ than they could then, 

and even i:t' they coulq., they vTould be even more futile now 

than then. 11 

(1 04 ) Ray and Wi enke , 11 Hot Oil on a Sea of Ti elegation of P0\11Ter, 11 

29 Ill. Lan Review 1021 (1935); "Secti on ? (a) of the N. I. R.A.: An a ttempt 

9838 
----------------------- - - ~~----~--

3Q ~-

to Equalize Bargaining Power, 11 34 Columbia Law Review 1529 ( 

Effect of Section 7(a) upon the Closed Shop, 11 31) Illinoi s La 

199 ( 1935); and Majority Rule in Collective Bargaining Under 

Illinois. Law Review 275 (1934) •. 

(105) Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Railway Clerk s, 281 u. s. 548 

(1930); COiJPage v. Ka..>"lsas, 236 U. S. 1 (1915); and Adair v. U. S., 208 

u. s. 161 (1908). 

(106) Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. s. 251 (1918); Bailey v. Drexel 

Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 16 - (1922); Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Rigsby , 

241 U. S. 33 (1916); and Second Employers' Liability Cases, 223 u. s. 

146 (1911). 

(107) Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. ·Stont=J Cutters Association, 274 u. 

s. 37 (1927); Coronado Coal Co. Case, 268 ·u. s. 295 (1925); Loe _e: v~ 

Larrler, 208 U. s~ 274 ( 1908); and Interi].a:t ional Org;ani zat ion of United 

Mine '1/VO:i."kers of America v,. Red Jacket Cpn.solidated Coal· and Coke Co. 18 

F. (2[) 839 (C.CoA. 4th, 1927). 

(108) Local 167, etc. v~ United States, 291 U. S. 293, 297 (193): 

11 It may be assumed that some time after delivery of carload lots by interstate carriers to the receivers, the movement of the poultry ceases to be interstate commerce. 

(Citing cases.) B:ut . we need not decide V"hen interstate 

commerce ends and that '!rhich is intrastate begins. fue control of the handling, the sales, and the prices at the place 

of origin, befo~e the inter~tate journey begins~. or in the 

State of destination where the interstate· movement ends may 

operate directly to restrain and monop_.olize interst::.te commerce. (Citing ca~es ) The Sherman Act denounces eve ry conspiracy in restraint of trade including those that are t o 

be carried on by acts constituting ~ntrastate transactions." 

·. Texas, etc,. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U~ S. 548 (1930) 

9838 

(10~) Supra, n. lOB. 

(110) Supra, n. 108, 158: 

"In the case at bar, the receivers· did not warehouse the 

poultry or commingle it with local goods 'before disposing 

of it. They were merely a conduit through which flowed the 

daily stream of commerce from shippers to marketmen. It rras 

clearly contemplated b~ the shippers ~hat the poultry should 

pass through the re~eivers to the marketmen, for the shippers 

paid the charges _ for unloading, cooping, _ and cartage to . est 

Washington Market, and the price paid the shippers depended 

on market price made by' resale to the marketmen.*** We believe the situation is analogous "t ·o that involved in the 

livestock cases alreadY discussed, ~d e hold that the poultry 

remained in interstate commerce until sale by receivers to 

marketmen." 
- 3'0-

( 111 ) Hear i ngs befo1 the Commi t tee on ,.;a:y f'\nd l•lef'\ns, House of 

Represen t atives, lv1 y 18 , 19 and 20 , 1933 : 

"Page 114 , Senator Wagner: 

"The ourts have also s a i d t hat i n t r astate business 

cannot be conduc ted i n e '"'ay 'lhich may bu:::-den i n te r st ate 

comme rc e ; and thus , i f an in t r ast e.te bu siness i ndul ged. in 

unfai r c ompet i tion to the extent that i t would be a bu rden 

upon i n t e r stat e comme rce , such , for instanc e , a s t o a ce:;.~

tain scal e cf wage s, I am conf i dent tha t unde r t his nerr concept the courts will s ay we have a right to r each that k ind 

of an industry, ******* i n our economic growth the r e i s such 

an int e r ciependence tha t Sta t e lines are no longe r economi c 

barriers, and we have to deal with the whol e subj ect more 

i n telligently, because nothing can be affe cted in the way 

of t he readjustment of our economic activities unle ss t h e 

rules ha ve universal application. Congress i s recognizing 

tha t more and more each year, and so are the courts. 11 

(112) Brief for the U. S. in Schechter v. U. S. 52.; · See also 

quotation s a t ppo 62-63: 

"Senator Wagner: Otherwise we may talk as we like , 

but vrhat h as d!lagged industry d.o~m more than anything else 

is the exploit a tion of labor, cutthroa t competition. If 

you inquire of business men all through the country, t he 

thing they will tell you is that particula rly during the se 

days of unemployment they have suffered because their comp etitors were able to secure people to work for them for 

long hours and starvation wages (Cong. Rec., vol. 77, p t. 6, 

p. 5236). 

11Mr. Samuel B. Hill: The antitrust la:w. does not t al:e 

into consideration unfair competition resulting from the exploita tion of. labor. It has developed that that is the 

g r eate st factor in unfa ir competition that confronts industry 

today." 

(113) Brief for the U. S. in Schechter v. D. S. in lower feden}.l 

court. 

(114) The National Industrial Recovery Act, 48 Stat. (Part I) 195; 

The Agricultural Adjustment Att, 48 Stat. (Part 1) 31; and Elder, "Some 

Const itutional Aspects of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 28 I11-

inoi s La'.-:- ? .. eview 636 (1934). 

(116) A. 1. A. Schechter Corpora tion v. U. s., 295 U. s. 495 (1935); 

P2nro1a Re inin~ Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. s. 388 (1935); and U. S. v. Butl e r 

et al, Receivers of Hoosac k ills Corporation, U. s. Supreme Court, J ai1-

uary 6, 1936. 

(11 6) Brookings Institution, op. cit., 134. Lincoln, in the 

· Emancipe.t ion Proclamation: 

9838 
- 304-

I-II felt that measures otherwise unconstit uti onal mi ght 

become la~ful by becoming indispensable to the preservat ion 

of the Constitution through the preservation of the nat ion. 1 

Note 74, p. 219- J. G. Randall Constitutional Problems under 

Lincoln (New York, 1926), pp. 378, 514. 

Willis, Parliamentary Powers of English Government De~artrnents (Harvard 

University Press 1932) 29,179 represenJ s the English view: 

nThe clearest .justification for the employment of the 

exceptional type of c elegated legislation is, of course, t he 

existence of an emergency; but there still remains the C'.i fficult question of what is an emergency, a question C'_iscussed 

with some bitterness during the crisis of 1931. The Conmit t ee 

~ere fully conscious of the difficulty, and although th ey 

stated that 'emergency and urgency are matters of degree,t 

that 'the measure of the need should be the measure alike of 

the power and of .its limitations,' they did not express&! 

opinion how far tbe Acts of the autumn of 1931 measured up 

to their ste.ndards (that would have been to enter upon politics); nor .did they lay do~ any ,general rules about the 

delegation by Parliament to the executive of po er to legislate on occasions of emergency." (at page 179). 

See particularly the opinion of Scrutton, 1. J. in Rounfelt v. 

Phillips, .35 T .. 1. R. 46, 47 (1918) vrhere he said "a war cannot be carried 

on according to the principles ·of magna charta. 11 

(117) Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135, 155 (1921) Justice Holmes sai d: 

11.Plainly, circumstances may so change in time or so differ in space as to clothe v:•ith such an interest what at other 

times or in other places would be a matter of purely y rivate 

concern. 11 

l'.larcus Brown Holding Co, v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170 (1921); and 

Wilson v. New, 243 U. s. 332, 348 . (1917): 

9838 

fiNer is it an answer to this vi evr to suggest that the 

situation was one of emergency,. and tha t emergency canno t be 

made the source of power- - - The prop osition beg s the question, since although an emergency may not call into life a 

power which has never lived, nevertheless emergency ma;y afford a reason for the exercise of a living power. '

1 

(118) Avent v. Uo S., 266 U. S, 127, 130 (1924): 

11 We must take it that an emergency cqntemplated by t he 

statute existed, as found by the commission (I.c.c.)---

That in such circumstances Congress could require a prefe lence in the order of purposes for which coal should be carrd:ed, 

consist ently Pith the Fifth Amendment, is cl ear--" 

See also, Highl and v. Russell Car & Snovr Plow Co., 279 U.S. 253 (1929). 
(119) Fiel d , op . it. 27.1 : · 

"Th d "'claration of an em r r,ency is of importance o:.1ly 

a<.> showin " that the cond.itions obtn.ining in i n tra a t ou riness a r affe cting i nt e r r. tate bu ~. iness to an unusuC'l egl ee , 

to such a decre e that the whole, or a major pa rt, of comme r ial a tivity mu t be subjec~ed to national r egulation in 

order to save interst8te commerce . 11 

(120 ) Comm nt , 11 Nati onal Recove ry Code Assessments 11 , 44. Ya l e L w 

Journal 849 (1935 • 

(121) Institut e of Patent Ae;ents v . Lockwood , A. C. 347 (House of 

Lo rcLs , 1894) . 

(122 ) ~i ll is , op . c i t ., 67 . 

(123) Comment , supra n. (147 ), 854. 

(124) Infra , XV. 

(125) :cCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316,410 (J.~!9); Sl aught e r 

House Ca s e s, 16 W~ll. 36, 64 (1873); and Smith v. Kansas City Titl e & 

Trust Co . 255 U. S. 80 · 

( 126 ) Cool ey v. Board of Wardens of Philadelphia , 12 Ho·w . 299 ( 1851); 

Willard v. Presbury, 14 Yvall. 676 (1971); The Head ~i cney Case s , 112 U. S. 

580 (1884) ; Hagar v. Recla~ tion District , 111 U. S~ 701 (1884 ); Cha rlott e , 

Col umb i a & Augusta R. R. Co. v. Gibbes , 142 U. s. 386 (1892); New Yorl~ v. 

Squi l~e , 115 U. s. 175 (1892 ); Morgan's L. & T. B.y. and St eamship Co . v. 

Loui siana, 118 U. s. 455 (1886); Patapsco Guano Co. v. North Carolina 

Boar~ of Agriculture, 171 U. S. 345 (1898); St. Louis Consolidat ed Co a l 

Co. v. Illinois, 185 U. s. 203 (1902); McLean v. Denver & Rio Grande Ry. 

Co., 203 U. s. 38 (1906); St. a~y s Franco-:American Petroleum Co. v. 

West 'Z;i nia , 203 U. s. 183 (1906 ); Red 11 C11 Oil iVI 8Ilufacturing Co . v • . 

Boar& of Agriculture, 222 U. S. 380 (1911); Savage v. Jone s, 225 U. S. 

501 (1 912 ); Standard Stock Food Co . v . Wright, 225 u. s. 540 (1912); 

Kan sas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Ro a d and Improvement District, 256 u. s. 658 (1921). 

(127) Legal Research Memorandum, 11 The Legal Sanctions upon which 

assessment p rovisions in code s of Fair Compe tit ion Rest, August 6, 1934 , 

127 : 

9838 

11 The re a r e numerous sta tutes providing that c erta in expenses connec t ed with a particular industry or business shall 

be borne by members of that industry or business. Thus, the 

expenses and salari es of the members of t he Federal Fa rm Loan 

:i3oard are paid_ by banks deriving benefits from activities of 

the Boa rd (Act of March 4 , 1925, c. 524 , s. 3, 12 U. s. c. A. 

657) . The Federal Reserve Board may assess member banks in 

order to pay its expenses (Act of Dec . 23, 1913, c . 6, s. 10 , 

12 U. S. c. A. 243) . The Federal Coordinator of Railroads 

must be paid in pa rt by the carriers (Act of June 16, 1933, 

c . 91. 73rd Congress lst Session,) 11 
- 306-

(128} Legal Research l\; emorc::ndum, supra, n. (154) • 

. . 

(129) Executive Orcl er No. 6678, and Administra tive Orde r X-3,.. . 

(130) Note, 2 Ge.org e V!ashington Law Review 436, 4'::4 (1934). 

(131) 21 Wall, 73 (1875). 

(132) In International Railway Co~ v. David_son, 257 U. s. 506 (1922 ) 

it was held that the Secretar,y- of the Treasury did not have the pon er t o 

force the comp any to -pay the compensation of Custom Officials on Sunday, 

although he did have the pOTier to issue special permit for immedia te unloading of conveyances, and also to make rules and regula tions as to su ch 

bridges. 

In the testimony of NRA's General Counsel, Donald Richberg , 

bef ore the Senate Finance Committee, he repudiated mandatory or compulsory 11 assessments.ll 

' . 

9838 
~ 7-

_JOT3S TO t.APTERJCrV 

(l) Dtnf a !d ·<rl1it.;..,id·" , 11 :0~.;;1 ""'"' ta Potee t['." ~o1 Fott.. ;, t 'Jl;lc ·; .:ci : 

A :a:-i of A···L.:ric'"'n Co .. ..,ti tu tjollal 1'"' ' 11 , 1.4 Col.·n£ll. 1 .'"' •. , f')u·~r:t..:rl lG8 

(192Cl); --rillouO'l .... by , Co1 nti tutio of t ,. Uni t- C. st~t ~~ . 2d cri ., III, 

l63G . 

( J ) Al10tl1t.:r form is 11 d l e.e;a tis non no test deltJgarl.! 11 • 

(3) Gor-.,in , _Twilight of the Suureme Court (Yale University Preas 

19 3 .: ) , l '10- 146 . 

( ~) Duff and ,'.L1i teoi de , 11 Del egata Po tes :::~.s 1. nn Po t est Dele.r;ari , A 

Ma.;;:i;~ of A e1 ican onsti tuti onal La ··· 11 , op . cit.: 

50 : 

9 838 

11 •: e - - l ea r n that the maxi m whi ch was to ser ve 

the tur n nf Coke , to CO il1."Tland. the r espe ct o f Ken t and 

Sto r y , and to l eave i ts mar k on t he Conn ti tuti onal 

:1i s t ory of the Un i te d Sta t es, owes its o rig i n , and i ts 

vogue i n the co.nr.:on lavi to t l·1.e ca r cl e s sncso of a. sixt een t l1 cen tu r y p r int e r. 11 

?racton , De Legi bus e t Consue t udi n i bus An.:·liae ( Yal e 

Uni versi t y P r ess 1 922 ) II, 1 5.7 

(5) Duff an-::1

. ~: eside , o:p . c it., 173 

(f) Carr, ele~P.te . Le!r;..: i sl ati on ( Ca:1bri d["8 Unive r c:- i , Pres:: 1 921) ; 

11 I f we canno t ;.~.anc the 6a rli est i nst anc e of del e -

r:atio· , we can at l east say ;;"hi ch 'Wls t he moc t strikin:.; 

of ear ly i nst aaces. I t i the St F.ttu t e of Pro clana t i ons 

pass eo. in 1539 , t 11e 1 Ac t t!1 ~". t P r o cl a:11a tions .Lade by t~-e 

Ki ng sr.t"l.ll be ob ev~c. .' The !11ai n p r ovi si or. of t11i s l ex 

r e-;i a V\8.s that w .. tic~l cmpowe :c e d Henry VIII with the advicE; 

of a majotity of s Counc il , to set forth oc ~na ions 

unde r suc:1 penal ti es and pai nn and o f such so rt as t o 

Ei s :·.'; ajest y ro0. l1is sa.i d. cour. c i l nhoul d s eom ne c essary 

and. r equi si te , t he sai d p r o cl ama tions t o b e ob eyed, 

observe d. .,_nr-:.. .. k~p. as t hough t hey wo r e made by Ac t o f 

Parli amen t unl ess t he Ki ng' s uighness dispens e with any 

of tl.1em U."lde r h i s ·-reat seal. I n addition t o various 

sect ions as to the penal ti es and p ro ce du r e u nde r the 

Ac t, the r e is r-'1. clEmse wh ich p r escribes t ilR. t every 

s:1eri ff o r o the r office r to whom s ~. es ' s p r o clamat ions are dire cted, shall, wi t : .. in fo urteen days p r o cl a i m 

tne'11 i n market- towns, o t he r t owi.1s o r v illages and po.st 

t11em u p 1 on onl y u p o:.1 pl a c es conveni en t! the r e i n . Here 

~1en a r e all ~le el e.:1ertts of a dele ;F.tt i on o f l egi slative 

powe r by Parliament and the el emen t s of a Rul es Publica -

ti on Ac t as wel l . And , ?.s a s c conct exam~ol e o f del e ·a tecl 
- 303-

1 e gi sla t ion from the same r e i gn , thr e e or four years 

l a ter t he r e w~ s a noth e r Act o f Pa rli amen t--of less no tori e t y Fl.nd of narrower applica tion , yet e qual l y si gnifican t 

f or ou r purp o se--whi ch emp owered. t lle King to alter 

1e l aws of Wale s ancl to make l a v1s and or di nance s 

f o11 l1Jal cs, euch al t eration s an( Ll C) W l aws a nd ordi nances 

t o be publishe d w1cte r t h e great s eal and. to be of as 

e:;o od st reng t h , virtue a:.n.C:. e f fec t a s i f made b~T ~ e authority of Parli amen t. 

"This latter Ac t r eme..i n e d on 1e st<". t u te book for 

n earl y a century . Tl1e s tatu te of P :.: ocl a.la.t i orl s '."!as re -

peal e d as soon a s Eenry di e d. 11 

(7) Garwi n , op. cit. l40-145 quote s from Lo ck e, Tr eatise on 

Civil Gov e r n::.lent: 

11 Thc legi slature ca nnot transf e r G p owe r of 

mak: i ne; laws t o any oth er :v::mds , for it be i n g but a 

~el gated power fro1u the .6~ople, they who h a 7 e i t cannot 

pa ss it ove r to o thers." 

( 8) I b id, op . cit., 140 -14 6. 

( 9 ) Ibid, op. cit .. , 14 3. 

Goodnow, The Principl es ,of the Admi n i s tra tiv e Law of the 

Un ited S-ta t es ( Nei!v York 1 905), 42 . 

( 10 ) All en , Bureaucra cy Triurrrohan t, (new Yo rk, 1 9 31); i!lill is, 

Pa rli a::.1ent a ry Powe rs of English Go ve rnment De-pa r tiilent s ( Ha r vard Unive r- : 

sity Press 1 932). 170: 

":Parliamen t has - -- - empowered a department 

to make a code , a Crema tion Cod.e , an Air Code , a :r:i ghwo.y Co dG ~" 

See ~e re~ation Act, 190 2, 2 Ed. 7, c. 8 , se c. 7 ; t he 

Air <'. tio n Act, 1 9:].. 9 , 9 Geo. 5, c . 3, se c. 1 ; t h e ~.i ot r Car Ac t , 

1 903 , 3 Eel. 7, c. 36 , s.oc s . 2 and 7 ; Road Traffic Ac t , 1 930 , 20 & 21 

Geo. 5, c . , s e c. 45 . Of cou r se , the e x t r eme exampl es of exe cutive 

gov e r n1.1ent we r e the De f en s e of t he Real m Acts . Here , of course , t~-e 

i nhe ren t poyre r of the na tion to mee t the eme r gency- of VJa r .. tust be 

r e co gni zec1 B.s di s tin guish i nc: these Acts f rom t he ~1 er s men tionec .. 

Em·rove r , examples o f g r eat del egations are founc~. i n our Fi rst 

Co nc;re s c: , . rrllere some t hirty -th re e del egati ons we r e made : Comer, I,egi sl a -

tive Fu11c t ions o f Na tio:nal Admi n i stra ti v e Au t hority (New Yo rk 1927 ) , III, 

52- 5 5 : 70 . One of th9 mo st bro a d was: 

9 838 

11 The ch i e f of each depa r t ment vas authori ze d 

t o ' p r escribe rul es a n d r e gul a ti on s , no t i n consi st en t with law, for the gove r runGn t o f his Departmen t, 
- 309-

the conduct of its office r~, the distribution of it"" 

bu~iness, the custody , usc , and p r eser vation of the 

records, papers and pr01)e rty appc rtainil g thereto. 111 

( 11) :Iart, The Ordinance-MF.Ik ing Power, of the Pre sidon t of 

the United Stat s (Baltimore , 192o ), 1 2?. 

(1 2 ) For example see , ~arpen cr , 11 Constitu tiono.li t y of the 

Natio:aal I nci.ustri a l Recovery Act end the Agricultural Adjustment Act , 

11 

7 out~lern Californi a Law ~cvic w 125 (1934); Bleck 11 Thc National I ndustrial Re cove ry Act and the Del egati on of Legislative Power to t he p-~esident,11 19 Cornell La·vv Quarterly 389 (19 34); Dickinson , 11 The Majo r I ssues 

Prese:1tec1 by the I ndus trial Recovery Act , ll 33 Cclumbia La.w Review 1095 

(1 9~3 ), 1100; and Rashbaum , 11 Del egation to Administr a tive Agen cies under 

the ~~ .I. ?. .A. and the AAA , 11 '19 st. Louis Law ?..eview 46 (1 933). 

(1 3) ~a:nnan v . Southard, 10 1M1eat , 1, 25 (1 -:~ ). 

(l !~ ) a~gs , li The Constitution EJnd the Recovery Le f;isl a tion ; 

The Roles of Document, Doctrine a n c1 Juc1ges,tt l University of c:1ica;:.;o 

1 !01.'"' ?..evie v1 665 (1934), 673 . 

(15 ) Supra n. 1 2 ; and. Cheadle, ttDel egat ion of Legislative 

Funct i ons, 11 27 Ya le Lav,r Journ al 892 (1918). One writer entitled an 

article ll Delegation of Lcgi sla ti ve Powers: The Decadenc e of a Func:i.amen t al Consi tu tional l\,axim, 37 ~~a:.~va d Law Review 1118 ( 1927). 

(~6) Supra, I I, 3 . 

~!. e court i n Ficl G., v. Cl e.rk , l43U. s. 649 , 694 (1 392 ) 

quoteD. v1 i t~~ approval tr.1 e following: 

111 The legislature cannot delegate its power 

to make a law; but it can 111ake a law to delegate 

a power to de termine some f a ct or state of things 

u:;::>on which the l aw makes , or intends to make , its 

own action dep end • . To deny this would stop the 

wheel s of gove rnment . Thero are many thing s upon 

which v.!i.se and useful legislation must depend which 

cannot ~e k nown to 'the law-mak ing poV\€r, and must, 

e1erefo r e , b e a subje ct of in qui r;y out side of the 

halls of lep· i sla tion. t tt Lo eke 1 s Appeal, 72 Penn, 491. 

(17) Comer, Legi slative Functions of National Adminis trative 

Aut~::.o ri ties, (Jew York, 1927), 30, 36; and Carr, op. cit., 10, 15-1 8 

i~l usti'E'.t es t~"le ~arne n roble,11 i n Enr;lan · . The re this type of legi sl a -

tion 1s :;,·e::ferr cd to as 11 arpoi n t ed day clausell legi slation . Exampl es 

are founC. in: Car :;o of t h e Brig Aurora, 7 a11d1 382 (1813); Fielci.. v . 

Clark , ~2 U. s . 649 (1892); ano. !~::mrp ton v. U. s ., 276 U.S. 394 (1 928) . 

( 1 8) 3uttfi e ld v . Strane_:!.an , 192 U. S. 470. (1 90·..:); Union Eric'.-.;e 

Co. v . U • . S. 204 . S. 36'-~ (1~07); ~·i kinley . v. U. S ., · 249 U. s . 397 

(1 919 ); U. S. v. Grimc:1.uC'., 220 U. S. 506 (1910); e.nc'. U. S. v . Shr eve"JOl't 

Gr e.i n c>.n/. =:levato r Co., 287 U.S. 77 (19 32 ). Willis op . cit., 106-115 

offei's ~~ e sug _se stive term 11 Skel eton Legislation" which is the coun te:..·po.i't 

98 38 
- 310-

of this ty9e as used in 3nGland. 

( l 9) :E'reund, Aclmini s tr::>.t i vo ?orrers over Persons e.nd Pro:9erty 

(Univ e rsity of Chicago Press 1928 )_, 218 : 

11 It can b e understooC:_ that even so ba.si c ::1E.t t e r a.s 

t l:e ~_J rL ci e of ve.lu::-.tion sho·o.lG. be referreG. to e. cor:rnission, 

e.ltholJt,h t he c".i fficu lty of t he me.tt3r i s reflect ecl_ in t 11e inconclusi vene ss of t he ~ele~atio~ ; h opever, it can~o t be rega_::.~cl ed e.s other the,:n an e.nome l y tha t ConE;ress shou l d }1_ave 

left it to the Interst e.t e Commerce Cor::rrnission to C'.eter:mi ne f or 

tl1e fut ure t he :percen t a.ge r e.te of a fe.ir ret1.,_rn , t eill_"•?e red 

t ho"llf;h the cle lebation V"!B.S by t :i1e initie.l fixing o f the r ate b y 

Con[ress itself, t~Tus set tine e. s te.ncle.r o_ for t l:e r_;u i d.ance of 

the Commission. A ~) oi1 t of such vi t a. l rit~) ar .. c e O"Ll£ht to be 

me.t ter of c: ire ct statutory ::cet:,l..U?·.-tio:n. It is 2lso G.oubtf"L:l 

vhe t he r t he e.bove ut:; ce stec~ :9rincip le of c,ele;atioE can be 

ve rifieCI. in t he ma tte r o f il:i. ( e. cco-~m ti . IT! _o_merica, 

both in the Inte rsta te Commerce Ac t a.nc: in Hew York, t he1·e is 

out e.ncl out delege.tion to t he commission, "~Ji•h il e i n 2:ng l and 

there is e.n e labora t e }:J roce cl.ure fo r t he s e t t lement o:f syst ems, Oil t he basiS of CO llS"lJ.l t e. tion Vi i t h r )resen t a ti ve 1J oc't.i es • 

The r e l a tion of some )he.se s of a ccounting (a.llo c:-.tion to 

:•?rill ci:y al or income ) ce.n h2.rdl :;r ·be rego:.:ccl.ed E' -p urely tech!"lical or non-controve rsial, nor i s it too obsecure for clear 

fo r mul o=: tion; e.ncl. in the 2.bsence of fr eedom o f ) riv?.tc cho ice , 

direct ste.t·o.tory reE,t.1l e. tion mic;ht se em a:;~propl ie . It may 

be, hor1eve r, the.t e.ft e r the ~} ctice of de l ec,e.tion :i.1as once 

become ?.s f irmly este.blishev. e.s L1 the regul a tio:-:.1 of _ yub lic 

u tili ties, its continued 2.nc-:. even eX1_)2.nc.ec. e.~ . .:r:;:> lic-3.tion will 

corae to }pear ~) oli ticall;r :::)refe r able to t he l) e rils of 

se ctiona lly influel!.c e(l_ l egi sle.ti ve i n terventioll; thus the 

re.ilroa.d comoa11 ies t hemse lves o·o•Jose the substitution o f - -- statutor;y fo1~ B.C:rninistre.tive hancllin6 o f the lon6- a.nc.- shortlie.ul ~'j roblem (defea t of the Goocl.i11g Bill i:1 1 926 ) ·" 

Such ) Owe rs e.re g iven to t he Ta riff Cormni ssion U.11C Gr the Flexible 

Tariff Ac t, The Fede r a l Tr"'.c"'.8 Cornrni ssion, ::me;_ tho Interste. te Comr.1e rce 

CoEu-.1ission. It is more e. ques tion of e.dequa cy of t he stand:... rds, i nfr£> .• 

J.e.il:coad Com.rnission Ca ses, : 116 U. S. 307; The iiinne sote. ?..Pte Cases, 30 

U. S. ::_',:)2 (1 913); Intermounta in Rr- te Cases, 234 U. S. ~76 (1914 ). 

See No te, "The Delegation of Feo.eral Lebisle.tivo Pov1e r to Jxecnti ~e 

or Acl.mi u istre.tive Agencie s ," 31 Licl:i gan La,:.r Rev io':.r 786 (1 °33). 

(JO ) Ibi c. , 84 exoresses t l:..e o·")il:.io"1 · th:;;. t whore. t l1o · suble€,;isle.tio.l 

invo 1 vos medi a tion mo re t han }~)e rti ze , t J. w c':.o l ege_ tion i s• not _pro:9er. 

S8 38 
-311-

(21) Ca g o of 3ri.; ;..uror , 7 Cruncl1 382 (1813) ; ~e_~0:q_~Ll Q.o_r?~i- --~o_l'l 

Cases , 11· U. s. 307 (1836); ~:i..Q.lLl v . G_l_<:_:[1~ , 143 u. s. 6·19 18<J.~); 

?:;a :;n v . :B'nrmer 1 Lonn c=md Trust Cm "lan_y , 154 U. s. 362 (1 393) ; 

·ri~J,.lo=~l; , .=-:.: =~?=~t~ : -165 -u.--s.--526-(isiJ··i)-; ;~c_GJlQ).:cl v . I:q_~j,_~ '{.J,.ll_e_ -~ ~" -­

~ti)_e __ ?~ , 183 U. s. 483 (1902); 3\lt:\!._i(lci v . S.i_l:C'.rL~1lQll , 19~ U. S. 470 

(190 t~ ); ;[_[ls.l~s_£l!_ v . ;;as_~qc~.-:.~s..~t_t__ , 19'7 u. s. 11 (1 90t)); lE2..\~ Y_q_r)£ f2..Jf_:i.::_ l 

~i_b_~n"Qail v • . Y.illl :Q..~ _Q.ar:.r_, 1'J.9 u. s. 55;J (190G); :~i_Q1l'L.;.all_(2e_llt r:.~l __ :::t •. _~ .-

v . r£.~r , 201 U. S. 245 (1906); lillt.Q.ll :q_r;_i:d..g;,~ _QQ.. v . 1,I._.Ji., 204 'J. S. 

364 (1 907 ); EQ.llO_l_~l~-~~"Qi_ct__':(l:_ql~.i-~_ Co . v . }iB;;\.l~i_t_l... 211 U. S. 282 (1908) ; 

Harri'"JC'Jl v. Interstate Corc.merce Comr:.ission , 211 U. s. 407 (1908) ; 

I:noxvi1le :-Kl;Ox;i-lle~-\V;t~e-l:-co- ,--212u --s. 1 (1 909 ); l_nt_~r..llt_at_~ _Q T!".: 

~e-l:ce--Co~ .~iss·~;-;:-I-lii;;o-ic--C;ntrc.l ?.. ., 215 u. s. 452 (1910); 

~QllQ.l~ ~~i~l~~izi~ci.£~ c.~ --,; :-J} :~~.- --216--u~-s:· 177 (1 909) ; 1J.. __ fi· v. Q:r:~~~~~ , 

220 u. s. 506 (1910); El.ltJ cl~l..nlli~ .. Q.Q. . v. ~)~iiTI~~!l, 223 u. s. 605 (1912 ); 

eQ.. _~ Q. ~_Qll J .. J!'l:·.-C.<L v • . §.::.:ct_ _q_:t:__.:£:r:ic~lt.~E_§. , 225 U. s. 380 (1912); 

lllt.. Eil ~t_C!t..Ei_QQ.Iarrl~~Qg_ _Q.Qr!}.1J.!l§.!i lQ.ll v • . Goq_clr..:lc)L'I~~I1~.t~_Q.Q.., 224 U. S. 1 94 

(1912); TL~J~l~T}~~Q.i~-~~t_~_Q~~~~ ' 230 U. s. 352 (191 3) ; ~o~~~y~~~~-~ 

.T~§.: p£ill.Ei.J~~ R._ v . g_:r._~~t t, 231 U. S. 298 (1 913); l:l;z.f9.o_~th_Q.~_Q'2_ · v . 

E._~rlll§Xl'l[~.ll:La, 232 U. s. 531 (1914) ; J_nt§.lJ!!,C?..lEl~'!t!l ?..~t_~ _Q.g.§.~S, 234 U. s. 476 (1° 14 ); :~~~-qe'! J~iJ.: .. l!l_Q.Ql:QQ.l::_~t_iol1 v • . Ind~~~r:~ lJ~.C?.. !!!~s_s_t,Q.T} , 236 U. S. 

230 ( 1915); Yir!it..J.:cat..iQ.l1Cll :J.:an!s v • . Unio;}_Trust__<;,Q.., 244 U. s. 416 (191'2); 

S§.l~Q..~i'I£~_:Q.r:aftJ:: a§..§.§. , 245 u. s. 366 (1918) ; _\lQ;ll§. v. _i;Fz.£Z , 246 U. S. 606 

(1918); .Ug.KinlEi.Y v . u. s., 249 u. s. 397 (1919) ; QhiQ.._Y.e).:.lQ..YJ!g_t_~rJlC?..· v . 

:1~Il-~'LQ.Il_Jo:r:o~l}, 253 u.s. 287 (1920) ; _Av~nt v . J.Jr.i_t,§.<i._~t_at~§. , 266 u.s. 127 (1924) ; U. ~ v • . ~l iqhk<ll}LQ.~ti<iU9..J2eJ!l llt_Q.Q. ., 270 U. S. 521 (1926 ); 

Uni_t_~C!Jit_ate..§. v. G..h§. iQC!.~ JJ~Q.V.:llclC?.1~ 1Q11. J... J_l1Q. ·, 272 u. s. l (1926); }IC!!TI2.iQ.11 

& _Q.Q.. v • . llrri.,.teQ. ~t_~, 276 U. s. 394 ( 1928 ) ; .1Te\_Y _'IQ.:r.]& _Q~ll:t.r:.~l-S~q,-ql:~ t..lEi§. 

Q._Q.:cQ.. v . ~S.· , 237 u. s. 12 (1932); and Ei<l~:r.~l_::jq,(1:i._Q.J~.mnrn i_!iQiou v . 

11~l~Q.· l.J3 :os. , 289 U. s. 266 (1933). 

See also .Q.t.n.c_inn<'iii-l... ..\I:Ll_r.2in£t_Q.Il_R. __ . v. .Q.Q.' .!r~i-~~.i_o_l1~:r:~ _Q.t_Q.li_1l t .. Q.l1 

Q.ctlJA.t_-_:, 1 Oh io St a te 77 (1 852); JI!_..Ji. v • . }lru::f._i_§].d , 170 . Fed . 43 (1909); 

.C:[.f'':.lJ.ti v. :i.~ icJlQ..l§. , 1 F. (2d) 33 (1 924); r.i.~& CQ. . v. ;Bak.J21_itE?.,_Q.Q.JJ2•, 

39 F. ( 2d) 247 (1930 ); and )!):i~c_llel_:_C'~_Q_q_ . v • . E.l tii}.g, 60 F. (2d) 711 (1932) . 

Cousens , 11 T. e Delee;ation of Federal Leg islative Po1ver to Ex ecutive 

Officials, 11 _33 J..;._~c)tt..ga}l J:~.~vy __ ~~~~~Y~ 512 ( 1935) treats tJ.1e cases . 

Comer, k€;..~~ ~t_i v~ J)mst io_n.~ o_:(_)T?:,t_~q_T}.§:l ___ A<iiTI;i}!,~s_~~t'2.~i-~~ -Ji-q~Aox.i_t_z 

(\Te v York 1927) , 212-219, 223- 232, 237- 238. The aut:·1.0r discussed t :i1e 

Plant Quar antine Act of 1912 , 37 Stat. 315 (1912) ; t h e Grain Standards 

Act, 39 St at . 482 (1916 ); lJaval Stores Act, 42 Stat . 1435 (1923) ; and 

the P a ck ers and Stockya rds Act , 42 St a t . 139 ( 1921) . 

(22) il~ -~:f.i.lli]l.£_Q..Q. . v . &em., 293 u. s. 388 (1 935) . 

(23) : :r. Jus t ice riolmes in !ra1·r iman v • . I Ilt.~l:~t_C!_t_§. _Q.o_rQ!Jl.e_r:_c!?_ 

Q.o_rnruis..§.i9.ll, 211 0. s. 407 , 41 8 (1.908); --

9838 

"Whethe r it (Congress) could delegate the po1.ver 

(to embark on g eneral inquiries), if it p ossess es it, 

we also leave untouched, beyond rema r k ing that so 
- 312-

un c1ualified ·a dele .o.;e.tion vrould present t i e const.i tutional 

cJ.ifficul ty in. 'mo st acut .e f o r m. " 

(::V.: ) 1 434 U.S. 649 (1 892) . 

( 2S ) onongahela Brid.g;e Co. v. U. S., 216 U. S. 177 (1909 ) . 

( 26) ~u. tu l Film Corpora tion v . In:lu s tri a l Som. :s ion, 2 36 

u. s . . : zo ( 1 915) . 

( .;··r) _,ew York Central Securities C6ro. v. U. s., 28'7 U. S . 

12 ' .2t:, ( 1 0 32 ) . 

(. ~~ ) 266 u. s. 1 27' (1984). 

( 2S ) 2 72 U. S. 1 (1926). 

( 30 ) ·.~a ite v. a~Y , 246 U. s. 606 (1 918); 1?1'illoughby, Con -

stitutional LL'}Tv of t he United St a t es ( li:ew York 1929}, 1568 -1570 offe 1·s 

an e~::) an c, ti n for broad dele ·a t ions founc . in t L :e of war . I n ~1e 

exercise of such povrers Con::;r ess h as been a llowed to rnc:ike a nu.11be r of 

unusual s tc;\t u tory p rovisi ons , SU Cll ,"'.,S COilfisca tion" act's , :n r ice Te ;ul 2.-

tion, ll(. e commande e ring of s:. i-os , factory "O r oducts, t el e :; ra::! l 2lL. 

i'·iiilway' -1-ineB., 

( 31) :Buttfield v. stranphan s 192 u~ s. 470 (1904) . 

( 32 ) ?..ay and Wi enke , " Hot Oil on UncharteG. Seas· of Del egat ee\. 

Po weTs, 11 29 illinois 1021 (19 35 ) 

( 03 ) ~'Tickersham, 11 dele0;ation of ~o we r to Legislate," ll Vir-

,a.; inia Lc,w ?eview 183 ( 1925 ); and Note - 11 Validity of Del egation of ?one l'S 

uncl.er P.e covery Act;" 1 9 Iowa Law Review 583 (19 34); and Freund, o·_. ·::it., 

211: 

"There i s t he r e co gni tion of t ile :';en e ral p rin ci p le 

t ile?. t the 1 egi sl a ture :·Jay not d9l e ga te i ts 1 e:o; i sl a ti ve 

p owers to the noint of bd ~a ; on ~1e othe r nd 

t > ere is t he fact of an ex tensive -p r ac tice of delega.tion . 11 

Duff t' c~ "Vlli te s i G.e, op. cit., 1 91 --192 , ?rofessor ·\:.i tesic,_e co.:clu.'.es 

t ... :2.t: l. J.JG " isl a tures can't abdicate or (. ele ';e.te l e _·isl2tive power . 

2 . St . .-._tu t e s be come effective u p oD a con tin er~c y "'.:ce ~1 ro:ne r. '3 . Lec;;i sl a t u r es C('.l1 0.e l e ga te powers not essentially l e s islRtive .r ich the:- :1i ·;~- t 

~1e .: se ves exerc ise ; a nd 4 . Lec;isl a tures may ',:r a n t exten sive no ;1 e:;,:s of 

loca l sel f - :; overnrc) en tto: mu ni cip alities ;:;tnd other politica l subdivi sio;,1s. 

( 3·n 1'ii clcers:1arn , on .· c it. suc.;_;:est s t :.1e fo llowi n:.':- in a wellco llsi C::.c:ce( on0. sc!.1.olarly a rticl e , t hat i s unu sual i n not follo w·i ng t~l e 

t a cl: ac".o:? te c

1

. b y ·,110st writers: 

First. The subjec t :na t te r b e one t h a t i s wi t __ Ll 

9838 
t~c le~islativc power, ----

secor~d. T c lcgi~lature 1mr. t not aodicf'ltc its O'.m 

,,owe r , but must uct , - rms t announce the 1")01 icy or , in 

ot. cr words, xnrcc :- o.mi. clcarJ. ;y cf~.nc ~1 c lc .e; i~lativ e 

niJ.l or inten tion , t.:.:us e r. t -..bl i shin:, t .1. e gc11cral rule . 

Third. The -cower ' Gle"'· .t ed. 11ust oe ·;ri thin t~1c 

lii:li ts oi' t~l.C o"'oject to be effe cted . 

Fourtl1. Tl1e ~·:wasures tetke11 t~~ereun ::'.e r 1.1ust be rec -

sonabJ.;y Cl.e i ::.necl to 1.CCOlil'"'lish the le.JiSl'"'tive will . 

?rob"bl··; no co:ut ·to,_lld upl1olcl C1 LJ iz a·~re o:c Uilreason-

~b le re uire:n e:1 t. 

ift~. . i·uc1:. wj_ll de')eno upon _the court' E. ovvn 

vie·ws of tl1e ncce siti es anC. require;:lents of tie itUD. tion, of .L"' needs of t:1e community. But , in this 

rc·spe·ct, t~1e courts ~l .v-e c-::or'Yl a di ~posi ti on to be 

libe1·al . 

Sixtil . Fenal ties .nu-·t be -~ ipose ... l. b ] t:~e 1 ·3 i sl_:1.-

tive and not by t!.l e g_, c}m inistre.tive body. 

Dele:nt ~ons of rame r to le islRte falling it hin 

t~les e rules a re liJ.:ely t o be un.lelcl. 

( 35) Government ' s ri e7 in Sch~ hte r v. U. s. , 119 . 

(36) : .I.R.A., T1tlc I, Se ction 3( a ). 

( 3'7) S'J.p ra n . 35 . 

(38) ~-:: .r. R.A., Title I, Section 1. 

T~e possi ble stanO..;:-.r d.s embodie0. i n t :-..e "Declaration 

of Policy 11 ·--ere divi\\led in ;. very e f fe c tive manner i n the Brief for t~1e 

'Sc!le·c l.t :c :Srot~1e s in A. 1. A. Sche chter Corp ora tion v. U. s. ~. 1e ~:l~ief 

merelJ c: ~otes t!.! is porti on of the Act, but set::; each )art 0ff se,;L...:rc:.'c e J./ : 

9838 

11 It i n h e r eby de cl a.red to be :e :poli cy of Con-

::~res s to r emove obstructions to t' 1e ~·ee flow of 

i::.:tersta t e and fo r e i gn co:-J:.nerce '.'1111 i~h ten0 to climinisl1 

~ e ?.mount tl·.ereof; 

11 and to p ro vi de for t he ge11e ral wel fr> re 

11 by :p ro'110 ti ng t he o rF-;ani Ze.tion of inclus try for ~~e 

pur~ose of opel~<'- t.ii. ve· ~action c:mon.:_; trad8 groups , 

11 to induce and ma inta in ·uni tecl ac tion of l abor pnc. 

.'.1D..i.1age'men t u.nd.e r acleq_u.e. te ave r r..rnen tal sane tion s and 

su~;e rvi s ion , 
_-314-

11 to eliminate unfair compe titive prs.ctices, 

11 to promot e the fullest possible utilization of the 

present productive capacity of industries, 

"to avoid undue r e striction of production (exceut as 

may be tempora rily required), 

11 to increase the consump tion of industrial and agricultural product's by increasing purchasing p ower, 

"to reduce a.."ld reli eve unemployment, 

11 to improve standards of l ab,or, 

11 and otherwise to r ehabilitate industry 

11 and to conserve na tural r e source s. 11 

( 39 ) Panama Refining Co. v. ~yan, op . cit. n. ( 22) 

(40 ) Committee on inist er sl Powe rs, Report, Cmd. 4060 Presented 

by the Lo:rci Chancellor to Parli ament in April, 1932 , 31, sets forth the 

excep tional instance·s of del egation found in :8ngl a."ld : 

i. Instances of powers to legislate on matt ers of 

principle and even to impos e taxation; 

ii. Ip.~tanc s of povil'ers to amend Acts of Pa rliament, 

either the Act by hich the po ers are del egated, 

or other Acts; 

iii. Instances of poyge rs confe rring so wide a di scretion 

on a Minist e r, that it is almost i mp ossibl e to know 

what limit Parlirunent did int nd to impose; 

i v. Instances 'ivhere Parliament, without formally abandoning its normal pra ctice of limiting delegated 

powe rs, has in effect done so by f orbidd ing control 

by the Courts. 

(This can also be found quoted in illis, op. cit., 177.) 

Continues the Committee : 

11 When Pa rliament has r esort ed to any of them,it has 

gene rally been on account of the special nature of the 

subj e ct ma tter and 1JTithout i ntention of e stablishing a 

p r e cedent." 

( 41) Duff and Whiteside, op . cit., 195. 

(4;::) Duff and Whiteside, opl cit., 195-196 : 

9838 

"Fa r from be ing a principle of constitutional l aw, it seems 

tha t the maxim laa s little , if any, application to the distribution of 

the , .. ,ork of gove rnment by the l eg islature. The r e is no mention of i t 

in any Ame rican Constitution, nor any remot e r efe rence to i t . The 

'.7hol e c.octrine , insofar a s it is assert ed to be a principle 
- 315-

of co n t i uL~()rl[).l ln. '• ic ··milt unO /J t .1e 

t>.L nc~t )f' .~l i r>ti.o . , or i co t.!lc ro LL.uc t o f t.1e 

u.nvri t t ;r, con.:; ti to. ti o~ . 11 

( ..:3 ) :Breund: ou . cit . n . ,~ ); Fr unc\ , At.Uniiictrative 

Pow·e1·s ove:c F erso s ru .. cl rroDe. ty (Uni vorsi t y o f .:;iliC<1.C:O Fross 19 ~8 , 21 8 : 

9838 

11 WI..ile it is oxtrel!lely c:1ifficult to fonml.atc a 

~cne rally vplid p rinciple of lc iti ~a y of delegation , 

~:o obse rvation mry be haznrde a , t~at vith regard to 

major .11a tters ~1e appr opri a to s phere of dol e.;a t ed au thority is wh .... r e the r e are no con tro ve rt e d i ssues of policy 

or of opinion . rrence a liberal delegationrm.y b e expe cted, and is a ctually found 9 i n safety l egi sl ation , i n 

w~! icil al·:tangements of a purel y technical char a cte r ne cessarily play a con s1Jicuous part." 

( 4:-'~) Supra n . ( 23) • 

Duff a:1d ·:hitesid.e , op . cit., 1 69 : 

. 11 I n t~ r worcls, dele:::, <-'.t ed authority canno t be 

:..·e - del e;e:a te cl. unless e 1e re fs some r eason why it shoul d 

be . This is .:ot a l .oge t he r self-ev ident and m,i ght de t e rmine 

t:.e ur(~en of p ro r f in a particul a r ca se ; but a maxi m 

nei g:1ed down v i t h such Ct. lar-"e excep tion nce9.c strong· 

sup!Jort if it is to pose as ' a.prinial a:::l.om of juris-

:~ ru . 111 

( ~3 ) Fanf'1.!Jia Refi ni ng Co . v. Rvan, 293 U. S. 388 ( 1 935) 

(~7) s c_le c:lter v . u. s. 295 u. s. 49 .:. , 552 
0TES TO CHAPTER 'XV 

( 1 ) Su~q r a , X I I I • 

( 2) Freund , Admini str c ti ve Pon ers Ovsr Persons Emd. Pro-oerty 

(University of Ci:1icag o Press , 1928 ), 31 . 

11 In t J.1e ac:tminist r ation - - - "~.:h re control or determination constitutes a ~o rin pal or the e;-:clusi ve Ol.lsiness of the office (Patent Office , 

Federal Trnc1e Commission, Comui:.roll er of the Currez:cy , Interstat e 

Cor.1me rce Connission), t h o amo~J.nt of c.e t c rminati v e b~siness man fest ~r 

exc eeds the personal ca1?aci ty of the noninal l..lt lOr~ ty, necessitating 

sta ff assistance, with the effect t lJ.at the chief in : the main su~ervises, 

ancl -personally Cl.etermine s nl r j_n ezce-p t ione.l case s. 

nrn ot~wr vmrC:.s, tota l!.y cl.if:"' e rent me t h ods or urinciples of official 

action ·orovail in the tHo services: jncLic·inl a c tion is -personal , ~Thile 

administrc..tive C:_etermi nation is normall~,r , as a mat ter of fact, delegoted.. 11 

Willis, Parlie.menta r;y Powe rs of Eng:lish Govm:mncnt Departments 

(Harvarc3_ Un.iversity P~c ss 1 9'32) ·, ·5'2 : 

' 11 One o:: tl1e r e a.sons foJ., cle l ecc..ting 1') 0 ;-;er to make rul es to tho 

departments is, :put shortly, to enabl e q_1.1es tions of detail to be :removeo_ 

from the COl1sideration of Parliament ." 

(3) Wilco::;: v. J a ckson, 1 3 P e t. L.!:98 (1839 ) ·. 

( 4 ) Freun d , op. cit., 32: 

11 Provisions for clel egation va ry. Occasionally t hey r e l ate to the 

e ntire re.nge of poners G}:ercis.".ble U.'llde r a g iven statuta--so in s E' ction 5 

of the Tr<:'.cling nl th t h e Enem~r Act of 1917 (St'oehr v. llallace , 255 U. 

S. 239 ); in the a ct of Barch 3 , 1927, permitting del egati on by the 

cr tar · of the Treasury to the Commissioners of Customs a.no. of 

Prohibition; and in s e cti.on 82 ol' t no Enclish .:2ailna~rs Act of 1 921 , wh ich 

l')rovide s that t c:tnything by this act authori zed or requir e o_ to be done 

by the J3 oc;.r c1 of Trade may b e c.lonc by the Prc siclent or a Se cretary or 

Assistant Secretary or any '?erson aut h ori zed in that b ehalf by the 

Pr esi dent . t ]ut t lli s is uncomr(lon . 11 

(5) I b i d . 

( 6 ) ::: ~coo: -:: ings I n st i tut i o'n, Ti1 e 1~ t ional Recovery Ac3.minis tration - .An 

Analysis D.l1d An A;:ypraisa.l (1 935), J.l G: 

Sug[;ests t :1o.t t he r e-clort of :. e De:o1ty t o the Adninistrator 

actually bccm.1e f inal becausG its r c comm':mdati ons n er e usually carriec. 

out, t hat is, o.unlifications Dncl ste.ys L1 the ~: cutive order of final 

al')Droval ne:ce usuall y those ~c comli:; ndod by tho int erested. deputy. 

( 7) Title I, Se ction 2 (b) . 

9838 
(8) :~ 1 . .:- ::J.~r f'nd O:'.tr t .... n • 

(Broo1d n';s I t;t:..tut i n ~J' ,: ) .. . 

- .'17-

Ltf)'i sl C' ti on and Adjudica ion 

It i s r;u · ·· c t ... ,d. t . f.'.. t i~ n.1ti · "ro·1 t ho .... u t ho ·i 7<J tion in he 1 I , 

t her e ,..,<..' s ..__.cotv.o lis: t. o~r t l ,; P1· ·:·iu'Pt '~.- !.~~ c, a Sci ~:.· nco Advisory Boe.r d 

undi3r t L: ~n .i. o:1t:. l <:J rrch CoUJ'.G:i.l, r. ei~tr nl St ., ti ~: tic 1 Boa rd, a 

Fede r al Co o1~ ino. to r of Trrn·:lJOI t c.tion , a I\:H3e r a l -:ne ~;o ncy Administro.tion 

of Public Ol 1:s , an. E:-: ~,;: cutiv c Council , G. Publ i c Uo r\:s -:!; r;c nc~r :rousing 

Coruoratio:: , ::.nc-:.. c. ComModity Cr ""ci.i t CoruorP.tion : a Feder al Civic "fJor cs 

Administrc-.tio:1, a F.Jdc1·al Alcol-1 ol Control Adrrli nistrntion , f- t c. 

(9 ) Dca r i n.; , Hon an , Lor, in <:md. ~ron , Th e ABC of l:RA (Broo :ing s 

I nstitution 9~5) , 33 : 

s . .JD.l:in:; ~ tho J< .tional La·oor Boa r d., the aut 10rs say : 11 l.:) G:·:c.c t st&tus of t h.:; b oard in r el D.tion to t h e National 

:ct.c cover y A0Dini stration is i ll-ctc f ined . It is an a r,ency creat e d u nder 

the :ct.ecov ~r Act , but it is not an i nteg r a l :part of t !le· J.e cove ryAfun i ni stration • • • • • WlliltJ it is no t a part of t h e enf orceme nt 

machi ne:..·y of :~ , i ts no ~- i s in s oi1e doeree comnl en en t a r r to t hat 

of the Con-_1l ic-.nc o Di vision ." 

(10 ) T~1e follo1.'ri :1g is a list of ~: cuti v e orde rs d.ol eg<1ting 

-p or.e r unC..er t he :~ IBA: 

Cor:1. e-:1a .::i ng :90'"7er, · etc., ci.: l ego.ted to t he Presi dent-national 

I hdust ric.l ? e cove r y Ac t , June 1 6 , 1 933 : dn inist o1~ appoint e d and. 

authoriz ed to a.1n oint p c rsonnr3l on a t emp ora ry o a s i s, c or..duct h earing 

a nd. other '. or];: a s aut ho:ri zcd ncl ~ Titl e I ... :6 . 0. 6173; June 16, 1933; 

cr of A:; r icul t ure d el ega t ed certa i n p owe rs ( ezc ep t hours of 

l abor, H~:;o ) - Pr ~o t r f' s crve s lJ 0':7er to auprovo or di sapprove 

"9rovision of any code - E. · 0. 618? , June 26, 1 933; Se cre tary of Int e rior 

<3.e l ege t ec3. :90...-rers under Se ction 9(c)" "2: . 0. 6204: , Ju l y 14, 1933: Administre.tor au t .. ::oriz ed t o au-o oint ·oe r s onncl on a :o e rmanent basis, conduct 

hear i ng s, e:: e r cis c fun c tions a s of Ti tl e I, :n: c cpt a-y-or ova l of code s, 

!lla:cin' of o.g r ·eer:'le!lts, i ssuance of· l i cc- n s e s , and eL3rc i s c t he p o11ers in 

s e·c . 3 ( o ), 6 (c ) , 8 (b ): Se c. 9: Sec. 10- .0. 62 5-A, J u l y 15, 1933; 

d:i'TJ inis ti.~['to r authori zed to s tay a.p -)l i ca t i on of co de " - E.O. 6205-:B, 

July 15, 1933 ; continuing in eff ect n. rs del egat e d to Secre tary of 

Ag icult Ul E. 0. 6207, J u l y 21, 1933; Se cr e t a ry of I nt e rior to be 

adoinist:tatoi.' for t 1e Pc trol e'W:1 I ndus tTy - --=: . 0. 6260-A, Allc,nust 29, 1 933; 

Administ:;:c-.tor au t ho:ri zed to p r o scribe rul e s and r egulations for t h e PRA 

and codes a :1o. f oi.' u s e ·of "insi::;n ia, a nd to del ee;ate t o :9 ersonnel such 

p owe r s as iJay b e ci.eened ne c e ss a ry to accom,;lish t he :purp os e s of this 

orde'I' - := . 0. 6337, Oct. 14:, 1 933 ; Se cre t CJ.ry of Ag ricultur e del ee;at ed 

addi t i onel :1 rs- . 0. 634:5 , Oct. 20 , 1 933 ; Q~ ini tr tor empower ed 

t o ma.:e prel i :Jii:aT;y- L.ve sti -;a tio; s und e r · Se ction 3 ( e ) - ]j. 0. 6353, 

Oct . 23 , 1 9:33 ; Adninist r a-tor t o a dopt lJ.R. A. s eal and to app oint 

ti atio:~ cl e r k - ::. 0. 64:39, Nov. 1 8 , 1933: Ce rtif ication cl e rk 

auth ori zed. t o e:::c;.1ulify cop i 8s- A. 0. X-1, Hov. 20 , 1 933; Administrator 

authori zed to :Jod.i fy a nd g r a nt m:e1n-p t i on s from agr e eMents - :2 . 0. 644:3, 

lJov. 22 , 1933 : Ad:nini s tra tor ut ~1 ori zcd to auurove code-s , a mendments· and 

ezemptio;1 s, e::ce:pt codes for T!la j"ol~ indus tri e s and cocl..e s impos ed under 

Sec tion 3 ( d ), ::::; . O. 654:3-A, De c. 30 , 1 933 ; Delineation of authority of 

9838 
'!.70TES TO CtiAPTER }_V 

(2) Freunct, Admini str < ti ve Po n ers 0v '3 r Per sons and Pro-uerty 

(University of Ch icag o Fres e , 1 928 ), 31 . 

11 In t he aCl_mi ni str a tion - - - '\:he re control or de t e r mi nation const itut e s a :orinc i:pal or the m:cl u sive ousine ss of t he off ice (Patent Offi c e , 

F ederal Tra0.e Commission, Comu-troll er of t he Curren.cy , I n ter stat e 

Cor.1me rce Co;·uJissi on), t h o amount of c.e t c·Jr mi nati ve bu sine ss manifestl ;f 

ezc ee ds the p e r sonal ca•Ja ci ty of t he no:·1i nal au 10r~ t;y , nec e ssi tating 

sta ff assistanc e , with the effe c t t l1a t the chief in :the main u~e vises , 

a ncl -pe rsonally Cl.e t e r mine s r in ezce·r;>t ional case s . 

nr n t~ r -vmrds, tota l}_y cl.i f:<' e ren t me t h od s or u rincipl e s of offi c i al 

a ction ·or ovail in the t Ho s er vice s : juclici a l a c tion i s ~ers onal, rrhile 

administrc.tive c3_e t e rminatiol1 i s norm ~r , as a mat t er of fact , del ego ted.. 11 

Will is, Pa rl i<:'-men t a r y P01.'7e rs of English ov ::. lli1 m t Deu a r tment s 

(Harvaro_ Unive rsity Pre s s 1 9'32)·, ·5·2 : 

I 

11 One o:: t l1. e r ea.sons f o:c clel et;E',t ing p o ~e r to make rul es t o tho 

departments is, :put short l y , to e nabl e que stions of d.e tail t o b e 'f'emoved 

from the COl1.sid.er a tion of Pa rliament • 11 

( 3 ) Wilcox v. J a ckson, 1 3 Pe t. 4 98 (1 ~ 

(L.!:) Freun d. , op . cit., 32 : 

"Provision.s for d el ega tion va r y . Occ asionally t hey r el ate to the 

entir e r e.nge of p on ers e u...11der a given statuta--so in s e c tion 5 

of the Tr c,CI.ing nl t h t h e En em~r Ac t of 1917 ( St.oeh r v. Wall a c e , 255 U. 

S. 239 ); i n the n et of Ha rch 3 , 1927, p e rmi tti ng Cl.el egati on by the 

cr of t he Tre asury to the Comni ssioner s of Customs a no. of 

Proh i b ition; and in s e cti on 82 of' t no Eil{;lish :i\.ai lna3 s Ac t of 1 921, V7h ich 

}')r ovi de s that t o.nytl1.i ng by- t h is act author i zed or r equir ed t o be done 

by t he Boc;.,:r cl. of Tr a d e E1ay b e c.lono b y t h e Prosi clent or a Se c r e te.ry or 

Assi st a nt Sec r e t a r ;)r or a ny '?ers on auth ori zed i n t hat behalf by the 

Presi d ent.t ] ut t h i s is unc omnon.n 

(5) I b i cl. 

( 6 ) ::: l~o !-:: in s I n stitution, Tl1e :t··"'.t:i.onal Reco -er;y Adminis tra tion - .A:n 

Anal y si s c.:md An A-oura.isa.l (1 935 ), ll G: 

Su ~e ts t :u1t t he t of t > ..o De:9 1ty t o the Administ rator 

a ctuall ;y b e caue f ina l oe ce.usG its r c comrrl':mdc.tions n ..:. r e usually carriec. 

out , t 1nt is, q_u n.l ification s Pnct st e.y s L1 t he e:<: ecu t.ive order of fina l 

E11'J1Jr oval ue~ce usua lly t h os e :c e conr:wndod by tho i nt e r e sted. ~uty . 

( 7) Titl e I, Se ction 2 (u) . 

9838 
(8) ~ . .:'c':J.~r n.nd O:'.t·,nn . 

(Eroo1dn ~;s 

0~islction and Adjudication 

It is r.u ·< r>t,.:,d. t .1at sl.lti·' · f:r o· th0 t.Ut: o ·i7' tion in he lTI:ct.A , 

t her e ,..,<.,s vc;, t<.•.b li : . c ·b~' tL.~ P:i.' '~·ic1. ,"l t tl 1 l,.; 1. !.C, Sci ~;.· nc c Ac1visory Board 

under t!1.:- l~ot~ o:1c..l L;s0rrch CoUJ'.c:i. l , r. m~t:rrtl St:,tit:tic< l Board , a 

Federal Co- onhnator of Tr['.n•:,)ortc.tion , e.. :i'8L~e c--l -;ner~;en cy Administration 

of Public Uo:i. 1:s, ~il E:-:0cut ive Council , G. Public \lor1\. S ~Til0 p;o nc~r ~Iousing 

Coru oratio::, ~nc-:.. EJ. ComT'1odi t y Cr ""t.i t Co:ruoretion ; a Fede ral Civic Uorl-s 

Administr2.tio:1, a F0de:;.·al Alcoll-ol Co·1trol AdPlinistrn tion , r tc . 

(9 ) Dear in. :, Honan , Lor"in and. ~ron , The ABC of l:RA (Brool::ing s 

Institution 9~5) , 3S : 

Sn ... a~:ing o~ tht) N<: tion l La-o or "B oarcl. , t he aut:10rs say : 11 T~1o m:D..ct stE..-tus of t h..; board in r elation to th e National 

cov y Aili1inistra tion is i ll-defined . It is an aeency dr eat ed unde r 

the ~ecove:;.·~r Act , but it is not an int egr a l :part of t !le· _ e cove ryAfunini stration • • • • • Wl1i l v it is no t a part of t he enforcement 

machine:..·J of :"JtA, its \70 ~- is in sone do,;ree comnl enent a r r to that 

of the Con~; lic- 0 Division ." 

(10 ) T~1e follo'.7i:1g is a list of D:ecutive orde rs dclegD.ting 

poner und.e:r t he :TIB.A : 

Co r:1e-.Ja~ing :po"'rer , · etc., cl.2l egated to t he President-national 

hdustr i~l ?.e cove r y Act, June 16, 1 933 ; Adn inistrator appoint e d and 

authorized to alY)Oint rsonn r~ l on a t em:po r ary ba sis, cor..duct hearing 

anct other '. or);: as autho:..·i zed unctc :..~ Title I ... E. 0. 61 73·, June 16, 1933; 

cr tar~.- of :~ ri culture d el egc t ed certain p owe rs ( ez c ept hours of 

labor, ~7~~os ) ..... Pr<-= si dcm t r f' s e rve s uo':-rer to a-oprove or disapprove 

'9rovision of any code - E. · 0. 618? , June 26, 1 933; Se cretary of Int e rior 

del egeteo. :l_)oners under Se ct ion 9 (c)" . o. 6204, July 14, 1 933 ; Administra tor aut~1orized to auvoint ·.:>e rsonnel on a :o e rmane nt basis, conduct 

hearings, e::erc i s e f1.mct ions as of Titl e I, 3J:Cept o.:;rDr ova l of code s, 

!i1a~d g of ['.gr-e ene!lts, issuance of· l icc·nses , and eL3rcis c the poi7ers in 

Sec . 3(o) , 6 (c ) , 8(b) ; Sec. 9 ; Sec. 10-2 .0. 6205-A, July 1 5 , 1933 ; 

.Administ:r['tor authoriz ed to st~y a}Y)licati on of code s - E.O. 6205-B, 

July 15, 1933; continuing in eff ect on. rs delegat e d to Se cre tary of 

.Agricultur e - :C . 0. 6207, July 21, 1933; Se cretary of I nterior to b e 

adninist:..·ato:;.· fo r t he Pc trole'ur-1 I ndus tTy - j . o. 6260-A, August 29 , 1 933 ; 

Administ:..'<:.tol· authori zed to p r l)scribe rules and r egnlat ions for the PRA 

and codes a~1<l f o:;.· us e ·of 'insi:;n ia, and to delegat e to :-9 e rsonnel such 

-p owers as ;_w.y b e cleened nec e ssary to accom,;lish t he :pur pos e s of this 

order - ::::: . O. 6337 , Oct. 14, 1933 ; Sa cre t v.ry of .Ag ricultur e del egated 

additione.l ··? OHc rs- . 0. 6345, Oct. 20 , 1 933 ; A<i'linistra tor empower ed 

to ma:e p:rel i :.1il1.a::cy i nve sti ~tioi1s u nder· SPction 3 ( e ) - E. 0. 6353, 

Oct. 23 , 1933 ; Adninistrator to adopt U.R.A. s eal and to appoint 

certificati o:: cl e rk- . 0. 6439, Hov. 1 8 , 1933; Ce rtif ication clerk 

authorized to e::'-:eiTolify co-pi 8s- A. 0. X-1, lJov . 20 , 1 933 ; Administr ator 

authori zed to 7:1 0d.ify and g rant e::::emp tions from agreeMents - 2 . 0. 6443, 

:Jov . 22 , 1933 ; Adn inistrator aut~1orized to apnrove code-s , amendments· and 

eJ:emptio11s, e:::c ept code s for l!laj-o:i.' industries and cocle s imposed under 

Section 3 (d), =· O. 6543-A, De c. 30 , 1933 ; Delineation of authority of 

9838 
b.dmini ~.:-o. ~c a:no Se cr e t a r y of Ag ricuJ. tur e , po,::ers he r e tofore delegated. 

to Se c. of Agric1..uture and t ransferred. to Aclminist r ator n ith e::r.:cept i ons -

E. 0. 6551, J aa. 8 , 1 934 ; dr inistrat or auth orized to prescribe rul es 

and r egul D.t i ons g over n ing amendments, e:r.:emp tions and stays - ii1 . 0 . 6590-A, 

Feb. 8, 1 934 ; Admi nistrator authorize d t o p r e s c ribe r ules r eposting of · 

p rovlslons - E. 0. 6590-B, Feb', 8, 1 934 ; Admi nist rator may make 

exc ep tion s re g overnment con tra cts nh n~ in judgment of dm st ra or, 

justice or public int e r est will b est b e served ther eby - E. o. 6, 

I.Iarch 4 , 1 934 ; Heads of 8mergency Eig (:mci es e stablished under lJIRA 

authoriz ed_ t o make c ertain exuc ndi ture s- :S , 0. 6660 , l."arch 27, 1 934 ; 

Deputy AdDi n istrat or of. the :Di strihq.ting T:cad e Se c tion, Div ision 4 , t o 

ap'9rove local code authoriti e s- 0, 0. 80, Harch 29, 1 934 ; Deputy 

Administrator of Service Trade Se ction to a;:for ove trade areas - 0. O. 84, 

Ap ril 9, 1934 ; A0Jinistrator au ori ~e d to us:pa d certa in p rov isions 

of s ervice trad.e codes - E. 0. 6723 , I.iarch 26, 1 934; Adrai nist r a tor 

authorizeo. to approve t e rritorial ag:-c e enen t s pursuant to Se c. 4 (a) of 

Act - E. O. 6750-A, June 27, 1 93L1=; cr tar r of Labor authori zed to 

-prescribe rul e s and r egulation s r e a:o·or entice traini ng :9rog rams - E. O. 

6750-C, June 27, 1934; Joint a:rYoroval of a gricultural code s by Se cr etar y 

of Agricultur e a nd Administrator- E. 0. 67 64, June 29 , 1934; Admini strat or 

authoriz ed to reduce tol e rance of 15~ on g overnment con tracts but not 

b elow 5% and is dir e cted to ma~-::e a study of eff~ cts of this orde r up on 

maint enance of sta ndards of f a ir c ompe tition in' sa les t o :public and 

private custome rs - "S . 0. 6767, June 30, 1 934; Se cret2.r y of Int erior 

de legated.lJOuers under Se ctions 9 ( a ) and. (b) - ~ . 0. 6785 , J une 30, 1 934 ; 

Federal Alcoh ol Cont:col Administration :d el egat ed c e rta in functions - . O. 

6829, Aug . 21, 1 934 ; Tex tile LB.bor Relation s Boar d del aga t ed c erta in 

functions - E. 0. 6858, ·Se"Pt• 26, 19 34 ' ·NIRB creat e d bu t not authori zed 

to ex ercis e p owers h e r e tdf;re conferfed on Administrator - E. 0. 6859 , 

Sep t. 27, 1934 ; Duti e s of I n dustria l -=:me r g ency ·Committ ee - :B . 0. 6860, 

Sep t. 27, 1934; uthorit l cGnferre d up on G. A. Lynch as AdrJinist r ati ve 

Off icer -A. O. :X-93, .Se}:') t, 28 , 1934 ; Du.ti e s of 1Jatio·na l Emer g ency 

Council - Do nald Richb e r g authb ri zed to exe cut e the f unctions and pe r fo r m 

d.uti a s v est e d in t he . Council by Pri.ilsident t hrough such )e rson a s 

~e cutiv o Director. shall de signat e. - E. 0. 6889-A, Oc t . 29 , 1934; 

Authority conf e r rea. up on H • . A-.· ar1: man as AdrQinistra ti ve Off ice r - .A . O • . 

X-.107, Uov. 7, 934 ~ Dttti e s of Fede r al Pris on Industri :; s , I n c. - . O. 

6917, De c. 11, 1 934; ·Powe rs d el egat ed. to deputy administra tor f or 

HaYTaii - O. I..L . 348, March 19, 1935 ; 1.1e cons tituting t he l'TI RB , cont i nu e d 

appointmen t s of Ivie ssrs. Whit esi de , Hillman, 1~ arshall and Hamilton -

ap}JOint ec.1 i.Ie ssrs . Witherow and Murray a s memo e rs - E. 0. 6993 , 

March 21, 1935; Che.rl e s Edi s on r:1enber ·of lHiffi - E. 0. 7025, April 29, 1935; 

Powers del ecsc.ted to depu ty admini stra tor for ter r i tor y of Al a s ka- 0. M.-

35 6 , May 3 , 1 935 ; Ter mination of HI RB and reor gani zation of :i:ffiA - . 0 . 

70 75, J w.1e 1 5 , '1 935 ; Continui ng in effe ct .l!j:r.:e cuti ve Qrd9r s issu ed under 

NRA - E. O. 7076; J\ille' 1 5 , 1 935; Conti nu ing Te}:t i l e Labor :::'el ati ons 

Boa rd until J 1..u y 1, 1935 - E. 0. 7084 ; June 24 , 1 935 ; Conti nuing 

Nat ional St eel Rel a ti on s Boa r d u11.til JuJy 1, , 1 935 .... '2 . 0 - 7085 , June 24, 

1 935; :9:tencl.ing Textil e Labor -Rel o..t ioi1 s ·Ti oa rd .. until fu.:.:the r orde r- . O. 

7089 , J·une 29 , 1 935 ; 'ExtonCl.i ng 1Jati onc9.l Labor Rel ations Boa rd until 

Aug . l, 1935 - 2 . 0. 7090, J une 29 , 1935 ; -~ }: nding rationa l Steel Labor . 

Relat i ons Boarc. u n til furthe:r order - s. 0 . 7091, J un8 29 , 1 935 . 

9838 
- ,>l . -

(ll ) OfJ. 'i ' C llr:illO DJ r) 111 , •. o . '7,•:.:. J l ~ 19 , 1 ~Y . 

. (1? ) Oi:·: icc : ;,, o ~~nnt: ., , . , J ~ 3 , 19~55 . 

(10) Of .'ico Ordor , ! ·o. f3 .1 _, A.)ri 1. 9 , r~ •! o 

(14 ) Office Ordor, No. 80 , .larch 29 , 1934 . 

(lr.: ) Tl1 c q".le stion of t l1e t ,}-pc of p ou e rs r ed.<J l e,o;ated a nd t he 

controls ~J rov id d is discuss--• d , i nfr e .• 

(1 6) 

t cr l'l 11 Coci..e 

T.1i s t C'rm is used t o i ncJ.udc 11 Co dr-: Commit t <:e 11 , tc~ 1 as t he 

uthol~ t,r 11 b e cam e the st 8ndc.r d t erm. •) 

(17) But s e e Adm:L ni :. ~ti e Ord.cr, Tov . 28 , 1933 , approving 

r ecommencl.8.t i e>.t of Cott on r> .. :t il-3 L1d.ust r y 'Committee , r <)atlinr; int er a lia. : 

11 It is ••• r e cor:JM :mc.ec. t hc-. t to rovid8 p roc edu re f or nec e ssa ry 

t emnorary cl~E\. es in t he limita tion of h ou r s of ou er a tion of productive 

mnch :!.ner y ~) TOvid d i n t he Codt:l t o r:1 e e t pa.rticula r · co:ndi tions a rising 

i n ~art c1.1l r g r oul? s in t :1 e Inc1.u r and to p r e s erve a b a lance of 

p roduction ect i vi t y n i th consum11 tion r ·. aairer1ents, t h e Code .Authority 

with tl1e concurrence of t J.1 e Gove rru'1 cnt r epr esentc-.t i v e s on the same may 

~H< after, for periods of not l•10r e than nine ty days , r equire a temporary 

s wrt ening of t he hours of su ch mach ine operation n i t~ in any g roup 

from thos e o t:1er ·rise :... rm tt d b y t h :· Cotton Textile Code . 11 

This is q_uot cd in l:Dycrs, A Hancibo ol"" of 1-:RA, 2nd ed. (lTew York, 1934), 

Parae: rap~1. 381 , Issuanc e of ord.ors a nd r egulations. · 

(18) Cenent Industry CocJ.e i:io. 1 28, Articl e IV-13-2, 11 rJ . :::t .A. Code s 

of Fair Co ~o tition, 11 III, 232: 

11 The Code ·Au thori r ma y de sigi12.te t .1 o Institute or such othe r 

committ ee s or agent s , and nay clel egnt c to t h om such of i ts ow rs as it 

may deem n::l c e ssary for tb.c a 6.r·1inist:ra tion of t h is Cod:.; ; '?rovided, 

however, 1a t t he Code Aut:1ori ty slw.ll not b o r eli ove d of finol responsibility ni th r e sp ect to any such del egated uowers. 11 

(19) Sup ra, n. (10). 

(20) U. S. v. ·Warfi eld, 170 Fed . 43, (1909) illustrate s 'the ura ctice 

a lth ough t ... 1o :point is not volv~<l ·in the cas e . 

(21) ct~ve Draft Ca s e , 245 U. s. 366, 389 (1918). 

(22) Tre.n script of Hearing , Rubb er Ha nufacturing Industry, 

J anuary 1 2 , 1934 , 33 . One menb er of t :1e industry shows an acute 

a war eness of t hG s e diverse all egonc es. -le a~r : 

9838 
- ;32 ( -

11 I t~1L1 ;: that t l is is iEroortc?.n t . I f e e.l . U1at t hey a r e p l aced by 

t he ver y ~J:i.'Ovisi ns a nd 'the :nac rJ r~r of the Ac t p e r haps by the necessj,ties 

of t l1 e si tuB.t i on , i n a n :xt me r di fficul t p osi ~io. , b e cf':US8 they are 

in a thr ee- rre.y fi d.uci a.ry p osit ion ,' -- not oilly i n c:trB.fting t h i s thing , 

but also in a ll of i t s f utur e a c t i v i t i e p, d thos e , t hr ee- way fi duciar y 

p ositions :Jay noll b e a dve r -s e . I n the fi :::-st Dl a ce , as r1embe rs of thecode auth o:c' i t;y , o.no_ a s memb e rs of t h e St ee r i ng Committe e \The n the t h i ng 

was draftec1, t hey ha d a d.ut y to :proce9d wi t l1. the utmost i mparti c.lity. 

They, hc.~J s b e t t er t han anyone e l s o , ;;:n e 1.7 of t~ es ; t r.o t;yp e s of 

manufe:. ctur e , B.nc1 r hHd to ·p rocee d fo r getti ng Bh o they vrer e , bu t 

t aking t he industry- ncademica lly a nc1 s e,yi ng i.7hc:.t is b e st for t he 

industry in conformity rvi th t h e lc9.v7e 

11 They h a o. a s e cond duty, e: duty whi ch ev e r y officer owe s to h is 

company, and. l1is o.ire cto'rs, t he :p e o:9l e wl1om h e r ep r c s <J n ts, a duty t o 

promot e t h eir int e r e sts. 

11 They h e.Cl. a t h ird. duty, - . to t hems e l ves, t he ir f amily and d epend ents 

to s ee to it t hat t hat which th ~r h ad d.on e c1oe s not c ost them t he ir 

p ositions. 

11 It is a v ery difficl,l.lt p osi tion for c;myone to be in. It may Dell 

be n e cessa r:r in industry tha t t hat shou ld ha~ pen, out I woul d venture 

t he pro:9he cy t hat t he criticisms of code s, \?he n thi s is a l l Y?orked ou t , 

will not come a s a ·criticism agai nst the Unit ed Stat e s Gover nment , as a 

criticism D.ga i n st the ~urpos s of t he c oc3.os , 2.s. a c riticism of 

stabilizing hours, o'r fixing t h e p r i ce of l abor -- tho s e p rovision s 

will not b e criticized. It' is a lready Tiork ing o1..,_t , pc:- rt i cula rly in 

our comm1.mi ty to the t:remenCI.ous n~ ge 9 f t he ma nufe,cture rs. The 

criticism 11ill come b e caus e indust ;- in mD.ny ca s e s taJ<:c s this thing 

a nd uses it a s a mea ns for domina t i ng fo.ctor in the industry to m-it e 

a l av1 govm,ni ng t h eir compe ti t o:rs _v;h ich will inev i t o.b l y u ork to the 

ruin of he i:i.~ com:p e ti o:i.~s , c:mcl i n t heir an n i n t e r e s ts, 2.11d t hey write 

the law rrhich the other one i s g over ned by . 11 

(23) -Titl e. I, Se c tions 2 B.:'ld. 3 . See Lege..l 1-.Iomorc ndum 1To. 32 , by 

Bla ckwell S1:1 i t h , Non-Ass ocic..t'i on H.e1Jr3s cnto.t i on on Code Authorit i es, 

May 24 , 1934 su gge sting tho.t Congr e ss may ha v e ont ~) ed such 

administl'ative c=J.c t ivity . 

(24 ) Bro ok i ng s I n stit u t ion , p~ c i t., 206-209, d i scu ss es Code 

Authorit i e s c:.:tld. t r a d e a s sociati ons. The study shows that the r ol ation ship 

diffe r ed., ·out in s ome i n stanc e s t he Qo ~ Au t h o:ri t;)T BB.s mer el y the alt e r 

egos of t he trc:..de a ss ociation . Some t i me s the cocle rrEls us ed to forc e 

memb ers of the indust r y int o the trad.e f'.s s oci .ti on . 

(25) As an exampl e s ee the Co ~m c~al Re solut i ons of t he Steel 

Ca st ing s L 1clustry . Sec ctl so, tho Consmt1e rs' Ao.vi s ory Boa r d l.temorandUI!l 

from L. B. Lovell t o J. B. Fround , i.IC\y 16, 1 936. 

( 2 6 ) J3 :i. oo}': in s I nsti tution , op . cit., 1 68 . The Code f'lOr the Gear 

.~:anu ac uri11g I ndu st r y , No. 117, ..:,.~t ic e VI I, Socti on l (a ) , 11NRA Codes 

of Fa i r Conpo tition11 , III, 73 , urovi d.es : 

9838 
h. <'sl:ocintion 

(no t·ro of ··:on <>]t;"~ll. • ··Jl"''··':t ~~~~- r·. . by <'.nd 

tion , 

one ~.:ur, '"' ~n t;"~ti•r, · / ·1 ·:-1·, ·:..r: of >t r~ .(~IJ~'t :.. v ,.•.:o : r o not mr mb crs of 

the Assoc i<'t:on r::>vi~~ inr: t' -..· o .. ':.ir:~ !: ~1cl. ::: cnr" S··ntDtion , rnd signify 

their Hillii1[';l1css to u:'.-:/ thcij~ ·;oro l'< t . sJt,!'ro of th ' cost O.l .dr11inistering 

this Co d~) - - - -. 11 

( 27) Of£ice I.;·:;morc.ndu..m :i.Jo . ~36 • 

. (28) Lvgcl -rJOrn.ndum .:.To . ~~2 , C!ubra n . 23 , sue;gested the a js:'l1ility 

of cc r ef"Lli r-ttC'ntion to tllc trul~r r epre senta tive r equir ement . See the 

di.scussion of control o•re r eLJrc i s e of Code Authority power s , infra. 

( 29) Co ncr Jt c ie sonry I ndu:s tr~l , ~ :nnrovGd code no'. 1 33 , 11 liRA Codes 

of F<'ir CoD!-letition11 , III, "117 Article VI, 16. 

( 30) 

Articl e VI 

r:'r2.:.:.sit I ndustr•r , n.pprol!edcoC.e Fo . 28 , ibid , I, 378, 

(A) (5). 

(31) Automatic SnrirJcl er I no.ust r y , Code :ro. 50 , ibid, I, 610, 

Ar ticl e VI ( f) '9l'ovidi;e for str. ml.a.rd forms of ~i ense c;gr eement uuon 

ad.ministrr-.tive a'9··')rova l; Comp1c tc \!ire :::.nd. Iron r e nee I ndustry , 

anproved coc'.e . 84 , Sup'9l cmen t Ho. 38 , ibid,. XII, 55G , Articl e V, 2 ; 

Emd Conveyor and i.:atm'ie'l.l Pr e-pE'.ration :Jouiument (Ianufa cturing Industry , 

a:9proved. coC:.e I:o . 3t.17 , Sul)u (: nt No . 22 , ·ibid, XII 455 , Articl e VII ( a ). 

( 32) · ~pe r e.nd Pulp I ndustry , approved coo e ! 7 o . 1 20 , ibid, I I I, 

1?5~ Articl o VII, 4 . 

(33) Re infol'ci ne; iiat e rib..1.s r c::o ricnting I ndustry, ap-proved. code 

1' o . 1 27 , ibid, III, 29-1- 295 , Ar t icl e VI, c~ ction 7. 

( 34) St ruc tural Clr.y Proo.ucts I ndustry , e.ul)rove d code ~To. 1 23 , 

ibid, III, 205 , Articl e VII: 

11 Prior to t he increr:sing of C}:isti!lg ·o roduction ca.paci t y in the 

industry by sta rting the ~o :. ti n of eJ:isting Dl c:-.nts within ~ny branch 

of thG in0.ustr y th2t ~c- c _~e n shut .:.o"'n continuously fo r c:. ::9oriod of 

three yer:.rs or r.1or e :9rio r to the cff..;ctive ck .t e of this Co.clc, or 

sto.rting tho o:yer <'.t ion of ·.')lc:.n.ts not h c r otofor o in o'9 orc:.tion within c..ny 

bra nch of t:1 c industry , D. c ertifi C[ t o nus t be p rocur e d lJy tho onnor 

ther eof f:ror.1 the D:i.'C: nch coma i t t c.:e of such brnnch of he industry, 

subj ec t to :.- ovi on by ~LG Co de Autlwrity or tho .Admi n"ist l'<:-tor, ce tif;~.r ing 

that tho •Je :..~c: tion of such u l <'ilt is consistent ·.-'ith tL3 Dolicy of the 

Act . I n sc of c. denial by u br<. .ncl1 commi tt 2o of the: rtifi c!l. to 

oentionco. :10:roin , or r efus a l to c~ cid.0 l!i thin nizty ( 60) dnys ~uch 

onncr me..;{ o..:JDOC.l to t h o Code Au thori t~r or the Administrr:.tor fo r a fin2.l 

decision . 11 

(35) · ;otion Pictur e L2.b ort'tory , c.pprovcd code lJo. 22 , NR.A Code s 

of Fc ir Couyetition, I, 307 , J~rticl o VI, S c t ion 2 : 

9838 
11 J3y tho Associo. ti on. Thr; ·o:covi sions· of t h is Co de , other them the 

mo..nda tor:r :~):L" vi si ons uno.cr th3 l~ . I . R.A., :1c.:;r ·oo modifi od or nmenc.ed by 

t he co u:c~:c~il.,_ 'S vo te of c..t l eo.st Jc;_··o thir C.s of t ho I 'Jr:1oers of the Associc:-t i on c.t ['. m.eo t ing c'-J d f or uci :;JUr:pos c , ·9rovi o .. d. ~h~.t not ice of 

submissiOl1 of t h; p ro•)os..: d moclifi cc:-J.:. ion , .or c.m:mclm ont , hE's b.)on given 

in th,; not i cc of T'l•Jc t ing and. urovi doc.1 r~ L~ , t::c..t c.ny modificc. ti on 

or ['.me;ndn on t c•.d.opt od by t h o Associr·.-!::ion s~w ll not b .come b i nding or 

eff ective lli11 Jss ~.nd unt il <'-p ~) cL by th,_; Pre sident ." 

(36) Floor o.nd Wc.ll Cl c.y Fil o 1.1,;-.nuf c:-.c t uring I nd.ustr jr , 2.:9pr ovod 

c.od.e Ho •. ·~2 , 4 20, Art icl e VI, V B-11 : 

1

•

1 Thl: Cod.o ol i t~r shall b e tho gcn:Jr <?.l -yl c.rmin.o- , c oordin['. ing 

c.nd clm ni :~~ ing c.g J n cy of thi s Co d e . I t mc ~r m<-.:: ~ :rul e s nnd. r ogul ct ions fo r t~10 e.o.mi ni stro..t ion of tl-~ is cod.c- . 11 

Broo~:L1 s Insti t u tion,- op . c it., 279 . 

( 37) I b i d , 1 64-165 , 225-227-

(38 ) l!'or c parti a l stc.t -.:: n ,; n t of t ho :9rob l .-:;m s•:G Homorandum from 

L . A. Liorr i s on t o Co de Advis ors of Consumers t Advisory Boc.r d , ~bth s 

of H.s.ndl i_ng Trc:-.do Pro.c t ico CoProl c.i nts, Jun .J 1 3 , 1934: . 

. (39 ) Off ice hic.nuo.l: -Co do AdmL1istrc.tion III-1000 , Coclo Au thori ty 

Orgc:.niz::--t ioll III-1 4 (d) o~ rt s t o l!RA. 1 

( 4:0 ) ~~c s, Tho Co ns t i tu- n c.nd th0 2 ocovsry Lo:£:i slc.t i on: 

Th .:) Rol e s of Do cur:E:nt , Doc trL--;_c.: , C'.Ed Judge s , 1 U;.1i v .:: r si -';; y of Chicago Lnu 

Revi ew , 665 , 6G9 (1934): Con ~ oect d t l egi slati ve ~ou0rs ••• 

(in effe c t ) t o c.s s oc i <'.t i ons of busine s s me n ." I t i s cloubtful if this 

is quit o c. ccur 2.t ::; , for Cong r .oss vr<'..s ~1ot f·nlly c..rrcr o of how tho lJ.I • .rt . A. 

would b o c.on i nist c r cd. 

( 4:1) :in s I nsti tution , o·.-; . C1'L· ., 280: :r~lC c.u thors uo int 'out 

11 t ho e1b s::; n.c o fj: nm t h o mi !1ds of c t~- in ·oo r sons wi t il e. business bc ckgr ound, 

ov en \'!h::; n :plc:- cc c_ in offi c i a J_ -Gosi i· i o;; , of c-.ny s e t of conc opts whor ewi th 

to con sictor tho r () lntions of :o; ov :;_~_.,.J ·.:: n_t to bus in-- ss · ntor:9rise o the r 

thc.n the ~1c c1 -:n yoo. thought. t hr.t ~1 :' Tess g ovornmon t su-o or visi on thoro 

i s t h e b 9t t or. 11 

(4:.2 ) I bicl , 1 9·9 s-:.; ts forth tho si fi C"t ion us ccl h or o . 

( 43) I b i d. , _ 201: di s cus s c s t:~ ~ u s.J of i ndustry ins'9oc tors to 

s ocur:' c oEml. i a x:co . Th o ns ~nco of t ho h:mbor ii1dust r y wi th two 

hundJ'!Ctd f i e ld_ [',gent s i s g ivo·n , c:acJ r'v Si)-1gL. ctivision of tho r otuil solid 

f u el i ncLus t:c~y }?ro:oos od_ t o us c fifty- two . 

( 44) Tl:.c functions ,; ciS ·.) C~ ,-·ill ~ isc s~..;<1 , infrc .• 

{45 ) Cr:co:;:1v ; lt v . J3ur\r,::ll ot o..l Col".sors of -':}1 · Coll ...,t'o of Physi ci !"l ns, 

1 1. D. :ir ~r: nd 4 ( 1 691 ) • 

( 46) I bid , -~ 7. 

9838 
'''")' - .. •r~~ -

( ' 7) Ibic1 ., 67 . 

·~B ) C-r'l\.) v . C nsors of .,. ::.;,T'JZ~lL -. cl...:ct ic I>o iccl Soci ·-- ty , 

63 T. H. 9? , 93 lf8-~ : 

11 h'"'-st~:'"1. t~ :c c quiros ~· 111ociic.:-1 zocivty , org .... niz cd U11dcr tho 

l£'..ws of thd:.s ntct,J , to l o ct c, bo .. r d of- connorc conc icti1'lg 0f three 

m"mbor s . Authority i s conf e rred U1J011 tho b oo..rd to ~1 :~.:nminc nnd license 

u 0r sons to ·o r c.c t icc mc dicin , surgor~r or mid- vrifcry ••• 11 • 

(49) Stc.t c ""' :>: 1ii lntS~ u1 r::cc IicclictS~ l Coll ce.:c v . Chi tt cnd® , 107 !T .W. 

500 (Uisc . 1906) ; en( Scholls v . State , 90 Md. 729 , 3 (1 900) . 

( 50 ) ~'- vc.d[l. Com:9 . Lar!S , 1929 , I, S"" ctions '~ 0-590; LC'..fls . of 

Cc.lifornio.. , 1927 , Chc.p vr XXXIV; i~o th Caroli no. Code of 1931, Chapte r 

IV, Ar t icl e 6 , Se c tion 215; ~nd vis d t~t s of Ut , 1933 , Titl e 6 . 

For cc.s o c 0::1 this s e,1 , I n r c Scot t , 292 P. 290 (r ev. 1 930 ); cmd Stat e 

Br..r of Cr.liforni u v . Su·oe r ior Cm.rr , 278 P. -':32 (Cc..1if . 1 929 ). 

(51) i. icchi c. v. ..: ~:> '' • ·~ U. S. 228 (1 92J); P.)0-ol n , :;:>': r o1 , 

W_) st Bc:-.y v . Dcl c.noy , 130 IT . Y. Su'9pJ. . 833 (Su·9 · Ct . 1 911). Soc c..1so : 

13 • L. :rt. 828 , c. :prcvj_ous similc.r stntut c hc.d. b ...)_: n h :·1d. i nvc.lid, 

t hough not u::9 on due proce ss grom:cl.s or the qu,,stion of cL.1 ('gc.t ion to 

c. p rivat e c..g cncy . Fo:r.: v I:ohf'.r!k & I~ . :rt . Hurnc.n .. >-Socicty 1 165 IJ. Y. 51 7 

(1901) . . 

(52) Lc.ns of Oklahoma , htS~:pt .~ r 25, brunr~r 11, 1932. 

(53) c:1c.m·o1 in 3. ~"' fining Co. . v. Corpor .... t i on Commission of Oklahoma , 

286 u. s. 210, 230 , 231 '(1932 ). 

(5-1) Sr.1 ith v . KPnsc s Citv Titli.: c.r~d trust Co., 255 U. S. 180 (1921). · 

( 55) ::'irs t l~c.t i on[l.l Bc.rJc of' Bc.y Ci ty v. Fcl1.oDs '-J:r.: r cl Union 

Trust Co., 2~~ U. S. ( 1 6 (1 917) . 

(56) 232 u. s. 531 (191( ) . 

(57) Ibi d. , 5,.::5: 

11 I t i s t o b :; p r su.J:~;:-: d, unt il th · c ontr c..ry a:9p .) <.1.rs, thc.t the 

udrni nistrE'.t1v0 bocly nould hc.v:) c.ct _. d Fi th r ::D.sonc.bl c r Jgo..rd to the 

p rop er ty ri ghts of plc.intiff in or rorll ••• 

(58) 210 u. s. 281 (1908) . 

(59) 27 Stc.t . ct L. 531. 

( 60 ) c.t pc.g.:;s 295- 296 . 

(61) Rous e v. Thomuson , 81 :r. z. 1109 (Ill., 1907). 

(62) Johnson C.:- m' t 0r y Associ.:-t ion v. PD.r kcr 1 6 lT . Y. Supp . 

1015 (1897) . 

9838 
- 324-

( 63 ) State v. Cr a~nord, 104 Kai1sas 141, 145 , 177 P . 360 (1919) . 

(64 ) Schloss e r v. Welch, 5 F. Supp . 993 (1934) . : 

(65 ) Ce.llam Cmm ty, \lq.sh ington v. U. S. 263 U.S. 34:1 (1923) ; 

Gille s·oie v. Ok lahoma, 257 U. S. 50 ( 1922); and Indian Terri tory Illuminating Oil Co • v. OklalJ.ome:, 240 U. S • 522 ( 1916) • 

(66) Dugan v. U.S. 34 Ct . Cl. 458 (189 9 ). 

(67) Pan PJnerica n Petroleum Corp. v. Alabama , 67 F. (2d) 590 

(1933); ru1.d Pe ople v. Standard Oil, 22 P. (2d) 2 (Ca l. 1933) . But see 

Pa nhandle Oil Co. ·v. Knox. ·277 U. s. ?18 (1927) hold~ng a Sta te Tax void 

which applies to sales of gasoline to · ede r~d instrUJ'lent a l:Lties. 

(68) Lucas ~ Reed, 281 U.S .• 699 (~930). 

( G9) 269 U.S. 514 (1925) 

(70) a t page. 520. · . 

(71) NR.A. Legal Research I :emorandum of Law on the . Tax L·iabili ty. of 

Code Authorities, Fepruary 14 , 1935. . L~ l Res earch I~ em randum :No. 771 

liarch 27, 1935 states: ucode :Stuthorities were e xemp ted from taxation as 

"Business Leaguesfl ~r the ]UJ"':"e au of Interna l Reve nue. 11 · 

.. 

( 72) lJRA Legal Research: "Legal Position of Code .Authorities, n 

June. 11, 1934.· 

(73) U.s. v. Eonat, 124 U.S. 303 (1888 ); U.s. v.· Srn ith, 124 

U.. S . 5 25 ( 1 8.88 ); U. S . y. Ge r naine, 99 U. S. 508 (1379); ancl Scully v. 

U.S., 193 ~ed. 185 (1910). 

(74) The t e rm 11 l ag islation11 is used in the broaci. sense of includ ing 

constitutions. Sta te v. Cole, 148 PEJ.c . 551 '( uev. 1915 ). 

( 75) Fe rgus v. Husse2-l, 110 . 3 . 130 '(Ill . 1915) ; · arid Eliason v. 

C 1 8 6 lJ ..., '::l ,., ~" ( 18 r 2 ) .., J.. ., ' l " ..: J 1' J t t ff ' o eman, , . v. t:,c) o u • bUt, .i.J.O .. C•.J. nc; G11aG :9 0'.1er o crea e o 1ces 

can't be cle legEJ.tecl. See , .§_tRte v. Ji e:-r, 26~~ S. W. B25 (i ..{o. 1S24) . 

(76) For a d i scussion of the ~o robl en Sl.lgg es·ting that public officers 

should dischar.ge sov ere_i gn functions see , Sta te v. Cole, _148 Pac. 551 

(Nev. 19L5). 

9838 

(77) People v. Brady, 135 U . E. 87 (Ill .l922) . 

(78) Brook ings I nstitution, op . cit., 162 : 

IIA.r.1ong its l onger run objective s the ·Recove r y Act was 

i ntende d. to furi.1ish the b a sis for con tinuing f orms of 

colle c tive a ction u3r business groups .n 

( 79) Ibid, 251. 
(80) Orcl c.r";UJl''ent of !lo!l. Do r · .d Richberg r.. behalf of he 

United States in; . L.A. Sc~echter Co~J . v. U. S. 

(01) Crrr, Delegated L~ islation (Cambr idge Unlver ity Press 9?1) , 37 : 

11 Uore t 1!"\ 1 four centuries ago ParliP.ment too1c notice of the fact 

that he ord.inonces of craft fellovshi~s , guil ds a!'0. fraternities nere often 

unlawful o.nct ur.reasonable . These minor ~c? 'T-m~ !dng bo0.ies wer e fo rb iddPn 

o make statutes Tiithout first submitting them for the apuroval of the 

Chanc ellor, Tr easurer and Chief Justices of either Bench- (or a ny t hr ee 

of them) o::.. the circuit judges of t he shire concerned. 11 

(82) Broo;:in =>s Insti tutio:n , The 1 ational Recovery Administra tion - an 

Analysis e.nd. a.n Avur a isa l (1 935), :253 ; and_ Consumers' Advisory Board 

Study, 11 E:-:::;->erience with the O:oen Price Provisions of Ayuroved Codes • 11 : 

11 Fire E:dL1t;nishe r Ap-oliance !.'If g . Ind.ustry, Cod.e #98 

11Letter of ·.:arch 6 , fire extinguishing ay:_olia:nce manufacturer. 

11 i1e e-re ta>:ing the liberty of enclosing a co-oy of telegram re ce ived 

from - , on the Code .Authority, in utich he threatens 

p ros ecution. if we do not accent the cost a rbitrarily set by the Cocle 

Authority. Vfe b 0lieve that this was a very unfair :yi~ocedlire as vre 

were never given, in our op inion, the right conside r ation in the filing 

of our co st s . It is our ouinion th8.t to e.rbitrarily s e t a ridiculous 

cost on t~1is coTilPlocli ty is to gradually stifl e tne industry. One of 

the most ricli culous things in the whole set-up is the fact _that you 

are alloTied to q1ote distributors your cost. This in itself, we believe, 

is a direct viola tion ,of the Code and shows absolutely that the cost, 

as set by the _Co de , is not authentic. 

11Le'tter of Liarch 10, small manufacturer of apvliances. 

"The ~}e:i.1 :?rice :?revision in our Code, couyl ed vrith a minimum cost 

for the I:1cJ.ustr~.r, 7ill unquestionably result in c:.ll :9rices being the 

same. It ~~ ract cally is t he same as if the Code had ordered p rice 

fixing. 

11We did file a urice list with 1 quart e}:_tinguishers at $12.25, but 

the Code Aut~1ori ty did not send them o~t and we l at er' v.ri thdrew them 

because \.'e could see that it nouldn't help us· any.n· 

See a.l so, I.Ie-:10randurn to Corwin D. Edwards from Group V, Consumers 1 

Advisory 13oard., on Preliminary Rules about Cost cor..te.ined in Codes 

assigned to Grouy V. 

( 83) Su.~0 ra, XI 3 and Her.1orandurn to G. K. Hamill from Consumers t 

Advisor~r J3o c.rd., re Commercial Resolution no . 15 issued by the Code 

Authority of the Wall Pa,:oer Manufacturing Industry. 

9838 

: 
( 84 ) :.lo.:-er s , Consumers' Ad.yi sor~r .,J3oa.r:d Study , suura n . 82 : 

. . .A HANDBOOK OF 'iliA 

.. (lJevr ·yo rJ.:: 1 934:) 

11 Pa r. 380 . Studies .and .r e c ommenO.ati ons 

I 11 Virtually a ll the code autha ri ties a re em:9m ered. to reauire 

statistic2.l re'?orts from the. memb ers: .of the industry, in order to ma_{e 

p ossibl e stuc1_i e s looking to recomn endations for modificettions o.f, or 

additions t o, the co,de. In many codes -is f ounc1 a p rovision requiring 

that the n~ or:Jation obtained b e held as 1 confi dential' by the authority, 

a :requir enent h~ ch mus~ be r ead in the l _ight of· t he fact that the 

members of t he o..ut hority are thems elves, in most cases, actively 

enga_ged in the L1dus try. Il l 

.. "Cast Iron Soil Pine Industry, Code #18 

11 Letter of Harch 15, fitting s manufacturer. 

11 1

A fe\7 ,-ieel:::s ago the writer called on one of h is customers and the 

customer o.u:;..~ing the course of the conversation told ne. the mo nthly 

production of several manufacturers and e}:plained t:.1a t he h:new our 

}traduction, s ales, etc. This information is g iven confidentially to 

the Soil Pipe Association, and according to the code is ~e:p t in 

confidence.ll 

(85) Tr a~1script of Hearing Machine-Applied Sta:ple and Stapling 

Machine I nctv.st3;7 , .August· 29, 1934 . .A p rice sheet fil ed to be effective 

July 2, 1934 nas not clistribut ed tlntil Au -1.st 8, 1934: . The Manager of . 

the . Code Auth ority admitted that "the list (filed by the E. H. Hotch..1dss 

Company) was ••• withheld from distribution :?end.i ng a discussion ••• 

with the nanufc"cturer who filed the listc Conta ct was made for this 

purpose$ 11 tl1e i. .ianager wrote, 11 but the Presiden t of the Company was out 

'f town ar..ct delay ensued • . It was not until August 1st that we wer e 

finally brought to the realization t hat our efforts were hopeless, and 

then the lists \7ere sent out 11 (Transcript ::9age 9 ). The Ma nager, 

Mr. F. 13. Hull, stated at the hearing that he J.r..ne\! he Has FTithout authority to 1rit hhold t h e p rice list, that he acted on his orm r esponsibility, 

and that q.u:cing , t he time t}fat th~ pTice . J;ist of the ··Hot chkiss Compai1y' u2.s 

b eing kep t ., cOl1fictenti q.l, tt the· Co<le .Authority ~(net: not.hing except . for the 

chairme"a 11 (Tr a~1sc ri t, pq.go 17). What ·nas ·dmle 11 was not. done through 

carelessne ss; it -vms not ca rel essness or negl i t:ence , 11 l.!r. Hull declC~ re d 

later in the hE:aring . · 1

1 I did it ad_v~s:ed , because I fel t it vras to t:1e 

best intm~e?t of the Industry not to have a l ot! ::9rice )_ike that go outH 

(Transcri:pt , -9o.ge 34) . The h i e;h motive j ust i ndicated was the ::9rinci'?al 

basis of l.ir . Hull 's defense, a lth ough certain sor:1en:1at technical r easons 

for w:iJthllolding d_istribution .of .tLe ·price list were Etlso advanced. The 

Administratton took no action i.n the matter subseq_uent to .the he r ing. 

Mr. Hull r esig::.ed a s Man,ag_er; the Code .Author ity continues to function 

undisturb ed_. 

9838 
. ( 6) Su· r.::. , VI I I 

A ne.1o:.·c~1 1.1.n y Fum i.. • Sta.t ovn to Ruth 11. ~~rres on this nro lem 

sets fort~~ t:w :i.'ollo tin~ oints: 

11 1 . Tl10 coc~.o .. uthorit~r hould. b e P;iven no bl· nl::et utho r ity to 

r equir e [t:.~r im. or~K;. tiol fo r vrhich it \/i s>l s to c ·11 . In other wo r ds, thP 

code should. :aot c:.uthorize fl.hing cx·,JeG.itions i Eto urivat e r ecords. 

In the aclJ.1L1i trDtion of the code , ti10 requir ement of general uniform 

r enorts shoulc" be aut.hor j z ed. Preferably t!1e code should designate 

the kin6. of i::!.irmation v1:.icll an be requir d , such s total sales, 

units ,~. oc.1.uc ... -. , total wabes , e tc . Hm·rever, in soul "' cases it may e 

impracticublc to de~i nate s:_oecifically the infor~nation \'hi ch is 

authorized to be r equired.. In nny case whether or not the specific 

tYPe of i:~fo :t l.:ttion is described , the e~ ort Ol' questionnair e forms to 

be used shou.lc'.. be submitted to the Administration f or a:~~ rov l, toge t her 

with the :forns submitted there should be a descri•)tion of t he us e to . - which the in:'or:.1e..tion is expe cted to l1e nut , the metho d of cor.1pilation 

which is to ~e followed , and a desc i~tion of the manner in which the 

information is to be submi tt ed to the code aut l1o ri t" or to r.1ember s of " the inc1.ustry. Tl:e administro.t ion can thus assure itself that publication 

will not be uc.G.G in such a nay 2-s to l'eveal t .1 8 iCI.enti ty of individual 

firms. T_1e t;e~1e al re-p orts so autlwri zed should. -;Je sub:ni tted as svmrn stc:.te--

ments. I ca:1 ~1in!c of no r eason v7hy the code e.uth ori ty should have the 

!)OWer to r equire special e~9 orts froro individual members of the industrJr , 

but there TJi:;h ~ be occa sion li:hen such uth ori ty mi{;ht be needed. No 

s:9ecial re:9ort should be 1·equired until aft er spec ific ap:9roval by the 

Adminis~ratiorl. 

11 "2 . AJ.l sto.tistical information required should. be submitted to a 

confidenti2,l 2.ge:1t . By a co:1fidenti al Dgent , I r1 e&n 01~ e othe r than a 

member of t :1e i ~d.ust ry and someone other t.han an ern:9loye e of the code 

authori ty --~') :.·ob bly a firm of inde:pendent acc01.mte.nts . Re:9orts 

should b e :.1c.d.e to the confidential agent a nd t he sumP1a ries made by this 

agent. I ha.ve :10 doubt th2,t in most instances cocle authority secretari e s 

who have bee:1 o_esignated a s confidential agei1Ci e s have dischar g ed their 

duties consci entiously. Ho7ever , it ap-·)ears cl ec.r t hat the code 

authority secretary and other code anthori ty memb ers are in a great ma~1y 

instance s too ouch i nfluenced by the inside poli ticc:.l situation in t heir 

code authoLi tie s to exuect . them to fm1ction with ab s 0J.ut e inde~endence . . 

13 . \Then L:formation is ~) epa ed. in s1.unmary form and copies of 

such surrnar~ submitted to the code authority or to oembers of the industry 

copies also sho"Llid be submitted to n .R. A. in oro.er that such information 

may be avail able as a guide · to the Administration. I think it particularly im:9ol·tant t hat the l a r ge mass of material available :iJ.1 industry 

be channelec1 into the government . The subruission of the s e summaries 

would also ci v e the N . R. A. further cl1ec~<: on the use of material 

collected f rom industry members. 

c-
\ 

- 32 8-

11 '1: • Fielct aud_its should be made only by the·· ·confidential agent . 

Unde r t he l~ ~l .A. to date; . there has been a ~arge . r.lOllnt of field 

auditing by code authority e111ploye.es, a~d many ~nstanc~s nhich have come 

to my personal attention, I knovr tha t ·these audits have r esulted in. a 

kind of f .is:1:inG eY.:pedi tion nhich the Federal Trade porJmission, Ti ith 

all of its -ooner t.o subpo ena duces tecum a n.d nhat not , could rfever put 

over. 11 

( 87) I1)i o_. Se e the l ast part 'of this nemorand-am . 

(88 ) ~~ ra, XI 2. 

( 89 ) The Code Authori t;yt s Re-oly :Bri e f to Re~Jo t of Denuty 

.Admiriistl~ o. tor, 2obert K. Straus, on AcJJT!inistre.tion of the Ice Code 

submitted l.~ov ~i l 2, 1935: 

11 l:Ii stal;:;3 s -.-re re mao_e he re and there, a.nd. s 0r;1 e of the. records 

disclosed L1e~J t or p rejudiced handlin[; , but the r e cord is one of 

accomplishi:1ent o:f the p1..rrp os e s to rrhich t he Gove r:1r!1e:1t a ;.1d the Inclustry 

set thems elves to s e rve, and 1re a:re :;.~ luct an t to hc.ve the period of 

. this service of t hese men terminat ed. \7i th t he general ant1 unchallenged. 

implication t hat they we re guicled vrholl y by selfish mo tives even to 

the extent of rrarping facts. to their selfish e nds. 11 

,(90) EXCERPT FROI.1 NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, Wednesday , April 3, 1935 

nN .R.A. TIL~L\.TJBN S T::tUCK FA.?j ~ER 

TRYING TO I:WCE ICE FOR OWl~ USE 

11 l.Lt\RJI SULLIVArJ TELLS HOW r!~ i DEAL AGErTCY 13EARS 

DOmT OF VIRGil ~~ Y.'".:lO STiL.:tTS TO BUILD P1Ai.~T 

WITHOUT GETTIEG A PERLH T 

"B;y- Hark Su11 i v_an 

"Was:linc;t ol1, April 2 - In Princess Anne County , Va., Mr. P. D. Halsteac1 

is a far e::..~ . He raises mainly sp inach and b erries. He ships them to mar~:et 

in carload_ lots. The ce.rs need to b e iced. The ice , bought from dealers 

and manufo..cturers , costs abou;t $4 a ton . l.Ir., Halstead figures he c ould 

make his O\Ti: ice for much l ess , he thinks for a s l i ttle a s $2 a ton--and 

so he· st ~cted to build a littl e ice -olant on his f ''r m. It nas very 

small--its ~vacity ten tons a day. - . 11 Aft el' he had partl y constructed h is building E'.no_ laid out about 

$2,000, he g ot, on De c ember 22 l ast, a telegram. The telegram Tias from 

an official of :T. n. .A. r: .R.A. has a great many officials, departments ancl 

committ ees :w.vL1g l ong name s. The one rrho signec1_ this t elegram was 

"chair man of t he Committee of Arbi trati on and A-oueal for the 

Virg inia ice il:.dustry • 11 

9838 
- ?2)-

u--

~ -~ · 

11 The ,c ·l c; 1 St:.' llt ~r t .1 is of: icial to Farmer :r . steo.d beg an : 

1 This cormi ... te(3 i ~ cd.vis ed J') . f.' r c c: ~r ing f rmndation ~J e-oaratory to 

constr uction ice- -1f' 1 .int; -ol ant .• The t el. .;.gr,.),m Pant ol:. to i nform 

fr . Halstead t i.1c:.t 1-T.R. A. 0-~. -) id s nr.:..v onn to build a:1 icc- ;;l a nt vrithout 

first ap:!_) L:.t~ :. ol~ a nd .e:u tting a u erilli t f r rm the l: .R. A. cocle authority 

for the ice i:"~ d-... ., try . T.w CC' m !itt ee f u:tth 8r rrerne c3. ::?a r:r1e r Halst ead t hat 

he must cec.s e bu ilcling his ice p l a r-t . Other,r'is e- so the tel egram concluded: 

111 Th is o~.r1itte e uill take such action as may be ne cessary to 

enforce t . e lex.r • • • • Your imT'1e diate comnliance is called. for.' 

11 a:~ne ~ l:c:.lstead did not r eply. Trm dc::w s l a t e r he received a 

letter fl~0 !" 1 ~1 e a.:~e n . R.A. off icial . T~J. e lett er re··)eD.t ed the substance 

of the tel~ , nal .. niflg r. Halstead that l1e r.Just ~:~c t c.1. ue rmi t from 

E.R.A. be::'or e he cm.lld build. a :1 ice •Jlant ' '·neth er f or individu a l or 

nublic use . t 

11 Agc..i 1 ·.:r. Falstead C..id not e"? • Five da s l a t e r, De cemb er 29, 

he rec eived c 10L1er telegr am from the same :~· J. .A. offi ci a l. In part 

it r ead: fiJo.c::ing any r es-oo11 s e , I .:- end opo rtu i t~· t o indicate to 

me on or 'J ef r~ ·.-ond.ay that you agre e • • • • Your :tlon-re sponse nill 

be acceptec. as l'efusal, whi ch \7ill result in such action as necessary 

to enfo:c c e lc.1. :. t 11 

It nill be noted tl1at Hr. Sulliva n calls the code n.uthori ty 

re-pres ent.:.ti ve o. ~B.A offtcial. On t he other hand lffiA \rould ha ve 

probably l1otl,/ o.enied this. 

(91) T'1e l e tt er in uart r eads: 

11 The s~10m:i.o 111 came on April 15, ~.-rhen t he Code Authority appeared 

before t he 1To..ti 0;.1al I ndustrial Recovery Boarc:l. and f or a full half day 

pres 10nted the :::1erits of Artic~e XI, and r e aue st ed the Boc:..rd to direct 

that fur t:1er disturbance .of the u r ovision b e stoppe d and tha t it be 

a dmini ste:;.~ea_ c:,ggr essi vely and firmly. 

"The Recovery Board has 

given assu.ra;.1ce that Articl e 

the non lT IP~ l1as b ee n pass ed 

Code provisio;.:s -r:ill c ome up 

all NRA Agencie s t0 g o ah ad 

firmne ss D-i"ld vigo r." 

comuli ed ~Tith this r eouest . we· have b oon - - XI ~ill not b e disturb ed, at l oast until 

by Congr e ss, nDen it is :9robabl e that all 

f or r ovi og ing , and Tho Board has direct ed 

and ad.mi:aistor th0 provision 17i th 

Shortly ~f r t h is l 0tt e r nas nritt on tho N.I.R.B. issued an 

order Drc:..ctico.lly def ea ting thG :;ff octi v :m oss of Article XI . 

Nbmo r a;.:C..un fo r t~1 .J 1J. I. R.B. by Dr. 1. C. Iia.r ~1all , May 13, 1935. 

Aoplications i tl1 t~10 r -,com'-l:Jnda.ti ons of t h o Divisi onal and Doouty 

Administ:L~c..tor --o r o to bo s ent directly to t h n eY.ecnti v e secretary of t he 

N. I . R.B. If D.. d.oni al '.7e re r e commendocl. , t he matt e r ~:as to b e r eferr ed to 

the Advisory Cm .. mcil . The eff e ct of this nrocedure uould have been contrary to t~ e ii1dustry 1 s desir e s as both the H. I . R.J3. a nd the Advisory 

Council ner e SL.'..s-oicious of Article XI. 

9838 
- 330-

(92 ) ::.:;:10:co..ndma fo rm Coryrin D. Edna r ds to Walte r i:angum, r e Code 

mi st:cc tio~;_ Provisi on s of ~.i od l Code , A:9ril 26 , 1 935: 

11 I n t oo r,lC.i1Y cases the s e r>.genci e s h ave (a) c:;;:c eed ,d t heir uoV7e r s 

a nd mi sint r:~r c1 t h e ir code s ; (b) s 0ught t ·J oe e~ d u·o ~s u a rts 

of t he ir L1G..ustry ; (c ) fail e d t o d.i s t ingui sh bet rre e n ~1e status . B.s 

memb e r s of a t :tade a ssocia t i on. or as ·;Jri vnte bu siness ncn and. t h eir 

stat us as c od 0 offi c i a ls; ( d ) g i ven d aquat c r oc oc ::d tion to .t h e 

i n t er e st s of consumers and l c;1b or; (fl) let -t h e ir code b a c0me ine f f e c tive 

by ina t t e:1tiol1 ar:.d. l a ck of nt ,., st; ( f ) sought to b-uild un a 

bur eaucrD.c;{ of job s a n d sala r j_bs r p,gardl e ss of t il" i nc,_D_str y t s n ec>d . u 

(9 3 ) £ ITo r d.s and Phras 2s 3703 c::.nd cc:.s-" s t lwr e c i t 8d. 

( 94 ) DiDos v. Gr a nd J unction Canal, 3 H. L. C. 759 , 793 (1 852) 

Lord ar.m ll sa.io. : 11 Th is i s no t t o b e conf i 1wd t o c. caus . in 1!Th ich 

h e (the .juc"!.ge ) i s a :9arty, but a·croli':' s t o a caus e i n '7h.i ch h .-; h El.s an 

int er e st. 11 

(95 ) P.m: v. Sun d erla nd us tic ~: , 2 K.:S. 357 (1901 ) . 

(96) I "J? i d. , End s ee rt of· t b:· Coi:l'!ittee 011 i. ~1 st s Po11er s , 

( Cmd. <1:060, P:;.· c s 8n t 3d b;>r t h"' Lord. h2.2. ll r t o Pr>.:c!.i ancmt on April , 

1932 )' 76-79 • . 

(97) F.c·oort, ibid 76-79, 11 Th >' f irst a nCl_ mo st fundamr> n t al 

p rinci "9l c is t :1at a. mc:m may no t b e a judge in h i s ou~ cau s e . t1 

(98 ) P e0·0l e v, :Srady , 1 35 N. 3; . 87 (Ill . 1922) • 

(99) Legc.l Re s earch Homora:1d.urn, IlLega l Posit i on of Code Au t ho ri ti s 11 , 

June 11, 1 934 . 

(100 ) g2 "! . r.-Iemorandu.m No. 1 8, by :Sl e.ckrr::l J. S::1 i tll, quo t ing 

Mr. l:!cNu l t y . Standard Claus e f or Un iform Cost Accou_nt i ng a s Se t F or t h 

in Office L.iC'l:lo:can d.urn of Janua r y 29, 1934 : 

11 Th .:-- Off i c e ~e morand m of J a nu c:,ry 29 r e c omrn ends t i1c f ollovri ng 

as a s t u.1:.do.r c1 clau s e fo r unif0r m cost a cco1..mting : . .. \ 

'Til e CoCl.c Authority · shall causr:; t o b e f or mula t e et a n a ccount i ng 

syst em ai.:0. r: s of c nst f i nclil1g and./ or r.:.stimating ca:!)abl e of u s e by -

all s of tho inCi. tr:~r Af t 3r such syst em a nc1 no t J:w d s hav e b een 

f or mulat c o. , full de t a ils c onc e r ning t h sm s h all b e ma c1e av a ilab l e to a l l 

memb ers. T~H~i~c ft r a ll mAmb e rs shall de t r r mine D..nd./ or 0st i mat e . costs 

in a c corcla:1c c 1 .. i t h t h p rinc i "?l e s of such Me thod s t • 

11 I n t no o:c t :u ·ce auu r ov.:; d code's a nd a l a r ge nur.1b " r of i mpor tant prep0ss d c~. s t :·li s cl aus " has b :Jr.n C"U,)l "d n i t h a yr 0vi si nn f or bidchng s al -:;s 

b p,l ow co st u i t hout a furt h er means of r.1 ni ng c ost 0rt b Gl ow c 0st as 

d8t er mi n e0 .. b;y- a f ormul a t o b e c.rv i s _.d by t h e Codo Auth0 ri t y in a ccor danc e 

with su ch cl c-cu sc . Sin c e t he accounting sy s t emand mc t ll'Jd s of co st fi ndi ns 

and/ or ost in2.t ing cn n t eMp l a t C' d under ~1 s claus e :;.~ -: _ n0t subj Pct t o the 

ao"9r oval of ~1r: Admini s tra t or i ts usr: i n con j unc ti 0n ,- i t h 8. sal e s b r lon 

co s t u r ov i s i on rai s 0s a in~ Rf ·ma j or i mu 0r t auc 0. . 

9838 
11 \7"' ::c-v" tC':-~n tl1'"' ·)n!"iti'"l.L h<:.t •)rnvis·,..,nc 1

.r.:ich c·nstitntc -- t r rminatinr'.S ,.,_ :c;j r CU"~.tic nG ()f E.I • • )"liCJ CC1!1 0" V"lv,....d l')lLly unu~r 

gi')Vi'rn"l"':.t "'· "':..~vis} nafte r r1 ur ll'ltic·, and f1.l "'"1)1_'1l't\U~ity t b,., hr[lr(;. . 

W hov"' :;."'t "o :1 \lJli..,Ul~· c: .1 t.i'US il s· ··J.t,C""O.ii1r~ . T'v' :--"rcisr- ,f t il" 

b r ')ad .. \7C'::.. c '.i.;. .• ::..~:_~ d. r,} • th"' FT ·rid'"'·nt by t 'l ..... l1. I._ .• l . is C.l") a)-:in t'"l 

~"'gis lati :! :1c , . ., "'"J'<:. - ,...f c cl sa., 1 strtut'"'s ' a:'O the d::..~aftjng nf 

"dt"'~ <.s t ..... .:;isl<ti"l ' · ~:J." r"'sult ,..,f tn· u(.·c "f tiL" claus · in qu'"'sti '~ n 

ir. c;nj"Lu:ct:. "!'. ·~.r: t.,1 a r.al ' S (~ m c. rt urovisi')n ;r.i. t:1 ... ut D. nu~thr>r 

~"' finiti 1~1 -~=~ ~t d1ich is subj,....ct t ·) bl'"' .rl.dmini .... t::.·o..t-ll~ 1 s anurnval 

is ~ T) ·':': it t:1 C d .... uth,ri ty t0 Cl " t"riilin·" t ll,., C"'st b"'l·"TI vrhich 

"'n•"' may ~-."t s l . . This is an iministr.s.tiv"' "':':t "n~i"i1 ·;f th" N.I.:rt.A. 

S'"l imn'~:..·t~:.t [' t"' br ··)r T)""rly cE'..ll d. ' l n,"'islati n t L : thn .:~ bnv" 

11 It ic :: t C.if:.:.icult ~ a ..... 1'~nst :ta t" t.l:at a d .... rminati '~n l')f thr' 

lJric" b l - · ·::ic~ 1;10 mE'~r n Jc s ··J.l E'.L: "Cts th" ••r ·ln,.,:rty rights f 

thl')s" t,., ·->--:1 it .,...,rtaL s . Dn ..... u r C"SS 0f lCJ.rr r '"'oui::- " p t hat such a 

u r ,visi 'i'- , , .... ~,..~:- ..... it b "C"'!1"'S la,.,, Fr_.,uld b " subjr..ctcd t'"l th" scrutiny 

c;"';,. nd Cn . )'I~ J •• 

_,, C...- -.L'-' (."1' . _ _. l

.

. m. ·

__ o"rt; '- ~-- L"' 

'='l .... ~ ..L C': "''1 H ..L -~ -lU. .... -- it"'(.--*• l a::._·J '(''V\1":_ J. :"-', e A Cl")dl'"> Authlrit'r f) 

is n ni t~_c:r i ·-: )C ::..·t inl ·~ r ;~v"r ___ rn t.r- i. . Its Yn"::l ~:~ s ar (' C"ffiD"t it nr s 

"'n,., rit: e.::--:· · "l~ 8:::1d ,-riV1 '"'t. .• 'l' '"'l ";T-:lts ir: th: i:"1Ciustry, anCl. their 

int~rt"\. t" <..~:..~ c:._ t~g"':".iStic t."' t~l"S ': "•f C 1ES:..l!n"r R C.;1Cl. 'l"' S'"~ nS I nn gag"d 

in ·1th·'l' st -: s ... -z t~1 ~ "'::1~mi c '.) :L '~C '• c:s • 

11 It is c:-.::'""..l'"'cl. that a suffici "!l.t chrc:.( is vic. c:d by th" inclusi,..,n 

0f tl,., ?..ic:·1b "::.:g ~J c..gr<.::rh rntain,. d L1 Offic" l.I--m-,raml.um rf Januar r 27 , 

but i t UL".'3t "J -. c·n"r·1b"::..~ ,., d t l::o.t U!ld"'r tJl.:' clo:us·" in q_u ,...s tir·n th ~ systn.r.1 

f,-,r:uulo..t-:::C:. 'J·_- t~~ ~ '~ d" Autll'"~l~ity b : C'"li:J."S n.ffr)ctiv."' C:v"' S'"l"11 as ' full 

dn tailst :.~ ~ l :·.c.C.,... a vai l :tblC' t."· a ll m'"'nb " rs'. Pl~"'~Jf:' rt y ri g~1. ts arn. 

~"' ri l') usl ~r c:-.ff"Ct"'d ir.~.st P..n tl;y . I n suc 1 a. s i tuE".ti r:n t hn. r •"' s orva ti nn of 

thn :ll")rT'T t ::-r-:r dy f o.ils t o fulfill the r "' auir'·m.:...nts nf (l_uo u ri')C"ss 

and in '.Jl C::.Ctic~ H·')uld ~1" t b e nf f icaci ')USe 

Cr:acl us inn 

11 Jl ~l' clo..-:.'.s: in qu"sti'"l n r:rl:"n jr'·in,.;d t" D. n r 0h:l.bib.'Jn nf sal " s 

·' l'"~w c- st c.s c'r.. t 0r .1in ' d. 'by t~ c system t,..., b ::. f 0r L11JJ.at "d. d .;l cgat 0 S t 0 n 

~) rivatn. c:-.::c.'. -,<.rt:.&l ng--ncy a c)I")'T" r S'"l dr&stic th2.t thr'\ d':'lr;gatinn is 

unr"'as1ne.bJ.c: c:-.::ui. in vi1latiT1 of dull ·,Jr 0CC' £S nf lan . " 

Local 

Pr'lvi si ·)l".r: 

. . . _, ": 1') :cc..nctum, 

2.:1 c .... c-:.r s l')f 

ttT:l'"' Lc;gal Sancti 0ns up()n rr:1 ic:1 Ass0 ssn ::mt 

Fair C-:rry> ti ti,n ::ir-sttt , August 28 , 193-1, 9 : 

11 It :::;~·"''~2-C'. b" r~r "'C. t he.t ...... hav n. n t c.M" Crib "'CL t~v; m'"'mbcr s 0f t h() 

C,d,.. Au.t~:."' :.·i t:r as 'JUblic .,f ficC'r r: . Wa b nli,..,v c: a C'ldn Authnri ty is 

sui g~;n"':Ci" - a ~~al s·J~ ci s "'cul E> r t 1 t:-1'' aclmi:.istrati'Jn nf the 

NE'.ti "~naJ. I:..cx.strial r:- ·~ ry Act. \l·' cannn t l~ ...... o.t t mpt t 0 classify 

its lngc..l rtr tr..s f _;_::,~th .... r tho.:,1 t" "'t" :~ min " t hat it i s f/'!n" s--rt nf 

an ng~ncy c-_ _Jc·.l ":C~i zC'd. t " ad.mi::1~st ,... r tL:; -our•) .... SC S of th,., Hati,nal 

ndust ~l· ~l ..... -- v....,-~.,, 1' ct 11 ... ..... . -- J .l. " ,h. • 

(101) f)'':wc., V. 

9838 
(102) S.C' P.d.mini ntrL'.tive Orde r ~~o . X- 39 , ffi1 e re ::. e Adni::1istr2tor 

sought to ·,,-,- ::._ t~ _clre.\1 cer t air1 -oo\Te:..,.s :Zr'or:l co cle c;,u t:-!oJ:i ties. 

(1'03) Jrooldng s Institution, o-o. cit., 291 , C'.:1d at 272 :-rn ere the 

authors so.:•: 

11 8-n- ervisio~~ of Code Authorities. It m=Y be tc;..:en for granted t~~c.t 

the activiti e s of code authorities have to Je sunervised. Contention 

to the COI'.tl~ai~y b:!..inks all the relevant fe.cts. WnC'.t t~18J a c.rninister is 

a body of l mJ. Being int e rested :9arties to t :he bocl_~r of t he laTI '17~ ich 

they· adrnL1ister, their m~artiaJi ty is obviousl;yr not ":h olly .... o be relied. 

on. Their ~J r· ers are built upon the cti sci linnry 2.nd. coercive poTiers of t~!e 

government. It is therefore inconceiitab:!.e .s.s c.. r.Io.tter of public · policy 

that they shm:ud be given full auth ority either to E'.clrrlinister the 

definitive toru s of codes or to exercise the discretionary legislative 

andjldici2c:!.. -.)ouers contained t :1erein." 

(10L1o ) 292 U. S. 495 (19 35). Th is decision -·as ... 12-nded doffil _ay 27. 

Brookings I~ titution, ou. cit., 255: 

11 It is cG:.ding emphasis to the public ch2.racter of their 

responsibilities. This WE!.S illustratecl by the removal of Elembe rs from 

the cotton B;ar:Jent code authority, because they n.~ re p2.rties to a 

legal action <'€ainst the g overnment to prevent the eie c~tive i~osition 

of an amendi11e1::.t to the code. · However appropriate such a ction, a body 

:of persons ms limited cannot at the same time be in any real sense 

re-oresentative of the members of an industrv. The::.' e c:"rise tests of 

loyalty :Ds bet\Teen obligations as 2. q~lasi-p~blic official and ~s a 

representa tive of an industrial group. 11 

(105) .:. t ·:?2.ge 537. 

(106) S1.,:9 ra, XIII discusses what standards \!er e s et up by the 

Act, anc'L t l:eir e.c1equacy. 

( 107) Suyr£., I I I. 

(108) ::::ru e s t hat are p rescribed by c. higher c.c1"'Jinistrati ve bod 

have t he s<'. :1e force- as la'l:', u-oon a subordinate bocl.~ . E::;: -oarte ::Sunji Une , 

41 F. (2d) 239 (1930). 

(109 ) \.1::. c::.:cellent but sorileDhat unusual e:>:aiu l e is found in 

the Iron C..Ec~. Steel Code :;"~ o. 11, 11 NR.A Codes of Fo.i:c Con_9e tition, 11 I, 199, 

200, Schec3J.J_ o E. 

(1 10) P'\.1.:.-ro L3.nuf a.cturing ::: ndus try, El.-o1Jroved co d. e 1~o. 57, ibid, 

679, Articl 2 ::r : 

11 "5ve:.. , ;m-.yloyer shall use an accounting sy sten ,-:_ich conforms to 

the p rinc i :9l.:; s of a nd is a t leo.st a s dete.ilecl and co:.rolete a s the 

uniforrJ - nc'.. stt:'.i1C_" rd Jl'lethod of n.cc ountin:~ c.nd t 11e ~1ir orm and st 3:ndard 

method of co sJCLl£ to b formulated or t:'.p-yro ed b r :e · Su:oervisory _g er..cJ , 

with such vT::io_tions the refrom a s mE'y be requir ed b- tl e L_dividual 

condition s <'.f:Lecting any employer or group of enplo rs Emd as r.:~ay be 

9838 
n,')nrovr>~_- -- t:: Su e rvi or y Aeency < nd m~ de suuT)l "' 1 nts to sc.id 

fo "'lulc.t-·c~ rc c·y9 rov~d ne t . ocls of t:'CCou: tin0 nnd CO"'bL1 11 

Co:sct ::· L~ Jrcssi ·" r e I d, stry , <.'D'Jroved code :-o . 7 , 11 rSA Co d_c s f) 

~ ir Co ne"" i ... ; 0"' 11 , I, 7' , .rl.rticle IX . See t:'.l so , Oil 3 urne r I ndus tr~ . 

A.nrovec. Coc"!."' ~o . 25 , ibid .• , I, 3'1.'- 345 . Secti.on 5 :1~1e e the 

A 1 i list:~~ ... :· l'et<'L1ecl .'In <"-c )rov['.l 'l1 0 ' e r , r'1ich ··,.s t:1 - most co•'lnon 

for ::"'l . 

(11.1) c"l.:'.:~dry c.nd Dr~r Clec:min."; !<:'ci1ine ~' i:e~ nu::'c-.ct uri ng I ndustr r, auuroveC. CQ -.-: :·o . 3-1 , I bid, I , t!4_ , Article XI I : 

11 ::o e· __ -.,!. o: ·er u:tll rk l-:e t01n. nllo':'Jn.llc e for a,")"?D.rc:-.tus , machinery , 

or unlic.::c ~., s c- ': n in tracl.e in e:>: c e ss of the anou-c.t fi):ecl in stand cl 

list of tl'C -.e- .:.:: · 11owa:1ces a··Jur ove r:l_ J. r om ti1e to time ~r the 

su})ervisol·:- c . .._,-.)::c; ... ['.l1d filed in t he offi ce of L1e Se cr e tary of t he 

Laundry c::c·_ :::;:.·: - -.~ :'.eane c !:o.c.1i ner y c.nu£acturers ' .Association. " 

(112) Cotto:~ Gar::1ent I nr!_ustr:r , 21J>Jroved co0.e :·o . 1.1 8 , ibid, 1 24 , 

Article r- , 2 : 

11 T: o -=:: e cut.ive .A ~writ~r o.._ cn:r c:.ivision ffi<- , fl~ m tine to time , 

VTi th tJ.13 -~9-·) ::..·ovc l of t he Pc::;er I nd.us tr;/ Authority, c~12. e in respe_c t 

of a l l Ol' c:13:- of t :.e p ro duc t s of sucl1 division . t "1e ·tJeriocl of time 

nhic'1. sJ.1,"J.l el~::_)se oet1:1een t h e dcte o:i:' f i lin~ c:m1 t:1e effective d£.te 

of any ~l c:: sc::ecl.o..lle ; 11rovi G-e d , hm:ever , ~1 at su e}-_ }_Jeriod sha ll not 

be less t ::r-. -.t~ four 2{~) l1ours o:- more t :12n five (5) days; c:md 

provicled. fu:·t >.e1· , t hc.t nend ing t :1e l1olding of c. 12.1eeting- of the Pc::.pe r 

Industry AnL.o:.. i ~; tllO ~1c. L·maE t he r eof moy grr.nt an i n t e r i m t:'.p:9roval 

of such c.ctio3.l . 11 

(11 3) I:.·o~l c-.nd Ste el I ndust r;;' , auuroved code ~~o . 11 , i bid; I; 

Sec.tion S: 

11 ::e 3or.:cC. of Dir e ctors b~· t~ e Dffirnative vo t e of a :!lajor i ty of 

t he TI::ole ::Joc-rc'. u ay e st e>.blis: mr---:Lru.m r a t es of cl i s colli:.t a nd. maxi r.mm 

})erio0.s o:=- :.::c·e e c:..·ec'.i t , ot:1er t ,:.c;n ~ ose sp o. cifi ec1. in Sch edule G of 

t he Co cle , , ~_i : :- 1C~' be allonec1. b;r nn•• 11ember of t i:.e Co de Tii th resuect 

to the s c.le of ~.r:.:' :9r oduct or ~o ro cl.ucts to job'Jer s for resale a s 

uerni t ted -J-- t~:e ··1l'ovi sions of Sect n 4 of t :1i s Sc:- 9C:t.lle "3 . The 

SecretE".r:- _c .. J. C).. re ::1o tice i r: ":"Ti ting of any :1.ctiol'l token b;;,r the 

Boa rd of Di ~a ct ~s in ~cco dc.nce nit~ t he u rovision s of t~is Section 6 

to eac' ·1e: _-J e:' of the Code ,-,: __ ic.l c.-.t t l1e time siw.l:_ De engcged in 

p roduci -G t:: e :::.. ::.d_ af uroci_uct i -, the scle of ..-~1 iC.L1 rmy such other r [' t e s 

or nerioc.s :c.l~. ~'l [' ve o e en es o.b li ~e cl_ ~r suc:1. E' ctio:1 . 11 

(11'1:) J::..~s :. e nd. Steel ::1dust:-~r , cnuroved Cod.e _ o . 11 , ibid., I, 189 , 

Article ., , S :.ti ol1 3 : 

9838 
- 334-

11 :ce-?t i:a co.s e s for t?hich liquidated d.am~ ges a r e fb:ed in t h e cod.e 

CJ.nd in c.:'.s'3 s -.-~~ i c:1 shall give rise to a ctions in tort in favor of one 

or more r.2 eDO j_ ' o:f -the cocle for damages suffered OJ it o:c them , the 

boa.rd of il~ ctors sho.ll have ·oovrcr f1~ m time to t i :Je to establish t h e 

am0unt of lir lic.i.q e~. da:-nnges :onyable by D.ny member of t h e code u-_oon t h e 

COI'lmissi'Jn _by such member of a.ny <:.ct consti tutin:; <:'.:.,_ lt.:rl.fc:-.ir "9 ractic~ 

under t h o C')C:_e 2.nd. a list of the aommt s so fi~:ed .shall Jfrom titne to "time be 

fil ed ni l~ t >.e secretf1.r y . 

(ll:S) ::: :-..~ e:x:c:.1.rr9l e see W<:'.ll Pnper I.innufa ctu:.~i r._g I ndustr y , a-nuroved. 

code ll . 19, ibi~ , I, 272 , Article VII (c). 

(11 6) Su:_;_JrO-, n. (113) 

(117) Cotton Garment ndu st:~y, C"l.-oD r o"ved Code :. o 118, 11 lmA CoG.es 

of Fa ir )~ tition11 , III, 101, b.rt·icle XII. 

(118) illinery c:-.nd Dr e ss Trimming , J3rai0_ 2.:10. Textile Industry, 

approved co0.e . 69, ibid , II, 15~ Article II, ( 5) ( 4 ). 

(119) Dj_~ s ctu:ting L 1clustry-, a·o•Jj_ Qyed: code ::o. 64 , ibid, 

II, 92, ~ti e VI (i): 

11 The Co o.e .A1...1 .. thori ty sha ll p rovi c3.e rul e s a n d reguln t ions by wh ic 1 

the di sti:--.c t io ·- betn~en ' h i gher-priced ga r ments' [\S eindefined, <:'nd 

1lower-pricec1 t;o..rments sha.ll be d.eterminec1. L1 so c1oing, the Code 

Authority ll be guided by the wh ol e sale :orice s preva il ins on 

AUc,.oust 15, ·1933 , or t hereCJ.bouts, a s reprssenting t he intention of 

the frame r s of lis Coc3.e. 11 

(120) :Sle ctricD.l Hanufo.cturing Ir:.dus try, [1p_proveo. code No. 4 , 

ibid, I, L:h9 : 

11 If t~ :. e s~? rvi sory r:.ge:1cy shnll deter:riine thn t in a ny branch or 

subdi visioll o:f the electrical manufE'.cturing nclust ~r not n.ol! s·81ling 

its u ro<i1..1..ct on- the ba .s.is of ·orice lists with or ,-;i t l1out discount 

sheets Pi tl1 fiJ-:ecL terms of pa;yment the di stri butio11 or r1c:tr keting 

condi tioll S L~ s c:c id bra nch or subdivision o.r e sir:1il r.r to or the se.roe 

a s t h e e.istj_·ibution or r!~eting c0ndi tions in. a br2.11 cl1 or subdivision 

of t he ·L ·.0_ust:."'' \·rl1ere the use of nrice lis ts l."i th o:c n i t h out cHscount 'J 

sheets is Fel:l_ l~ cognized, Emd t h['.t 2. .r st m of selli:.-- r; on net :9rice 

lists o:c )ric e lists and cU scount' . . sheets sh ould ·be put i nto effect 

in sucl1 0 1' 2,: _c:.,_ or subdivision, e<'.ch J11<' nufn.cture r of t :1 e lJroduct or 

p roducts ')f snc~1 bra nch or subdivis: o11 s:w.ll 11ith in t 1-enty (20) d0~ s 

a ft e r notice of such determL1ation file n i t h t}le su:Dervisory agency 

net p ri ce lists or::91-~ ic e lists e.nc1. d,isc nunt sh eets, c:-.s t h e su:9ervisor Jr 

agency no.:• c.ire ct." 

(121) Gec>.r La.nufa cturing I r.dustry, o.unroved c od e l'J0 . 117, ibid., 

III, 74, _rt icJ .. e VII ( 2) (j). 

9838 
,. c· t~, ,)-

(1 ~2 ) 7o.ll Pr or i[lnufr- tu ·in. 1;1du.,tr r, ~T'Jnrovc6. C0cl·~ Po . 19 , 

ibid , I , 271-:'72 , ;'.J: ~- i c VI; :·nd C "'~11'"' 1". t L 1clus tr:r, ... n r oved code 1 o . 1.?8 , ·b·d III ,...~·· -~t · , ,-III · 1 1 , , ~--..:> , u 1 c_ e . • 

11 All Portl ~j10. •31 •1 r.t l '" r -, tee;. by uo. b c r s of' t llC inchl"try . hall 

comply '!i t!l t ... te st. nc<'r ll s-.)L>CiJ'ic<:. tinj1s for Portl ~.n(t Cencnt of the 

Americon Soci t~r J.or Tecti.n ·.ro t eri· s , r-,ncl the Am e:::-i ~.n Stnndnrds 

Associutiol'l, r'.nf·/or l~e FedE'rc.•.l S·[):: cificc tion :Bor'rcl • . 'en·bc•rs of the 

industr;r ·K' :~ sell. cement unde r modi1 ied Portlc,n:). Cenent ""pecifica ions 

th~ t <re c~.esit;j'l.ed to meet spe cial or unusuc l conc'.i t .i.ons not adequately 

or p ronerly co ·e rcd by he S"90cificC'.tions her ein<br:>ve refe r!)€d to , 

nroviciccL, .lOTi e:i. , t l c.; t the 1Jrice at '"':1i c.1 such modified. Portla nd 

Cements c.rn <"'J!..o <~ll be filed with t~1e Code Autl ori ty. 11 

(123) :=:'l"'or 2-nd Wnll Cl ay Tile I .. anufo.cturii1g I u :l·•.lstry, ap:9 roved 

coC.e ro . 93 , i"ci cl , II, ~54 , Article X, Sec tion A; c.;.:c1 "C'nd.ur11ea r and 

Alli ed Products i i,_ nuf .. cturin.g Industr;)T , a·-:yor0ved c0C'.C' i·o . 23 , ibid, 320 , 

Pnrt V, Section 2 : 

11 All stc ~:0.c.rc.s a lrA<.dy fol'rrJulatod. in coo:oe:L~< tion ···i th t!1e :Bureau 

of StPndc.rc.r. ·of t·>.c United Stc.tes De-ne rtwent of Co rr-1~rce and npnroved 

by tl e I ::C':t'.st:c:' O:i., stand..c;.r ds '71 ich sh£'.11 b e sr) for1ulc.ted e.nd 

annroved s~1c.ll ·D ecr':Tle ~ e stanc3.nr ds for the I nd.ust:J.:y . Lll merch[l.l1dise 

manuf ac tu:..~ e(: o.i'ter the effective clu. te shal l be ·9lainly c::nd visibly 

mc.r ~eo. ~:~ c.:1. :.--C:.elible stC'!'!l·o or firmly sewn le.bel _t substandar d ', whe r e 

such Merc~:>.<."~'- i se CO'JP s bel oF ~.e TJininu.r.J s tande.ro.s. Every 

manuffl ch. _:..~e:· s:,_c1l nlainly DC?.r lc Tii t h n.n indelible .s t2.mp or firmly serm 

lab el the sizes o:f mee.sure:nents of ~1 is :prod.uct eon . However, any 

merchanc'.ise uc.~·n'.fac ttrred "9 :..~ior to -t£18 de t e .of c-.doption of a standard 

for such :-::e :..~c ~:a::o.i se shall not , i!1 ar.y cas e , be cla ssified a s 

1 subst~d_aro.t :·:e:L· cLandise , end. the Secretory shall notify all knovm 

interested ~) e:..~no ~13 irr the ·I ndustry of each neu stano.crc1 adon ted and 

the effective ( _c-.te t he r eof • 11 

(12~) C:'.ec.:1ing l'nd Dyeing :rrads , .A.:9provec1 Code ro . 101, ibid, 

558, Article VI , 3(h) : 

11 To e stc:-.bJ. i sl·1 and -o rescri be fr ir and -r ee.sonabl e minioum nhol esale 

and retc::il )l·ices by regions e.no./ or locn.l a reas, for t l1e several 

services coi,Tyr i sed ''Ji thi n tli.e d.efini tion of cl anin ~~ c.ncl dyeing; such 

minimum Fl1ol e s<.;.l e and r e tail p rices to be sufficie:1t -·to p rovide for 

carrying out ~1o ~') ur:!_)ose of the Act, to b e consiste;_1t ni th mai nt enance 

of the iJL:~i: 1u.:.1 st"'.ndar ds 0f quality :9rescri bed by t~:~ Code Ao.1tho ri ty , 

to e nabl e t~ .:.e t:-o.c.e to maint a in the ·oayment of c.t lee.st rdni!:lum rmges 

her ein est: oJ.is~:e d and other i7age s "9 r operly based t he r eon , the 

f urni shi11c_· of stc..'ble m-ploy~ent ne cessa r y to maint a in the trade, and 

such ot:'-er co ::::.sid.er ations reasonably pertinent thereto . 

11 -fuJ.:r 1:.1~::i:11J'1 t,:> rices thus est ablished may f rom time to time be 

increused. o:i.· c-:.ec:L· eased by the Code Aut.1ori ty accorG!.ing to changing 

condi t io<'ls. 

9838 
3~

11 mmecl~2 tely c::tf ter any S)lch -orices, incr eases, ano-/ or reductions 

l:av e bee1:. t:'~r!~c ovect by the. Administr ator, t.fie Go de Authority shall take 

su ch st eys ns a r e reas onably cal culated t o no t ify .s.ll memb e rs of the 

t rade t hereof . Su ch p ri c e s , i ncr eas es, and/ or r educ t i ons shal l go into 

ef fe ct l.:toor:. sucl1 dat e or dat es as the Code A-:u-th ori ty s~1.all fix . 11 

(125) Pano.ma Refini ng eo., v. ~' 2'93 -U. S. 388 (1 935) . 

(126 ) 1h'. C. \.f . Putna1t1 ho.s made su ch an~ ezte11deo. c. ,nalysis hic11 

is ver y il1 t e :te sti ng and. sugge stive . It has s erved ~1e '.7riter 

materiall:' . . ii.1 t lle p repar a tion· of t h is p r obl em . 

(127) · Ee t a il Cust om Milline r y Trade , Code }To . 60D, ll~:RA Code s of 

Fa ir Com:?et i t i o:'l11 , XXI, 502, Article V, Se cti on 2 (b ) . 

(128 ) ~e il Tra de , Co de No. 60, ibi d , II, 40 , ~rti cl e X, Se ction (c). 

(129) J7o.b :'ica t ecl Me t a l Pr od.ucts r.~anu ctu.ring c.n c".. i:eta l 

Finish inG cl.l1 ~- i.Ie t a l Co e.ting I nc1ustry , Code n o. 8L'1: , i b i d , II, 336, 

Article IV, Se ction 6. 

(130) Cotton Textile 11 ustr ~r ,- Code No. 1, ibid, l, 16, 

Article V, Se ction (c). 

(131) Su a VIII. 

(132) :Bc.r ber Shop Tra de·, Code rro . 398, 11 1~ Co des of Fa ir 

Comp etition", I X, 3,!3,Articl e Vl, Se c tion 8(e ) . 

(133) Out cJ.oor Ad.vert i sing Trao.e , Code no . 30~ , i bid , VII, 280 , 

Article VI, Se cti on 14 . 

(13 .. ) Aut m'!lobil e Hot Wa t er Heat e r l.If g . I ndust:t:-, ib i d , XII, 484 , 

Articl e IV, Se ction 1~. 

(135) S1.1.v r o. XII a nd XIII. 

(13 6) L"L'..iJ""oe r a nd Timb e r Produ cts Industry , Co cle I:o . 9, lll-JrtA Coo.e s 

of Fa ir 1~)et iti nll, I, 119, Articl e III, Se ction (d.) . 

(137) ]t:\E:.:ers, Code :ro. 47, i b i d , I,. 580, Ar ticl e VII, 

Se ctions 4 (c) ~ild 5p 

(138 ) TI:1ol esal e Au t omotive Tr a c-;.e , Code ro . 1 63 , ibid, I V, 193 , 

Ar t icl e VII , Secti on F. I • 

(1 39 ) o~er Distributi ng Trade , Code No . 1 76 , ibid, I V, 387 , 

Arti cl e X, Se c t ion 14 . 

(140) :Cle c trica.l ~. 'l anufac ri ng I ndustr y , Code !. o . 11, ibid, I, 49, 

Art i cl e I X. 

9R38 
r-. ,.. ,..., . r-

(141) -:cctcur unt Ind.us tr , Code f..o . 282 , i bi d. , VI , 51 5 , Arti cl e V, 

Secti on 5 ( ci. • 

(142 ) :J :..' SC i!f g . nd tr~r , Cn c1e ro . 611, ibi0. II , 90 , J,_ r ticl e I V, 

Sec tion ll. 

(l t;; :::>) ::.;:1 t s Cl ot h i :n<?; I nc'ustr, , Cod e-;-... ,) . 1 5 , ibi o , I , 232 , 

Ar ticle I\ . 

(1 '1:~ :J:..~ s i:7g . I nclust.ry , c o6 .. ~ Fo . '~ , ibict , I I , 88 , 

Ar ticl e I II , s - c t ions 1 , 2 ~d 3 . 

(145 T:.·:.c'-:i :lg nclus tr , Code Eo . 278 , i b i c1., VI , <!:39 , Arti cl e VII , 

Section (,3) ( e) . 

(1<::6) Cr; tton Gc..r 1:1 ent no.u str~r , Code rro . 9 , i .. Di d , III, 77, 

Art icl e IX , Se c t i on ~ 

(147) :::.et c.i l Solid Fuel Indu stry , code l: . 280 , ibid. , XV, 386 , 

Art icle , Se cti on n . 

(1 ~8 ) G:..·c:-:oi.1ic rts Industry , cod.e Uo . 287 , ib i d .. , VII, 20 , 

Article I , Se ction 5 . 

(1'19) Ler;c.l or nd1r..1 , Revien of Code .Aut ol~i r Pou er, 

vembe :i.~ 27 , 1S33 : 

11 1 - ~- , :1e: w r andum of To venbe r 22nd to e1e Lega l Division 

r.rn.s direct c c·. to stoppi:1g c..n a rbitrary requ ire:.1en t ~ :r1emb e rs of the 

Legal Di vi o· ~ t~ t t her e r.mst b e i n corp or a t ed i n ver~· code a 

g enera l ?0 e~ Given to t h e Aru1inistra t or to 'revis e a nd modify ' 

a ctions t 2.:-::-:: .. b:- ['. Code .Aut:-:.o:;. i t y . Th e eff e ct of su e' a ctemand 

would b e t o i: ~c:- is t upo n finol ['ut h or i t y il1 t he Ac1ninistrator to 

substitute >i s j 1.1 .. dg-rnent Dhe r ever de sir ed for ~1a t of the Code 

Authori t r• . is -,:>ulcl i rrmo s e a n i rrtr) ossi b1 e bm~ o.en 0 11 t he Admini stra.t or u . - -

a nd a t t h () ~.:-1 e t ime t ake a way fror·1 industry t he funo .. onen t a l pm1er of 

Self ov e·~- . · o-,).. .1. --- •~...t- -- L ~ 

11 2 - It ':""'D.S not i n tended by t h is ne mo and , on t he oth er hand , 

to inc1.icc.t e ~12 t Code Auth orities sh ould be left free to govern a n 

ustr · ·::- i t> .. ou..t gard to necess r 1 imita tion s aml c:1eck s to 

~rot ct Liv~t e and public i n t e r ests , nh ich t he er ~m ent must 

main t aL .. . 

11 3 - ::o:..~ '3::arrpl e , a ny ex e rri se of po,r.rer by a Co d .. e Authority in t he 

na ture o~ :.. ic c f i ::-:ing , ev en in the deter:nina tion of mi nimum p ri ce s to cover 

c osts of uct n, must be subj e ct t o t he p oner of g overnment r evisi on , 

or else ~ e:.,e j_s gr a ve d.E>.nger of viola ting a p rimc:r y r e quir ement of t h e 

l a1.1, 1ic~: i s "'.. c.t code s ·shall not be de sig ned .. t o p r onate I'lonop olie s :..~ to 

elimino.t e :..~ ?~ ss small ent er p ris e s '- nO.. \-:'ill not o-p era t e to discriminat e e.gaL:.st t : .. eo - an d. also t hat t he co1es c. ll not u ermi t mononolies 

or monouoli stic u r a ctices. 

9838 
- 328-

" 4 .... Therefore , t h ere must be o.utho:c i ty reserved in t a e r euresent a tives 

of the gove:c :;.L10:1t to disap-prove of c:my action s of t~·le Cof..e Authority · h ic_l 

might violo.te t~1e purposes of the :rt.ecovery Act." 

(150) Leg2.l 1. emorar..clum, 1 o. 32 by :Blc re lJ. S 1i t h , ..::on-Associat im: 

Represe11.t at :Lo c.1 on Code Autpori ties, I•.:ay 2~, l 934 : 

11 The Ac t C.oes not eX'9ressly p rovi cl e for Coo.e Aut'horities. I t !!lay be 

that in r; c0::lSideration of this subj e ct, Co :r..gress conteJ'!r9lated perfor ::12. _ce 

of t he .::..C:.n2. :1istrc.tive fu..YJ..ctio ns of i no:ustry ~r trad.e associ ations. It ..-,c:-.s 

provided. L lc.t t:c e a ssociatior:.s must be trul;>r r e-pr e se:1tative of t h eir 

industri e s L: 0rcter to obtn.in t he c 0c.e a~:mlied for , an( i n Section 6(b) it 

was proviC:.eC. t l-::.o.t a tracl..e c.ssociation in · 0rder to be entitled. to the be:_efits of t h o 2..c t si10uld meet t he requirements of the President that tne~~ oe 

truly e:91~ :::; so::.t2.ti ve. . Any req1..1.iremen:ts a lo ng this line ns to 2.. trc:-.de 

associatio:..1 s·lOnlcl rea sonable be a-D·oliecl to C0de A-o.th ori ties, and inas r.mc~ 

as t he co :1t ::~ ts of a code with reference to a Coo.e Aut"wri ty ·rest '1i thil;l 

the adm;i..l1istro.tive discretion of .liRA n e shoulc1 L1sist on :1igh stand£.rds 

of true re··J:c e s e n.t a tion for Code. Authori'ties as ~ell c.s for associations. 

If an associ2.t :..on only pP.rtially covers c:m i ndustry , w.1less· the portion 

uncoverecl.. ip a negJ.i g ible fp.ctor, the f nreg oing r ati onale \.ould _seem to 

requir e ~Jrese: _tation on the Code Anthori ty of t he non-trade association 

members of t: e i:.:lcluStJ'Y• This is particularly trU:e i n cases where lcno'IJU 

conflicts e::ist b e tween trade associa tion mei!lbers on t:1e one hand and. 

non-trade association members on the othe r. 

11 It uD.~r .::..J_ s o be that renresentation of non-tral1.e a ssocin.tion meMbers 

is ne cessc.r 3' a s a reas0nable . insurance against dis cl ination e.gainst snall 

enterprises, L1o.smuch as t i1o se who a re not members of the trade a ssociation 

are likel3r to be t h e sma ller enterp rises in the inclustry . 

11 Whe :' e fL:.cUngs of true repre sentation a no. of no inequitable restrictions of ~:· ~ ~· )O soring group may b e b a sed on i n cor::r:?lete or unsatisff'..ctol~' 

evidence, [1. ~'ei\.l..l insistence u·oon the truly r e·oresenta ti ve char a cter of 

the Code Au t :'-Ol1i ty may go far tm-.rard curing ~1 is uo ssi ble defect • 11 

(151) Consu.mers t Advisory Board. I•: emorand-....un -oy J. l.i . Kadley , Gr auhic 

Arts ndust:~ ies, An ril 3, 1935:· 

11 Code A1..1.t~1ori ty Organi zc.tion: 

"Coo :..1o.i 11<:.t ing a ll of t h e code authoritie s 

of the Co c:..o , is t he Nationa l Arts Coord.ino.ting 

powers of cont rol . 

and aclrrli nistrat i ve c:-..genci e s 

Comn ittee with verv limited " 

11 T::e :; :.. :. cilJ l ind.ustry (A-1) under Graphic Arts is ComMe rcia l 

Relief P:.. :.: .. ti--.c:: , for which t he United Ty-potl1etae: of America is d esig nc:-.te . 

in the Co c".o ~ s t:1e Nationa l Code Authority. Locc:-.1 a G; encies have no d.irect 

responsi .bil i ·c-.. to the United Typo t l1eta e of America a s 1-ational Code Aut lori ty; t he ::.~ e-) i"Cuss ions r each ing Washington a r e t he 0111 v cHre ct evidence to 

the N. :rt.A. of ~1 ir a ctivities . The Unit ed T;)~ot he tae of Aoerica is 

divided to 17 zone s a nd 116 re _ions. .'s corrt ct Pith them is 

throu~l1 Ctc :~ ional Grauhic Arts Coorci.inating Cor:.1mittee , the }rati onal Code 

A~thori t y ol~ L :.cJ.u stry A.:...l (United Typotl1e t a e of Aneri ca), thence to the 

9838 
Reli ef PriEt::. nr_; ~onal c de :u.thoritif'3s and finally to t~1 e indivi du[.l 

esto.b li s':~~ e:!.ts in suc:1 nm:n.:?r , forn and time as tne rc> i~'nO.l r1t'y cl.e err.15 e . 

It L, 1 i ttl "' '· ·o:.1c.er tl < t ~r . :t. A. cc:.nnot be sure ho, 1 c"'.refully its ins true 

tions are C"~ ic· ted . 

11 Tl e 1.J ,; t e d T~roothe. .. ac 01. i..mericL is c mtroll ad b~r its ocal ~1 apt :cs , 

which foi' co' e·;? ..l""9oses they he v e orr-- ni zec into zo :12l ano rer innal cod.e 

authoriti s . T: e j_l tiont'..l ht's little uo•Te r t o ::- el ') ct the local 8-bGncies ; 

as a m['.tt or o::: f"'.c t , the 17 zonos nppo int the 29 nL:.tiono.l directors, ··llo , 

in turn , "'l oct t. .~.: a Eat iono.l Admini s tr ~ ti ve Com-··1i t t 0e of 7 memb e rs thr ough 

which t he ['.ssocic.tion deal s ··ith N. R.A. Since thG Co de actu().lly name s the 

United T:,..._)ot'1et.:-..e of Anerica D.s t he Cod.e Authority , it is t e chnic::>.lly 

true tllC.t c.l ".. t: e r.1emb e r s of the associ ation arc 11enbers of t he Code 

Aut ho rit~· c. :: ::ican nrmy cons ~sting entir8l y of gene rals. 

11 The :: c sul t , bitterly opposed by this 13oc:.rd. in o.ll of our d.ee.lings , is 

that no O"'l· is dir ectl y r es:ponsibl e to N. R. A., c.nd no mE".tter v1hat a 

deuuty mo..:- r·,.l c~ , t _ ey ma1ce t h eir own l aws e~nrd.less of t he mandate of 

the co de l.'.::d.e:.~ ··.·>ich t hey oper ate . l

1 

(152) ·='..A Pr e ss Releas a Ho . 2?51 , December 13 , 1 933 : 

11 As --. :-::9 ::..~ essed by the Ad.mi ni strc.tor , the Aclmini s t:.~c: on memb e rs of 

Code Autho:ci t i -...: s , cc>.refully 2.voicLing tl1e fac t or ay:oearance of die t8 t ion 

or coercio:-. n2,ll f u.11ction a s co-wo r~ ers in an und.GrtD.:dng of public intere st, 

concerned.o:.:.J. ~- i:1. t he fni thful administrc:tio:1 of t :1 e Co0.es. 

11 S:9ecific2.lly , their chi e f duties may be summ ri ~ed as fol l ows : 

11 1 . Refe::· ,_-ri t h r e comme ndD.tion to the Administra tor thr ough the division aclr.::ii'list:;.'c.tor t h o> e !TID.tter s mentior..ed in t he c ode C.'-S b e i ng subject 

to revi e-! <.;.;,c./or t heappr oval of the Ad.:ninistr£1.tor. 

11 2 . ~ccon_-:lend to the division adninistrator such other matters as i n 

his jud::;r:1 e;.1t 2.re important to the welfar e of t h3 i::.:.C:.u.stry , or to the uu.bli c 

interest , or to the consumers or employee s affected. by the p rovisions of 

the code . 

113 . r:i;~ oue;~1 t he code CJuthor i ty secur e cor.1pl e t e 2.ssent to and comulicmce 

with all p:;.~ov sior s of t he coc1e by ec.ch lL."li t of t i1e i nd.ustr y . 

11 4: . Assist t he co de c.uthori t y in conne ction ni th. the p r epa.ration 

of r ecormL:'lo.c.tio:as for n ecessa ry int erpret c.tions, mo dificati on s , a nd 

addition s o:~ tile code . Con sult wi t h the divisi on a.dx1inistra tor in reference ther eto . 

11 ·5 . :h :.':;. c.:1d guar d against t h r ec::.tened devi a tions from the code or 

non obs ~i_-:- :: e of its ter ms or action contra ry to tl1r; p rincipl e of lJ . I . R. A. 

11 6. oilS t8 n~ y scr utinize the operation of the code a nd see that it 

does not per :Ji t o:;.~ :9r omote monopolies no r tend to eliminate or ouur ess 

smal l ente~)rises . 

9838 
340

11 7. AcLvi se rri th the code aut.:10ri ty in seeing til2-t its affairs 2.re 

handled L1 o. coo·oc rati ve and fair m<::mner 11i t h :..~es- )e ct to all units u:1o.e:::.~ - . 

the code , ::K',:-:ing sure tr a t theprovi s i ons af t Le code c,re strictly adh ered. 

to with a~1 eq_n i t c.ble and f a ir settle;nei1t of c.ll raa tt e:..~ s covered by t~1e 

code pertc.inL:.g to the interests of t 11e gener 21 :91_:~_blic, consul!le rs, or 

employee s. 

11 8. Assur e hir1s e lf a r:.d the divisi on a d:o1 inist:ca tor that the 

industria). nera :~s of t h e code au..thori ty are trul y re )resent at ive of the 

entire i r..CJJ.stry c:md el e cted by_ a meth'ld fo.ir end. eou..i t able to all 

conc erned. 11 

(1 53) I b icl .• 

(1 54) roo~in s Institution, op. cit., 272 , e t s eq. 

. . 

9838 

/ 
- 31 1-

OTES TO CHAPTER XVI 

(1 Corwin, Tvdli ht of the Supreme Cour t, (Yale Univer sity Pre ss, 

1934), 184: 

Professor Corwin su sts that the b.:tck-to-the-Constitution movement may not be so concerned with any meanin ~ of the constitut ion other 

than 11 certain doctr ines , also sanctioned b~r the Court at times , which 

we r e conceived with the idea in mind of putting the futur e in col d storage . 11 

( 2) Laski , 11 Book Review II, 45 Harvard Law Revie\7, 754, 756 ( 1932): 

11 Parl i amen t has been l ed to expe rimen t with depart'men tal jurisdiction because judicial r eview of social policy has been r eactionary in 

t empe r and clum sy in execution. It has fail ed to appre ciate the element of policy which is involved in finding the f ac ts wherever quasijudicial problew.s eme r ge. Until the courts are willing to look upon 

these i ssues with something of the temper whi ch Mr. Justice Brandeis has 

brought to their examination , they are not like ly to add to the respect 

in which it is de sirable they should be held. 11 

(3) u. S. v. E. C. Knight Co. , 156 u. s. 1 ( 1894) . 

(4) 288 u. s. 344 (1933 ) 

(5) 295 u. s. 495 (1935) 

(6) 293 u. s. 388 (1 935) 

(7) 295 u. s. 602 (1 935) 

Corwin, op .-cit. , 130 . ,Speaking of the then pending Humphr ey ' s Case, 

Professor Corwin suggests this decision would be of extreme sign i f icance 

in the decision in this case , and indicate whether the court intended 

to clamp down executive powe r. Apparently that was the intention of the 

Court , and so we .can ,assume they do ha~e some sl~~ficance in the decision in the Schechter Case . 

9838 
NOTES TO CHAPTER XVI I 

( 1) Q,uo ted_ in Conmi s sion of Inq ir r on Public Service Personnel, 

]et ter Gove rnnen t personnel (:Fen York, 1935), 54. 

( 2) Ibi d_ , 15: 

"The success or f o.ilure of that governnent , a nd. the k ind. of service 

which it renders, will rest in the l ast anal y sis upon the cc:t:9acity an<i 

c'h aracter of the raen and_ wot1en uho constitute it. Tie nust therefore 

mainta in a governme nta l systerJ. under which the gove rnnent attracts to the 

public service its full share of the c apacity anci character of the man 

we1~ of the na tion. This rre do not a ccomp lish in the United States 

u nder existing conditions." 

.Again at page 54 t he Report states: 

"Governmental reform · in the Uili ted States has directed its attention 

rinar il~r to the structure of the governoent. This attitude arose natu.:..~­

ally because of our grea t faith in uritten .constitutions. n 

( 3) Ibid., 67: 

"In an er.1erg ency , men must be drafted for y;ork r<:\:9 icUy and in l arge 

numbers. During t h e rocess of organiza tion , men who c an organize and 

drive ahead., liTho can mc;.ke decisions and develop policy, are needed suddenl;y and in large number s. The Comuission is convinced. it \70uld have 

been utterly im:,?ossible to meet this nee cl_ u i thout pern.1i tting the greate st 

p ossible freedom for Tihich the p resent p oners of the Civil Servjce Commission are inactequate." 

( 4) Dickinson, Administra tive Justice an0_ the Su·precac;r of Larr in 

the United States. (Harva rd Unive rsity Press, 1927), 3.41: 

HV1ha t he really needs to see, beyond. the r.:mge of the particulars 

with 'ITh ich h e h a s to deal, are not such ph antom abstr a ctions but rather 

a wealth of other ·pCJ.rticu..lar facts, eq_ually concrete, h istorica l facts, 

econon ic facts, social f a cts, psycholog ical facts, -- stretching anay 

to the boundaries of t~1owledge before the rea l m of ultimates begins 

ever to b e reached." 

See a lso Ibid. XII, 333-358, The Supremccy of the Law and the Problem of Leg2.l Ed.ucation. 

(5) Conr:lission of Inquiry on Public Service Personnel, op. cit., 

44. S::_)eal:ing of the t 3rpe of examination to be given the Report says: 

liThe e::aE1ination should determine ::_)rimaril;y what t..he candid.ates are , 

not 'What they L::no\7 about the 'I Ork for uhich they are to be trained in the 

future.". 

(6) N. n. A. did set up a tro.ining school . Its curriculum was not 

as full or systematic as the schen e the ::rriter ha s in mind.. 

9838 
( 7) i lJ. i s , p 2.r l. i ane n t l'. '· ·PoTier s o f__;;:=...o.;;__.:.;.;..;___l___,GO=--v_e_r-'-' nr""".1_e_n:..;t;.......=D=-c_.u.;;_n_ .. r---'-tr;....;1_e""'n;_;t~ .., • 

(.R[".rv t.r d. Uni.versi t y Pre ss , 1932) , 35- 36 . 

) Cornuit tee on :inist e rs ' ~o1e s Re}ort (CQd . 4060 , Present e d by 

t h e Lo re Chancellor to p, rlio. e nt in April , 1932) 76-80 , 98- 98 , 108- 109 

~he Cormitte e list s c e rta in s<Ucguetr d.s . I t so.:rs t hat jurisdiction 

shou l c. ""u e in t he Hi -~h Court of Just ice to r evi e\'7 , .nc'L to qua sh t he :p roce e d.ing s on the ro1..mc~ th;: t a iinister or Liniste ri a l Tribuna l ha d e }:-

ce eC:.e d. stc.t u tory p orre rs Rnd a cted u itLout j u ri sC: ic t ion. !t i s essent i o..l 

tha t ~ c thre e wincilJ s of l"'. tur ~ justice l isteCI. shoul d be observ ed 

;_r t nc ~ :ini st er or t:ini ste r ial Tri bUl1a l , 2..nd. t he four t h p r i nciple shoul d 

be ob s erve 0. e:Y..ce ~J t i n :: ~J ti :. lal cases \7he r e ~ u"b l ic::.t ion '.70ul c!. b e a gainst 

the public inter est. A righ t of ap}eal t o the High Cou rt of Justice on 

any c:uestion of l an should. b e av a il.:tbl e . ro .:: ~hou t t he l ist i ng of t hese 

s afeguar d.s the Co nr:i t t ee insL, t s t hat sin_Jl e ~; roce ur e sh oul d p reva il. 

The ri ci es are : 

1 . .A man J11ay no t be a judge in his own caus e ; · 

2. As t o quasi-juC..ici a l p r oc e eding s ~~ 0 pa rty ough t to be 

co nder ed. UJ.'1i le<:'!.r c". ; ,a nd i f l1i s r i ch t to be hear d. is to 

b e a renl ity , h e nust :no'\7 i n gooG. tir.1e t he c a s e which 

he h8.s to I!lee t; tr 

3 . A ar 7 is entitl e d t o kno ll the r ea son for t h e decision; 

2.nd 

4 . ':"There the s t c'J.t ute r eQ'J.ires o. public i nqui ry the i nspe cto rs 1 r e __J orts shoul CI. be a.vail c:·.ble t o t he ~J ar ties hear d. 

The CorEli tte e f elt thr,.t a}.Jpeals U}_JOn c1uestion s of f 2..ct are h i ghl y 

uno.esi r.:tbl e , t houGh it suggests a n ~J~1 c:. s tribu nal for t h is lJu :rpose. 

( 8) J ohnson, T~ e Jl u e Eagle fron E,.c;r. t o Earth, (Sa turday Evening 

Post, 7ebrua r • 9 , 1935) , 84: 

11 l i.1 tLe Jr il o:pen f orum I p ointed out fo.ults or ino.ica te d. i mprovements in ERA, vi z • : 

11 10 . Ade qu ate l abor a nd. consune r r elJr esen t a tion in an advisory 

c a:p:.c i ~r • II 

11 11 . Unifori11i t 3r of gov e r r..nental re ese nt tio 1 0~1 Co d.e Authorities. II 

111 · 111 * 

11 I n ae~ i tion to t llis, a s I see :my ri nc :pal bl UJ.J.ci.ers , they Her e : 

* :;. * 

11 9 . The 13l ue E.?.gl e shoulc. neve r h c;.v e been wi hd 1.7 1 i n cas e s wher e 

t he e~Ja t; en t of Ju stice f ou..1d no suffici ent gr ouncls ol~ p ro s ecu tion. " 

1114 . A full-tL1e ['.nc::. a gGr essi ve Governnent I"lenbe r, n i t h a n assistant ea ch for L<-bOl' .:; no. consur1e rs, i~o ulc. he.v e b een CJ.:ppo i nted. to ea.ch Co d.e 

Au t :1or i ty he nonent the CoC.e nas ~JlJ ro ed , ano. he shoul d. have vi gor ousl y 

p r essed its rc iz r~ io n a nd. ;:,doi n i str2..tion i :r.. stric t a ccordance Iii t h 

r RA ~J olic . rr 

98 38 
( 9 ) U. s. Law Week, Narch 1 2 , 1935, 1 

The article quotes Richberb as suggesting to Senate Finance Committee; 

1. Liu i t cod.ific.::ttion to i ntersto.te ind_ustries a nc1_ those s o substantially a ffecting it t ha t mu s t be re oulate d t o -jrotect L1terstate 

comnerce. 

2. }!lore clea.r d_efin i tion or ~.J olicy a nd. e }:-Jlici t authori zation of 

a d.m inistrative activity. 

3 . Presi dent should be 1~e q1:lir d to rJalce fir..0_ings thc.t the stvndards of Congress have been me t. 

4. PrO) Onents shOlJ.ld be ai:Jle to ITi thdr o;rr frorJ cocie s so D.Ocd fie d as 

to be una cceu table. -'- . 

5. a nd_ 6. cteal t '7i th i :lsi gni ::t 2.no_ A..Ylti-trust la-.7s. 

( 10) Sup r a , IX 

(11) Sup ra, I, n.2. 

9838 
Adair v. T- . S • , 208 U. S. 161 ( 1908 ) 

Allgeyer v. Louisi ana , 169 U.S . 978 , (1897) 

.American Can Co . v. La.dogn. Cetnni ng Co. , 44 F. (2d) 7G3 (C. C.A. 7t h 1930) 

American Foundri es v. ~ri -C ity Council, 257 U. S. 184 (1921) 

American Scho ol of agnatic Heal in5 v. McAnulty , 187 U. S. 94 (1 902) 

.~cric n Stores Co. v. U.S., 58 rc . Dec . 643 (1930 ) 

~1gelus v. Sullivan, 246 Fed. 54 ( 1917) 

Appalachi an Coals v. U.S., 288 U.S. 344 (1933) 

Al~i ona Grocery Co v. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry ., 284 U.S. 370 (1 932) 

Auffmordt v~ Reddin, 137 U.S. 310 (1890) 

Avent v. U.S., 26 U, So 127 (1924 ) 

Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 439 (1 915) 

Baldwin v. Missouri , 281 U.S., 586, 595 (1930) 

Barbier v. Connolly , 113 U.S . 27 

Bartlett v. Kane, 16 How. 6~ (1853) 

Bates & Guild Co . v. Payne, 194 U.S. 106 (1904) 

Barlow b. U.S. 7 Pet . 404 (1833) (1885) 

Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters Associ ation, 274 U.S. 37 (1927) 

Berizz Co. v. Kransz , 146 N.E. 436 (N.Y . 1935) 

Bi Metallic Investment Co. v. Sta t e Board of Equalization. 

239 u.s. 441 (1 915) 

Bingham v. Miller , 17 Ohio Rep. 445 (1848) 

Bl ake v. U.S., 103 U.S, 227 (l881) 

Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S, 135 (19 1) 

Blumenstock Bros. v. Cul•tis Publishing Co., 252 U.S. 436 (1920) 

Board 6£ Edaca tion v. Rice, AeC. 179 (House of Lords 1911) 

Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U.S. 1 (19 23) 

Boitano v. District Bo ard, Northern District No . 3, Sacramento, Calif., 

250 F. 812, (1918 ) 

Bradley v.- City of Richmond, 22.7 U.S. 477 (1913) 

Bratton v. Chandler, 260 U.S. 110 (1922) 

Brevaid Tannin Co. v. Mosser, 288 Fed. (C.C.A. 4th, 1923) 

Broland v. U.S., 236 U.S. 216 (1915) 

Brooks v. _u.s. ·."26_7( 1925) 

Brough~~. Blanton Mfg. , 249 U.S. 495 (1919) 

Braune v. Zusbrick, 45 F. (2d) 931 (C.C.A. · 6t h 1930) 

Broun v. ~pps, 27 L.R.A. 676 (Va. 1895) 

Brown v. -.:aryland, 12 Wheat , 419 (1827) 

Budd v. New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892) 

Bunji Une, Ex Parte, 41 F. (2d) 239 (S.D. C~l. 1930) 

Burk e v. So. Pacific R. R. Co., 234 U.S. 669 (1914) 

Burfenning v. Chi,, St. l, etc. R. Co., 163 U.S. 319 (1096) 

Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 (1904) 

Butterworth v. Hoe , 112 U.S. 50 (1884) 

Cochnower v. U.S., 248 U.S. 407 (1919) 

Calder v. Bull, 3 Tiall. 386 (1798) 

Caminetti v. U.S., 242 U.S. 470 (1 917) 

The Cargo of Brig Aurora , 7 Cranch 38? (1813) 

Carson v. McLeod, 148 S.E. 584 (G~ . 1929) 

Carey v. Curtis, 3 Ho . 236 (1845 ) 

(9838) 
- 2A6-

Chamb er of Commerce of lv inn. v. Feder a l Trade Commission, 280 

Fed. 45 (C.C.A. 8th 1922) 

Champlin Refinins Co. v. Corporation .. Commission of Oklahoma , 

286 u.s. 210 ( 1932 ) 

Champion v. Ame s, 188 U.S. _321 (1903 ) 

Charles A. ~amsay Co. v. Associated Bi:P :?asters; 260 U.S • . 501 ( 1923) 

Charlotte, ColutJ.bi,a & .!iugus'ta R.R~ Co. v~ Gibbes, 142 U.S. · 386 (1892) 

Chicago Federation of' Labor v. : Federal Radio Corrmu ssion , 41 F. (2d) 

422 (193o') 

Chicago Junction Case, '264 U:. s .. Z58 ().924) 

Chicago Milwaukee & st. Paul Ry. v. Min:t:lesota, ·134 u.s. 418 (1890) 

Chicago E. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. State Highway Commission of \~issouri, 

17 s.w. (2d) 535 (lvh. i929) · · · 

Childs v. State, 113 Pa c. 54S (Okl a . 1.910) 

Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 5~1 (1889) 

Chin Yow v. U.S., 208 U.S. 8 (1908) 

Cincinnati, Wilmington R.R. v •. Co.rmni s~~oners, of Clinton County, 

l Ohio State 77 ( 1852) :· · · 

Clark Distilling Co. v. Western Maryla~d R.R.Co~,- 242 U.S. 311 (1917) 

Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517 (1880). · 

· Coid Storage Co. y • . Chicago, 211 U.S. 306 (1908) 

Columbus Light Co. v. · columbus, 249 u.s. :399, (1919) 

Columbus Milk Producers Ass·' ·n v. Wall.<?-c,e D.'G.; F .D.-, Ill. (1934) 

7303 Com. Clearing House, Federa~ T~ de Regulation Service Vo. lla 

Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 Fed. 17 (D.C. Ma ss. 1920)' · 

Commonwealth v. n eff, 114 Atl. 267 ( ·Va. 1921) .. · . : 

Cooley v. Boa rd om Wardens of Philadelphia, 12.-:Row. 299 (1851) 

Cooper v. Telfair., 4 Dall. 14 (1800) · · 

Coppage y. Kansas, 236 u~s. 1 - (1915) · .·. · 

Coronado _ Coal Co. v. U. M. W.A. 268 U.S. _295 . (19 25 )· 

Cau.ri er 'Journal Co. v. F·edera.l Radio · Cornmissi'on, 46F (2d) 614 

( c t • of App • n. c . 1:9 31 ) 

Crane v. Nic~ols, 1 F. (2d) 33 (19 24 ) 

Crenshaw v. U.S., 134 U.S. 99 '(1889) 

Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (19 32 ) 

Dahnke, Walker.Milling Co. v. Bondun~nt, 257 U.S. 282 (~921) 

Davidson v. Federal Radio Commiss-i.on, 61. J!,. {2d) 401 (1932) 

Dayton-Goose Creek Railway v. U:::1ited State's, 263 U.S. 456 (1924) 

Debs, In Re, 158 U.S. 564 (1895) · 

De ca ttU' v. Paulding , 14 Pet.- .497 (1840 ) .' · 

De Forest v. Lawrence, 13 How. 274 (1851) 

Dime s v. Grand •Junction Canal, 3 H.L.C. 759 (1852) 

Donlaw v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618. ( 1887 ) 

Douglas v. Walla c e , SF. · Sup•l . 379 ( N.D .• Okla • . 1934) 

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 H.ow. 393 .(1857) - . 

I t 

Dugan v. U.s., · 34 Ct. Cl. 458 (1899) 

Dunlap v. Black, 128 u.s. -40 (1888) 

Edgewater Dairy Co. v. Wall ace , 7 F. $Upp. 121 (N.D. Ill. 1934) 

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920 ) 

Elia son v. C:oleman, 86 N.C. 236 (1882) 

Ellis v. Int erst a te Com.merce Commiss.ion, 237 U.S. 434 ( 1915) 

Employees Insurance Corpora tion v. Industria l Acc i dent , 

151 Pac. 423 (Cal. 1915) 

9838 
...... , -J 'rEric R. R. v . City C'f ·1o.tcrson, 7 Atl. 1065 (N.J. 1910) 

Evans v. GoJ.~e , 2'->3· U. S. 24r- (19:30) · 

Ftiiii'rl1ers ' Elevat or Co . v . Chicc·go R.I. & Pa cific F.y . Co ., 

107 N.E . 841 ( Ill. 1'15) . 

Federal Basebc.ll Club v~ Bvl timore Int ern0.tional League , 

259 UoSo 200 ( 19?1) 

Federal Radio Comnission v . Nel son Br os., 289 U. S. 26G (19 7.3 ) 

Federal TrDde Cornr .• ission v . Ala,:;oma Lumber Co ., 291 U. S. 67 (1934) 

Federal Tr ~de Cornnission v. Ameri can ToJavco C') , , 264 U. S. 298 (19?.4) 

Federal Trade Commission v . Ba ltimore Paint ColC' r Works, 41 F ( 2a) 

474 ( J.93ll) 

Federal Trade ·orruni s~don v. 

Federal Tra de Cornni ssion v. 

Feder"'l Trf'.de Co:nr.!issjon v. 

Federal Tr c:.cie Co :n11i ssion v. 

Federa l Trade 8orJil1i ssion v. 

Federa.l Tra de Cormnissi on v. 

Federal Trnde Con:r;,,i ssion v . 

Federal Tra de Con ,ission v. 

Federa l Tracie Commissi on v. 

::See ~~n t ldn~ Co ., 257 U. S. 441 (1922 ) 

Cl a i re Furnace Co.·, 274 U. s' . 1 60 ( 1927) 

Curtis Publishing Co·., 260 U. S. 568 ( 1922.) 

Goodgr8.iJ e c • , 45 F. C2<i) 70 '(c.c.A. 6 th 1930 ) 

Gratz , 53 U.S. 421 (1920) ) 

~mmond Snyder & Co ., 267 U. S. 586 (1985 

KelTWl. 291 U. S. 304. (1.934 ) . 

Kl~~sn~~ , 280 U.S. 19 (1929 ) 

~· ··1. · rd. Coa l Co. , ~ F (2d) 873 (Ct . App. 

D. C. F '27 ) 

Federal Trade Co:mr:1i s ion v. ::iill er ' s Nationa.l Federe.tion, 23 F. '(2d) 

968 (Ct. A!)·) . D.C. 7) 

Federa.l Trade Cornmi s r. ion v . Po.ci:::'i c Co ast Paper Asso cia tion, 

273 u.s. 52 (1927) 

Federal Tre1.de Cernrui ssi on v. Royal' ~Ai1ling Co., 288 U.S. 212 (l933) 

Federal Tr <:t.de Corrmi ssi on v. SincJ:e :lr 'Rcfini.ng Co., 261 U.S. 463 (1.923) 

Federal Trc d.e C01JIT1issi on v. Srt1ith, 34 F. (; d) 323 (~ .Y. 1929) . 

Federal Trt' L.e Cor:unissi on v. ~·iest rn Mea t Co ., 272 t1.s·. 554: (1926 ) 

Federal Trrde Commis e. i on v.- Ba ltimor·e· Pa i n t & c·olor W? rks, 41 F. (2d) 

474 (C.C.A. 4 t h ) 1930) 

Federal Tr~de Comr.isPion v . Ste...ndard Educa ti on Soci e ty, 14 F. (2d) 

947 (C.C.A. 7th 1926) 

Fergus v . :Russ ell, 110 N-.E. 130 (Ill. 1915) 

Fieldv. Cla rk, L' 3U S. 64~ ( 189 2) · 

Firs~ Nati onal Ba nk ef Bay City v . Fellows ex rel .Union Trust Co ., 

244 u.s. 416· (1917) 

Florida & East Co&st R. R. Co . · v; U~S., 234 U~S. 167 (1913) 

Fox v. :.

1

iohawk & H. R. · Humane Soci ety 165 · N~ Y. 517 · ( 1901) 

Fox Riv€r ]utter Co. v . U.s., Treasury Decisions 44667 ; 20 C.C.P.A. 

38 ~ Ger.tiora ri denied 287 ·U.S. 628 (1933) 

French v. Frya n , 93 U.S. 1 69 (1876) 

Frischer & Co. v. Ba.;.celite CorlJ.; 39 F. (2d) 247 (ct: Cust.& Pa t. 1930) 

Fris cher & Co~, ~nc. v. Elting , 60 F. ( 2 d) 711 (193 ) 

Gage v . Cr:ms-ors of !J. H.- Eclectic l.1edica l ·society , 63 N. H. 92 (1884) 

Garfield v. • . U.s. ex re1 Spa lding , 3:?. A:pp . D.C . 1 53 (1908) 

Gegioi7 v. tJhl, 239 U.S . 3 (191 5) . 

General Br.oadcast·ing System v. :Federal Rc.'dio Conm1i ssion, 47 F. ( 2d) 

426 (19 31) 

Genera l Investment Co v. Lake Sher e & Michi gan S,R. Co., 

260 u-.s~ 261 (1 922 ) 

9838 
- 048-

Georgia Railway and Po w~ r Co. v. Commission, 262 tr.s. 625 (1923)' 

Gibbons v. Og den, 9 vnheat. 1 (1824). 

Gillespie v. Okl ~J10m , 257 u.S. 50 (1922) . 

Goldsmith v. U.S. Boa rd of Tax Appeals, 270 U.S. 117 ( 1926) 

Gonzales v. Zurbrick, 43 F. (2d) 934 ( C.C.A. 6th 1930) 

Great Lakes Broadcast-i~ : .co • . v. Federal Radio ·company, 37 F. (2d) 993 

(1930); Certiora r,i ·· de.IJ,ied, 281 -U.S. 706 C 1930-) 

Groenvelt. v. Burw-ell, et a·l, Censors ·of the Coll ege of Physicians, 

1 L.D. Raymond 454 (1691) · 

Haga r v. Reclamation District, lll_V. S. 701 (1884) 

Haven v. Foster, 19 Am. :Oec. 353 ( Mass 1829) 

Heath v. Wallace; 138 u:s. 573 (1891) 

Hegeman Farmers Corp. v •. Baldwin, 293 ·u.s. 163 '(1934: ) 

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (190.6-) 

Hamilton v. Dillin, '21 Wall. 73. (1875) 

Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 u.s. 251 (1918) 

HamptQ!n v. u.s~ 276_, u.s. 394 ( 1928) 

Hanson v. Haff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934) 

Harrima n X• Interstate Commerce Commission, 2ll 'U.S. 407 (1908) 

The Head ~v o·ney Cases, 112 U.So 580 (1884) 

Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.s. 312 (19 32 ) 

Heisler v. Thomas Collieny Co., ?GO U.S. ?.45 ( 192.2) 

Hendrick v. Sta te of Maryland, 235· U.S. 610 ( 191'5) 

Hennen ex parte~ 13 Pet. 230 ( 1839) 

Hi ghland v. Russell Qa~ · & Snow. Plow ·co., 279 U.s: 253 (1929) 

Hilly. D0rger, 8 . F. Sup"l . . 189 (D.C.S.D. Cal. 1934) . 

Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S-. 44 (1922) · 

Hoke v. U.S., 227 U.S. 308 (1913) _ 

Honolulu Rapid Transit. Co. v. Hawa i·i, 211 u.s. 282 (1908) 

Houck v. Little Riv~r Drainage District, 239 U. S. 254 (1915) 

Ruling v. Ehrich, 55 N.E. · 636 ( Ill. 1899) 

Humphreys Executor v. U.S. 295 U.S. 602 (1935) 

Hurst & Son v. Federal Tra de Connnission; 268 Fed. 'H74 (1920) 

. . 

. . -

Illinois Central R.R. v. Behrens, 233 U.S. 473 (1914) . 

Illinois Central R.R. v. McKendree, 2d3 U.S. 514 (1906 ) . 

Indian Ter.r~tory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma . 240 U.S. 522 ( 1916) 

Institute of Patent· Agents v. Lockwood,- A. c. ~47 (Ho.us·e o.f ;Lprds) 1894 · 

Intermountain Rate Cases, 234 u.s .• 476 (1914) · . 

Interna tional Organi_zation of U~i ted Mine Workers of .funerica v. Rgd 

Jacket Consolida ted Coal and Coke Co.; 18 F. (2d) 839 (c.c.A • . 4th 1927) ~ . . . . .. 

Internationa l Ry. Co. v • . Davidson; · 257 U.S. 506 (1922-) , 

Interna tionar Shoe ·co. · v. Federal Tra de Commission, 28Q u.s. 291 (1930)-

Int er state Commer ce Cp~ission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447 (1894)_ . 

Interstat e Commerce Commission v.; -Goodrich Tr·ansit Co., 244 U.S •. 194 

(1912) 

Interstate Commerce. Commission v. Alabama ·Midlana R. Co., 168 u.s. 

144 (1897) . . 

Int ersta t e Commerce CoifU11ission b. Humbolt s.·s. Co., 224 U.S. 474 ,191.2 ) 

Int erst e.t e Commerce Commission v. Illinois Centr?-1 R.R., 215 U.s. 452 

(1910 ) 

Int ersta te Corrunerco Corrunission v. Delawar e L. and VT .R. Co., 220 U.S. 

235 (1911) 

9838 
- 34.9 -

Int erstate Co·merce C(mtnission v . Delawnre L. :md • !{ . Co ., 220 U. s . 

235 (1911) 

In ter.,tete OE:Jerce Co ·1is:;;ion v . Union Pacific ::t .R. Co . , 222 U. S . 

341 ( 1912) 

Int el st ~te Com.ne rce Corr_ni ssion v . Louisvill e & Nashville R., 227 U. S . 

88 (1913 ) 

J c. ob on v . l"ns3[1 1:usL'tt.., , 197 U. S. 11 (1 905 ) 

Jolu' :Bene & Sons, Inc . v . FederA1 Tr ade Co,nr"lission , 299 Fed . '168 (192A) 

Jol 'lS.)l1 eo'3ter. ~ ssoci ation v . Pa1·ker, 16 :r. Y . .:>upp . 1015 ( 1897) 

Joi4~ son v . Towsle· , 13 : nll 72 ( 1871) 

Journa l Co . v . Federal .!{n.dio Con-:1ission , 48 (2d) 461 (Ct. of .App . · 

Dl C. 1931) 

Kand v . St a te of New J erse~ , 242 U . .::> . 160 ( 1916) 

Kansp. \~sociation v . i l der , 23 Pac . 1061 (Kan nas 1890 ) 

Konsac Cit- SO'J.th..;rn 3~ . Co. v • .:?.o c;d I mprove:nent District, 256 U. s. 658 ( 1921) 

Keller v . Po tomac El ec . Povrer Co., 261 U.S. 4 28 (1923) 

Ke l ler v . U. S., 213 U. S. 138 (1909 ) 

Kelley v . Rhoads, :1. 88 T . S. l ( 19 0~ ) 

Kei~ v . U. S . 177 D. S . 290 (1900) 

Pac.-et Co . ·v . Keo~CLL"k: , 95 U. S. 80 ( 1877) 

Xendall v . U. S . ex l 3tokes , ~ Pe t . 52 ( 1838) 

Kidd v. PeP ·son, 128 U. S. l (1883) 

Kilbourne ·• Thompson, 103 U. S . 168 (1 880) 

The King v . x.; inister of ~ea lth, E.- part e Ya ffe , 2 K. ·B . 98 (1930 ) 

Knight v . lJ.1it Ad r.J~ _d .Assn ;' l L1 2 u. s. 16 1 (1891) 

Kno ·ville v. Kno xville Vlat e:c· Co ., 212 U. s. 1 (1909 ) 

Kobi Co . v . Federal frade o~~ission , 23 F . ( 2d) 4 1 (C.C.A. ( 2d) 1927 ) 

Kolick, Ex part e , 165 U. S . 526 (1 89 7) 

Kuntz v . Su. -r ti on , 19 :r. E. 4 74 (I nd . 1 888) 

Kwock J 8n Fat v . Tni t e , ·253 U. S. ·454 (1928) 

Lander v. Me rc antile :Jc;;.1k , · l 86 U.S. 458 (1 902) 

Lawto:1 v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133 ( 1894) 

Leach v . Carlil e , 258 U.S. 138 (1922 ) 

Lemlce v . r.~ er 1 s Grain Co., 258 U. S. 50 ( 1922) 

Loca l Government Board v • . Arl±dge , A. C. l 20· (House of Lords, 1915) 

Little v. Barreme, 2 Cr. 170 (1 804) 

Loan A.s sn . v . Top ek a, 20 Wall. 655 (1 875) 

Loc a l o. 167 v . U. S ., 29 1 U. S. 293 (1934) 

Londoner v. Denver, 210 U. S. 373 · (1908) 

Lo ewe v . Larrler, 20 8 U. S. 274 (1908) 

Lou isiana v . .kAd o, 234 U. S. 627 (1914 ) 

Loui3ville & N. R. Co . v . Ga rret t, 231 U. S. 298 (1913) 

Luc ~s v . Reed, 281 U. S . 699 (1930 ) 

Luther v . Borden , 7 How. l (1849 ) 

Luther v . Sagar, 3 K. B. 532 (1921) 

Mc:rm . .:.f ::'..c turers R. Co. v . U. S. 246 U. S. 457 ( 191 8) 

Mal1l er v . Eby, 264 U. S~ 32 (19?.4) 

Mai llard v . Lawrence , l 6·Ho'.rv . 251 (1853) 

!J arbury v . L1ad i , l Crru1eh 137 ( 1803) 

Marcus Brown Ho lding Co . v. Feldm.q_n , 256 U. S. 170 ( 1921) 

Mar quez v . J'risb ie, 10 1 U. S. ·4 73 (1879 ) 

Marquette l'.1iversit;y v . Federal R1.di o Commission, 47 F. · (2d) 406 (1931) 

Mayna rd v . :Iill, l Z5 U. S. 190 (1887) 

Me1~chant s 2x:change v . ·.~ issouri, 248 U. S . 305 (1919) 

Michis an Central R.R. v. Powers, 201 U. S. 245 (1905) 

9838 
- 25CMiller v. Eorton , 26 N. E. 100 ass. 89 1) 

i\!i ilwaukee Pub lishing Co. v. Burl e-son , .8,,5 U.S. 407 (1 921) 

Mineral Land Pa rk Co. v. Howard, l oS c. 4ti8 (1 916 ) 

The Minnesot a e Cases , 230 U. S. 352 (1913 ) 

Mississi~ i v. Joh nson, 4 Wall. 175 (1 867) 

McChord v. Lou isville & Na shvil~ e Ry., ·183 U. S. 83 (1902) 

McDona ld v. Boe,rd of Stree t Corruaissione rs, 167 N. E. 417 (i-AE! SS. 1929) 

McF::>.dden Publ ic ;-~. t io11s Inc. v. Federal ·rrad.e Commission 37 F. ( 2d) 822 

(Ct. Ap). D. C. 1930) 

NicGrain v. D2.ughe·rty, ? 73 U. S .. 135 (192 6 ) 

McKinl ey v. U. S., 249 U. S. 397 (1919 ) 

McClung v. Sillime.n, 16 Wh e at 598 (18 21) 

McCulloch v. i\•1aryl and , 4 11 h e at. 316 (1819) 

HcLean v. Denver & Ftio Grande Ry . Co:, 203 U.S. 38 (1906) 

Me tcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U. ·s. bl4 (1925 ) 

Milweukee Publishing Go. v. Burl e son, 255 u: S . . 40 7 (1921) 

Minnesota v. Northern cur~ti s Co., 194 U. S. 48 (1 904) 

Monongahela Bridge Co.' v. u. ·s., 216 u: S. 177 (i909) 

Morgan's 1. & T. R;)r. & Stea11 ship Co. v. Louisiana, 118 U. S. 455 (1886) 

Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113, (1877) 

Murray's Less ee v. Ho.boken Land & Improv ement ComDany, 18 How." 272 (1855 ) 

iviurray v. Sch ooner Charming Betsy, 2 Craney 64 (1 804 ) . 

utual Fiilim Cor<')oration v. Industri a l Commission, 23G U. S. 230 (1915) 

My e rs v. U. S. '?.72 U. S. 52 (19:?- 6) 53 

Nathan v. Louisi ana , 8 How, 73 (18b0) 

Nationa l i:-~arness l\'ia nufacturers 1 Associ a tion v. Fe de ral Trade Commission, 

261 Fed. 170 (C.C.A. 6th, 1919 ) 

Nashvill e , Cha tte.nooga ~St. Louis Ey. v. Alsbama, 1 28 U.S • . 96_( 188) 

National Life v. National Life, 209 U. S. 317 (~ 908 ) 

Neff v. Pe,dd ock , 26 VHs. o46 (1870) 

New York Central Securiti e s Cory. v. U. S. 287 U. ;:). 12 (19 32) 

New York ex r el PenLsylvania R. Co. v. Kn ~1 t, 192 U. S. 21 (1904) 

New York ex rel Lib e rman v. Van De Carr, 199 U. S. 552 (1 905) · 

The Mayor etc., of the City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pe t. 102 (1937) 

NewYorkv. Squire, l 45U. S. 175 (1$92 ) : · : . 

New York & Q,ueens Ga s Co. v. r··:cCa ll, ?45 U. S. 3t.b5 (191 7) 

Newhall v. Sange r, 92 U. S. '761 (1 8? G) 

Nicch ia v. P eoD1 e of St a te of New York , 254 U. S. 228 (1 920) 

Ng Fung Ho v. ~Vhi te, 259 U. S. 276 ( J:92;3) 

Nishinura Ekiu v. U. S., ~2 U. S. 651, 659 (1892) 

Noble v. Union Riv e r Logging Ra ilroad, l '-.: 7 .U. ;:). 1 65 (1893) 

Nobl e State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104 (1911) 

:iorth Ge rman Lloyd v. Hedcten, 43 F eel. 17 ( 1890 ) 

Northern Secur iti e s Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197 (1 ~) 

Norwegi <m Nitrogen Products Comnany v. U. S. 28B U. S . 294 (1933) 

O'Donohue v. U.S., 289 U. ;:). 6 (1 932) 

Oe tj en v. Central Leathe r Co., 266 U. S. ?.9 7 (1 918) 

Ohio Valley ·~i ate r Co. v. '3en Avon B~rou , 2.:5 3 u: S. 287 (1920); in 

the Supreme Court of Pennsylv::~ ni , 103 Atl. 7£2:4 (1918) . 

Orige t v. 2ed0 en, 155 U. S. 228 (1 894) 

Pa cific Ry . Commission, in r e , 32 Fed. 241 (1 8 ??) 

Pacific St a t e s Tel el)hone & Tel egraph Co. v. O~ on, ~3 U.S. 118 (1912) 

Packe t Co. v. St. Loui s , 100 u. S. 4~3 (1 880 ) 

Padge tt v. State f.i i ghwa:- Gommi ssion, 1·-·8 S.E. 54? (G(.l . 1929) 

Paine Lrunb e r Co. v. Neal ; 244 U. ~. 439 (19 17) 

9838 
_ ... 1-

Palm, r v. ~.cl'ailon , 1 '73 U. S . o60 (1890 ) 

P·mr·ma Rvfini 1g Co. v. R..v')n , 29 ..... U. :::> . 388 ( 1935) 

Pr11 .&1~.-.cic ~n ?~.:trol~:: wn Coruorntion v . Alabama , 67 Fed . (2d) ...;90 (1933) 

Panhandl e Oil Co . v . hnox , ~~ 77 U. . 21 8 (1 927) 

Pat aps co Gu:mo Co . v . Nort n CBro1ina Joard of -~g ricul ture , 171 U. S . . (.,) ( 189'") ) . . 

Paul v . Virgini e:· , 8 ·v,.., ll. 168 (1869) 

Pensncol q Tele granh llo . v . iiestern Union Tc l egrc=mil Co ., 96 U. ·s. 1 (1877 ) 

P~mns lv anin :R . Co. v . Son-'t1an Shaft Co<1l Co ., 242 V. S . 1 20 (191 6 ) 

Penn y lv ':1...l'l i c'- v . ·ve st Virg ini e>. , 262 U. S . 5D3 (1922 ) 

P · opl c ex r el, Wt:s t 5ay v . D l Rvey , 1'70 r; . Y. Sup11. 833 (Sun . Ct . 1911) 

eo~1 e v . Brndy , 5 N. E. 87 (Illn. L922 ) 

Peou l e v. Bi sell , 19 Illinois 229 (1857) 

Peopl e v . NcbbL· , ;;91 U. S . 502 (1 9311) 

Peopl e v . Public S0rvic e Commi ssion, 19b N. Y. 157 (1909) 

Peopl e v. St andard Oil Co ., 2 2 Pa c . (?d) 2 CCal . 1933 ) 

Peopl e v. T~en an , 168 N. i . 817 (N. Y. 1929 ) 

Pe t e r on Baking Co . v. Bry;::m , -~ 90 U, S . 570 (1934) 

Pe tit v . MinLe sot a , 177 U. S . ~S~ (1 900 ) 

Phil edelphi c:. Co . v . utimson , <-;3 U. S . .JOb (1 912 ) 

Phil nde lnh i c. F.e'-l.di ng F..y . v . DiD n~.:;-r.;o , 25G U. S . 327 (1920) 

Phil e> del )hi . c..; 'i'r en t on 5: • .:t . ·v . Stim·o .. on, l L.J: Pe t . 448 (1831) 

Phillips v. Jommi sion r, 283 U . S . ~)89 (1 931) 

Pittsburgr> C. C. c. St. L. R. Co . .-.,. 3acku.s , l5Lz U.S. 421 (1 894) 

Plymouth Co l Co . v . sylv ni , 23~ U~ C. 531 (1914 ) 

Po stum Cereal Co . v . Califo rni a Fi g ot Co . , 2 U. S . 69 3 (1927) 

Pr entis v. Atl a 11 ti c Cease Li ne , 211 J. S . ·.210 (1 908 ) 

Progre ssive 1•

1inej.'S of Ame rica v. Peaood.y , · 7 F . Su01 . 340 (1934 ) 

Public Cl eal'ing Eous e v. Coyne ' 19-1 u·. s. 4 97 (l90L.::) 

Pub lic Utili t i es Co~nission v. At t l ebo ro St oam ~Elec tric Co.; 2 73 U. S. 

( 19 7) 

Public Utilities Corrrni ssion v. London, 249 U. S . 236 (1919) 

Purvi s v . Bazemore , 5 F . Suun . 230 (19 33) 

RailroBd COfillTii ssion Cas e s , il 6 U. S . 307 (1 886 ) · 

Railro;:o d Coilliili ssion of 'iiisconsin v . Cl icAgo , Burling ton · ex: Quincy R. Co., 

257 u. s . .563 (1 922) . -

Raladai r Co . v. Fede ral Trade Commission , 42 F. ( 2d) L.!:30 (C. C. A. Sth, 1930) 

Rarnney (Che.rl e s A.) Co. v. Associ a t ed 3 ill ?est e rs 262 U. S. 501 (1923) 

Rea ding Bro ~. cl r: sting Co . v. Fed e ral Radio Conu11ission, 48 Fed. (2d) 

4"->8 (1931) . 

Reagan v . mE:n~ 1 s Loan and Trust Co. , 154 U. S . 362 (1893) 

Reagan v . U. S., 182 U. . 419 (1 901) 

Red 11 C11 Oil r•:anufacturing Co. ~ 3oa rd of Ag riculture , 222 U. S. 380 

(1911) 

Re id v. Co l orpdo, 127 U. S . ' 137 (1902) 

Rex v. Sunderland Justice s , 2 K. B. 7 (1 9lil ) 

Rho de Isl and Eospital Trust Co. v~ Commissione r s of Int e rnal Revenue , 

29 F • . (2d ) 339 (1 928 ) 

Ricn land-:::,t eamsh i D Co. v • . Buffaio Dr y Do ck, 254 Fed . 6~8 Cc.C.A. 2d 1918) 

Rike r v. Fede ral Radio Commi ssi on, 507 F . (2d) 535 (1 931) 

Robb ins v. S .elb;)T Coun ty , 120 U. S . <±9 (1 88 7) 

Ronnf eldt v. Phillins , 35 T. L. n . 4 6 (1 918) 

Rous e v. Tilo t1pson , 81 i . ' E.'ll09 (Ill . 1907) 

Royal :aaki ng Por~de r Co . v. Fede ral Trade Commission, 280 U. S . 572 (1929 ) 

9838 
- 2E2-

Sao r e v. Rutl&nd R. Co., 85 Atl. 693 (Vt. 1913) 

San Di ego Land & Town Co. v . J qspe r , l89 U. S . 439 (1903) 

San Di ego La!1d and. Town Co. v . Ne tiona l Ci t y , 17.4 U. S. 739 (1889) 

Sa rlo v. ?ul.:::.sld County, 88 S. W. 953 (A~k. 190[?) - . . 

Savag e v. J on e s , 2.2.!?. tJ. S. 501, (1 912 ) . . .. 

A.L. A. Schecht e r Poultry Cor Y) . v. U. S. , 295 U. S., 49_6 (1 935) 

Schloss e r v. Wel sh, .5 ·F. Sun-~ . ?93 (1 9~~4) __ 

Scholls v. St a te 90 Md . 729 (1900) 

Scott, in re 292 p . 290 (Nev. 1 330) 

Scully v. U. S. 193 d. 185 (1 910 ) 

Sears Ro ebuck & Co. v • .?eder'c:l.i 'l'rade. Ccm..rnission. 258 f. 307 (1 919 ) 

Second Emp loyees Li bilit~r Cases , 223 U. S. 146 (1911) 

Sel ective Draft Cas e , 245 U. S. 366 (1° 1 8) 

She rman v. Abel 3s, 69 N. Y. S. 849 (l 3~ ) 

Shurtleff v. U.S., 189 V· s. 311 (19 03 ) 

Silver v. Fede ral Tra d e o~n ss ion, 289 Fed. 985 (1923) (lst case); 

29 2 Fed. 152 (~ 23) . 

Slaught e r :r~ous e Ce s e s, 16 Wall. 6 (1 873 ) 

Smith v. Hitch cock, 226 U. S. 53 (1912 ) 

Smith v. Ka"1 sas City Title and Trust Co., 2~5 U.S. 180 (1 921) 

Smith v. Vfhi ·cney, 116 u. S. 167 (1 885 ) 

Southern rt c:>.ilway Co. v. Virgini a , 2SO U. S. 190 (1933 ) 

Southe rn Ra il·way Co. v. U. S. , 222 U. S. 20 ( 1911) 

Southern Pa c. Co. v. I.C.C., 219 U. S. 433 (l9ll) 

Sparhawk v. Spefns.wk, 116 1\iass. 315 (1 874-;-?q ) 

~proles v. Binford , 286 U. S. 374 (1 932 ) 

St. Louis ~ O'Fallon Ry. v. U. S ., 279 U. S. ~61 (19 29 ) 

Stafford v. Wall2ce; 258 U. S. ~9 b (1 922 ) 

Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540 (1 912 ) 

Stanley v. Peabody Coal Co. ~ 5 F. · Su,pp . 612 .(19 33 ) 

State v. Col e , ~8 P~c. 661 (Nev. i915 ) 

State v_. Crawfor d 177 n.340 (Kan .l919) 

State :B::tr of Californi a v. Sup e rior Cou rt ?78 u.432 (Calif .1929) 

State Board of He a lth v. McCoy, 17 N. E. 786 (ill. 1888) 

State v. J utl e r, 73 Atl. 560 ~e . 1909) 

State v. Poulin, 74 Atl. 119 (Me . 1909 ) 

Stat e v. Smil ey, 2 63 S. W. 8Z5 ( Mo. 1924 ) 

State ex rel Milwaukee Medical Coll ege v. Chitt enden, 10 7 N. W. 5.00 

(Wi sc. 1.906 ) 

StateR. R. Tax C2 s e s, 92 U. S. 575 (1875 ) 

Strawbridge & C.lothi e r v. Fede r a l Radio Commission, _57 F. (2d) 434 (1932) 

St eel v. St. Louis Smelting Etc. Co., 106 U. S. ~4 7 (1 882) 

Stephanson v. Binford, 287 U. S. 2 51 (1922) 

S tock v. Central ~1 id iv s Boa rd, 3 IL 3 . 756 (1915) . _ 

St. Louis Con s olidat ed Coal Co. v. Illinois, 1 85 U. S. 203 (1902) 

St Louis Smelting e tc. v. Kemrl , 104 U. S. 636 (1882) 

St. Louis I r on Mount ai n & Southern Ry . Co. v. Taylor., 210 U. S. 281: 

(1 908 ) 

St. Ma r y 's ::!'ranee-American Pe trol eum Co. v. W. Virgi ni a , 2.03 U. S. 183 

(1 906 ) 

Sto ehr v. Wa ll a c e , 55 U. S. 239 (1 921) 

Storrs v. BF> r k e r, 10 Am . De c. 317 (New Yor_k 1 822 ) 

Sturge s & :Jurn . Co. v. Beauchaiii'9, 231 U •. S. 320. (1 9.13) 

Swift v. U.S., 196 U.S. 375 (1905 ) 

9838 
' r: ...... "._-

TRot J ro . <- oo11~·ad . G .. , ·~cU . S . ,--~c (l9v0 ) 

1' t.; ' ) --: t \., • v 0 • v . -..' i l \ ,_ v c 1 I' l - , "81 u . s . ~ 3 ( 1 9 30 ) 

Ttxts (?"~C . v . L1t .., t:. "ln.. om.l· rc " Com.li "sion , 1).2 U. ;:, . 19 7 (1 R9G) 

.l' E':. ,t~" c.: P cL'ic ?-.v . Co . v . -,i t?_,,)_v , 2..-1 U. S . -~) (1 .: 1 S) 

... ~ o1·ton v . u . S . , ?1 ~- . · 1-., (1 ~· :0 ) 

lo l v . ··'l.l .ll n , _=.)o- . 3 . 11 ~~ ~) ) 

Tut.l.U1t v . · . , .7') U. . 6L ( 1' ·~.J ) 

J:y.:wn . ·-. !1to~1 , 70 • S . L~ 18 (19 .J ) 

"n s~ r v . S E:8JI1? l1 , -l F . ~)i) 30 (1 '?.3- ) 

UPit td Rn.i1wuy of JCl ltimorc v . ,,-e st , .CO U. S . :3t± (1930) 

u. v . . -toi1E'i1c.> & ~o . Rv . vo . , 26 5 U . .3 . ?£_ (19 24) 

u . v • ) ~ ::> c 0 c ~~ , • ) h 0 1J • s . 3. ~ 8 ( l ~ 1'--! ) 

U. S . v . "3 l~.imor e & Oldo :rt . ::=:. Co ., '- 3 U. S . 4-54 (1 9~).J ) 

l . s v . ~;lor e t a l , f. .. c e ive rs o . Hop oc r. i .1J.s Corryoration , . U. S. 

Supn,me Co -l-t , J · n . 6 , 1'-' 36 

U. v . CI1eli1iC? l -'oru1dation , I n c . , 2 U, S . l (1 92 6) 

U. S. v . Fist:r.r,· 1 09 U. S . l -::3 (H'P3 ) . 

. S . v . s:. evenort Gr.., in Co . , ~8 7 U. S . 77 (19 32 ) 

U. S. , ex 1·eJ. Joy-nton v . :n fl.ine , 1:_,9 LJ . S . . 0 6 (1 891) 

u . S . l X ::.·el ] ilol\:UITlslcy v . To d , ? 3' rJ . S . 1 .9 (19 .- ~4: ) 

U. S . d X ~ l i c3ri le v . Scrr rz , 1 0 · S. 3 78 (1 8 79 ) 

U. S . e-x :..'el ?edfi eld v. ·:'in :· om, L )7 U. S . :; s (1 89 1) 

U. S . e x :;:e1 :=.oop v . Doug l as , 19 D. C. ~ (1 890 ) 

1 . S . e x r el Riv e rside Oil Co . v . :E:itchcocK, 1 30 U. S . 316 ( 1903) 

U. S. v. CDl istor Pr.Jcb .rs , I nc ., l-= F . Su1r,. S60. ( l s:l 33) 

S . G • • 8 X l In ternation~ l Contra cc1ng o. , v. 1amon t, S~ U. S. 303 

( 189· .. ) 

U. S . v . Ge::.·:a::· i:le , 99 e. S . ;:)08 ( l 79) 

U. S . ex r ol Po· p v. D: y , 4 5 :C' . ( 2::. ) L_:05 C.S J. Y. 1930 ) 

U. S . v . Gl'i .. lt. .. u d. , ~2 0 U. S . ,0 5 (F' l O) 

U . S . ex rel Atty . Gen. v . .Je awc- c & Eudson Co ., 3 U. S . 356 (1 909 ) 

U.S . v . Jevi tt , 9 \·al l S:l (1 8 5 3 ) 

U. S . v. u-l~ eenwoo cl. Dai ry lr-, rr:l , Inc ., 8 -=-' . Su-o'J , 398 (193~...:: ) 

U. S . v . Loui svill e ~ rashvi1 le . Co ., 5 U. S. ~ ( 1914 ) 

u. s. v . !-!:ill , ,-:!~ 8 u. ·. --'12 9 (1 919) 

u . s . v. ~ Knig t , 156 u . . (1 894 ) 

U. S . v . ?'ichit;P PortL-nd Cerr.ent Co ., 0 U. S . l (19?.6 ) 

U. S . v . ~ers , 272 U. S. j2 (1926) 

U. b , v . Ju oy , 198 U. S . 283 (l 90b ) 

u . ;:, , v. ,~00 Chests of Te a , 9 v-heat 430 ( l 83 L.: ) 

U. S. v. 11 2 Cask s of Suga r, 8 P e t. 277 2~4) 

U. S . v . :viana t , 124 U. S . 30-' (1 88:: ) 

U. S . v . :tTeu:1edo1 , 8 F . Sunp . t=C3 (1 9 34) 

U. S . v . ?assc:.van.t , F . 1 69 U. S . 1 6 ( 1 89 8 ) 

U. S . v . Schissl e r , 7 F. ;:,up; . 1 23 ( 1934 ) 

u. s. v . S.Jith , 1GL.: u. s. b25 (18;:8 ) 

U. S. v . S,)otl e ss Do ll a r Cl eane r s , 6 F . Sup-o . 725 (1 934 ) 

U. S . v . Swift & Co ., 270 U. S . 124 ( 1932) 

u . S . v. ~arf , 170 Fe d . ~s ( 1909 ) 

U. S . v . ·.Hl1i mns , 194 U. S . 279 (1 904) 

Union Bridge Co . v . U. S ., 204 U. S . 364 (1907) 

Utah Power & Li g~;. t Co . v . Pfo st , 28 6 U. S , 165 ( 1932 ) 

Vanc e v . !31;.:ro nk , 101 U.S . 5lt± (J. 2S: O) 

Waite v . i:.:> cy , 8'::::J U. S . 605 ( 1918 ) 

9838 
- 354-

Warn e r Va ll ey Stock Co . v. Smit h , 1·35 U; S . 2c; (1 89 ?) 

Waym2n v. Southgrd , 10 ·::ne ."t 1 (l t-2o) 6 1 . Zd . 2b3' ' 

!fev er v . Fre ed , ~3 9 U. S . 3~ E> (19 l L) 

·we s t e rn I ndemni ty Co. v. Pi llsbur ? , :.ul Pr• c • . 398 (Ca l. . 192-..: ) 

Vies t err1 Powci.er Lal1Ufn.cturi ng v . I nterst a·ce ,Coal Co ., 5 F . :::>u:::r) . -19 (1934) 

Whee li ng Corrugating Co. v. t c;·.eni €,;al , --=1 £ . d.) o9 3 ( 1930 ) 

Whit e v. Federal RFl.cl.io Com:ni ssi on , 29 ?e(. ( 2d ) 113 ( 192 8) 

Whitney v. Ca liforni a , 274 U. S. 356 , 372 (19 2 7) 

Wich it 0. R. R. & Li ght Co. v. Pub l i c Utility Coil1fili ssion , 260 U. S. '±8 

(19 22 ) . 

Wilcox v . J a ckson , 1 3 P e t. 498 (1 539 ) 

Wilcox v. P e op l e , 90 Ill . 1 86 ( 1873 ) 

Wilde r, D. 7:. . · lvif g . Co. v. Co rn Products Co., 2.36 U. S. 165 ( 1 91 5) 

Willa r d v. Pre sbury , 14 Wall. S76 ( 1 871 ) 

Williams v. St a.ndai'd Oil Compa ny , ,.)78 U. S. 2 35 (1 9~9) 

Wilkinson v. Lel and, 2 P Et. 527 (1 829 ) 

Wils on v. ~ew , 243 U. S. 332 (1 91 ? ) 

Wisconsi n ?..ailroa,d Commi ssion v. C. 3 . & Q, . Failrogd Company , 57 U. S . 

563 (19 22 ) 

Cha s . Wolff Pa cl:i:i.1:; Co. ·v . Court o f I n.dust ri P.l Re l ati ons, 262 U. :S . 522 

( 19 ~3 ) 

Yama taya v. li'isJ.1e r, l f.9 U. S. 86 ( 1903 ) · 

Ya t es v. ?:ilw2.ukee , 10 Wall. L~9 7 (18 70 ) · 

Yudelson v • .Al1clr ew s, 25 ·F . ( 2 d ) 80 (1 922 ) 

Zay os v. La t r.ro•) , Luc e & Co., 231 U. S . 1 71 ·( 1913 ) 

Ca rl Ze i ss, I n c. v. U. S . , ~ ~d. ( 2d ) 2 (1935) 

9838 

I 

' 
TABLE OF 

TRFATISES , BRIEFS , REPORTS , ETC.(* ) 

Allen , u~ ag_ 1'ri1lllt"Qhan_t 

(lJe·.v York , 1:)01) 

Ame rica 1 s Recovery Pro~; ram 

(Oxf ord Press ~-:1934) 

Beard and Beard, The Arnerican Leviathan 

(l~·e w Yor¥ , l9~0) 

Bentl am , Pr: ··Ji-pl 0s of r:orals and Legisl nti on 

(O-do r d UYl :L versity Press, 1879 ) 

Blachley and Oat.nc:m , 

(Brookin:("·s 

BlaisdelJ, The Facer a l Trao.e Comnission 

(Columbia Un i versity Press, 1902) 

Bracton, De Le £;i'bus et Consuetu.cl i ni bus .A:n ; J. iae 

(Trav e~ s Twiss ed . London , 18 78) 

Bondy , Separation of Gove r nmeYltal Powe r s 

(New York , 1893 ) 

Brief for A. L. A. Schecht er Cor o. i n ------ Schech t er v. U. S. 

Brief for the U. S. in 

u. S. v. A. L. A. Sche cfu t ,r Corp . 

Brief on A-ppeal for U. S. iYl 

A. L. A• Sct.ecl:.t e r Corp . v. U . S. 

and Ad.j udica tion 

Brookings Institution, The .rJational Recovery Adm inistra tion - an Analysis 

and. an __ .§1:ro r a i si:tl 

(1935 ) 

Carr, Dele g~ ed is lation 

( {_,.-'_mbridge 'Uni versi t;r Pre ss , 1921) 

Comer, Le ~at ive unc tion~ of National Administrative Authority 

(New York , 1927 ) 

Commission of Inquiry on Public Servi ce Pe rsonnel, Report of Better 

Government ?e r sOnilel 

(lkGraw , Hill Book Co ., Inc•, 1935 ) 

(*) This table is not compl ete but cit es the autho rity mainly reli ed 

upon. 

9838 
- 356-

Committ ee on Administra tive Law , Report of Ar:1e rican Bar Association 

(Baltimore , 1933-1934) 

Committe e on lJiinisters r Po'.:er s Lleport 

(Cmd. 4060 , Present ed by t he Lo rd 

Chancellor to Pa rliament in Ap ril , 1932 ) 

Cooley, Constitutional Limita tions 8t h Ed. 

(Boston, 192?) 

Corwin, Twili!c:;ht of the Supr ene Cour t 

(Yale TJnive rsi ~.r Pre ss, 1934) 

Dearing , Homan, Lorwin and Ly on, The ABC of N?A 

(Brookings Institution, 1934) 

Dicey , The Law of the Constitution 

8th ed. (London, 1929) 

Dick inson, Administra tive Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United 

States 

(Harvard University Press, 1927) 

The Fede ralist, Hamilton, l'Iadison, Jay 

(Chicago, 1894 ) 

Field, The Effect of an Unc onstitutional St atute 

(HinnealJ Olis, 1935) 

Frankfurter, The Public and its Gov rlli~ nt 

(Yale University Press , 1930 ) 

Frankfurter and Davison, Case s on Arnninistrative Law 

(Chicago, 1932 ) 

Frankfurt er and Landis, Business of t he Sunrem·e Court 

(New York , 1927) 

Freund, Administrative ·powers ·over Pe rsons and. Property 

(University of Chicago Pr ess, 1928 ) 

Gavit, The Comm erce Clau se 

(Bloomington , Indiana, 1932 ) 

Gray, Nature and Source s of the Law 

2nd ed. (New Yor k , 9~ 7) 

Goodnow, Principles of the Administra tive Law of t he Un i t ed State s 

(New York , 1905) · 

Goodnovv , Compar a tive Adm inistra.t"i ve Law 

(Nev.r Y0 r k, 1903 ) 

Haines, The vt al of Natural Law Concep ts 

Harvard Univ. Pr e ss, 1930) 

9838 
Hart , The Or~ inance H?J':"inr; f0 1"ers of the President of the Unit ed States 

(Bnltimor , 1925) 

Hender~on , The Federal Trade Commis ion 

(Yale University Pres n, 1924) 

Hewart , 

Hol sworth , Histo~r of En lish Law 

(London , 1923) 

Holmes, Collected Legal ~pe rs 

(N e~;r York , 1920 ) 

Johnson, The Blue Eagle from ~g to Earth 

(Saturd~ Evening P<St , Jan. 19, 26 , Feb. 2 , 9 , 1935) 

Luce, Legisl at ive Proc edure 

(Boston CL"l.d :Tew Yo .. k , 1922 ) 

~.iaye , A Handbood. of i~RA n d ed. 

(New Yqrk, 19':\4 ) 

McFarland, Admin istra~ive Agencies in Govermnent and the Effect Thereof 

of Con stitutional Linitations 

(American Bar Associat ion Ross Award, 1934 ) 

McFarland, Judicial Control of the Fede ral Trade Commissi on and the 

n~ rs tate CoruJerce Commission- 1920-1930 

~vard Un iver sity Pre ss , 1933 ) 

Nat ional la~Je rs Commit tee of the American Liberty Leaeue, Constitutionality 

of the National Labo r Rel a tions Act Report on the 

(1935) 

Pollock and 1aitland , Hist ory of English Common Law before Edward I 

(Cambridge Univ. Press, 1923 ) 

Ritchie, Natural Ri ghts 

(New York 1 895) 

Sharfman , The Interstate Co~merce Commi ssion 

(Ne,.v York , 1931) 

Short, National Administrative Organ i zation 

(Johns Hopkins Press, 1923) 

Steuhens, Administra tive Tribunals and the Rul e s of Evi dence 

(Ha rvard University-Pre ss , 1933 ) 

Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law 

(Boston, 1898) 

Van Vleck, Administra tive Control of Ali ens 

(New York , 1932) 

9838 

·. 
Willis, Parliamentary Powers of English Gove r nment. Departments 

(Harvard University Pre ss, 1932) 

Willoughby, Constitutio12a.l Lav: of t he Unit ed States 

(New York , 1929) 

: ·). 

9838 
-3 '1-

TABLE OF 

LA,- REVI..::.1J ARTI CLES, NOlES AND COMt:ENTS (*) 

Adl e r, "Busine ss Juris..o rudenc e '', 

28 Harva r d Law Review 135 (1914 ) 

Albe r tsrrorth , "Jud i c ial Re v ie·w of Adm inistra tive Action, 11 

35 Harva rd Law Revi ew 127. (1921) 

Ba rre tt, 11 I s t h e r e a Nat iona l Po l ice Powe r, e tc.", 

14 Boston Un i ve r sity Law Revi ew 243 (1934 ) 

Be rl e , tt •rhe E:\.']Jansi n of American Adm in i strative Law", 

0· sa C~rd Law J.e vie1J1 430 ( 1917) 

:Black, "Th e National I n du stria l Rec over y Act and t he De legation of Leg is1c. t ive Potie r to t h e Pre sident", 

~ Co rne J1 Layr (c(.u a rterl:.L 339 (1 934) 

:Borchard, "The Constitu ti:::me.l ity of De c'laratory Judgments," 

31 Col -tl111b i a Law ~e ie w 561 (1931) · 

Brown, 11 The Con st i tution , t he Su-o rene Court a nd the NIRA", 

13 Oregon L aj! Revi eTI 10 2 (1 934 ) 

Brown, "Bo o: : Rev i e·w11 , 

'±_,_ Ha rva r d La'-:> .Review 125 ( 1934) 

Carpenter, 11 Constitutionality of t he ·Na tional Industrial Recovery Act and 

t h e Ag ricu l t u r.a l AdjustP1el1t Act", 

7 Southern Ca lif ornia aw J.evi ew 125 (1934) 

Cheadle, 11 The Delega tion of Leg isla tive Functions 11 , 

27 le Law J ournal 892 (1918) 

Corwin, 11 The Sup r eme Court a nd tl-1e Fourtee:r.. th Amen~ en t, 11 

7 Hjch i gan Law .Review 643 (19 09) 

Corwi n, "Ba sic Doctrine of American· Constitutional Law," 

12 Uichigan Law Review 247 (1914) 

Corwi n, "The 'Highe r Law' Background of American Constitutional Law," 

42 :aarvard Law Revi ew , 149-185, 365, 409 ( 1928) 

Corwin, "Cong ress's Po~; r to Prohibit- Commerce a Crucial Constitutional 

I ssue 11 , . 

18 Cornell Law Journal 477 (1933 ) 

Corwin, "Social Pla.rming unde r t he Constitution- ·A Study in Perspectives," 

26 American Politica l Science Revi ev1 l (1932), 8. 

(*) This t abl e is not comp lete but -states the authority mainly relied upon. 

9838 
- 360-

Corwin, "The Prog ress of Constitutional Theory Between the Declaration of 

Independence and the hfeetings of t he Phil adelphia Convention", 

30 American Histd.ri'cal Review 511 (1925) -

Corwin, 11 The Spending Power of Cong ress," 

36 Harvard Law Review 54~1923) 

Corwin, 11 The Doctrine of Due Process of ·Law Before the Civil War," 

24 Harvard Law Review 309 .. (1917) 

Cousens, 11 The Delegation of Federa:l L·eg islative Power to Executive Officials, n 

33 Michigan Law Review 512 (1935) 

' 

Cushman, 11 Nat ional Pol ice Powers Under the Commerce 'Clause, 11 

3 Minne·sota Law Review 289 ( 1919) 

Dickinson, 11 The Major Issues Presented by the Industrial Recovery Act, 11 

33 Columbia Law Review 1095 (1933) 

Dickinson; "Review of Administrative Determinations of Q,uestions of 'Constitutional Fact'", 

80 Pennsylvania Law Review 1055 (1932) 

Duane, "Marketing .Agreements under the Agricultural .Adjustment Act, Their 

Cont ents and Constitutionality," 

82 Pennsylvania Law Review 91 (1933) 

Duff and Whiteside, "Delegata Potestas Non Potest Del egari: .A Maxim of 

.American Constitutional Law," 

14 Cornell Law Quarterly 168 (1929) 

Ehrlich, 11 lvlontesquisu and Sociological Jurisprudence, 11 

29 Harvard Law Re~iew 582 (1916) 

Elder, "Some Constitutional .Aspects of the National Ind.ustrial Recovery 

Act," 

28 Illinois Law Review 636 (1934 ) 

Ellingwood, 11 The New Deal and· the Constitution, 11 

28 Illinois Law :i:?.evi~w ?..29 ~34) 

Dickinson, "Political .Aspects of the New Deal," 

28 American Political Science Review 1°7 .. (1~34) 

.Fairlie, 11 .Admirii strati ve Leg islation," 

18 Michigan Law Review 181 11:.?~ 20) 

Faris, "Judicial Notice by .Administra tive ]odies, 11 

4 Indiana Law Journal 167 (1928) 

Field, 11 The Constitutional Theory of the Nat ional Industrial Recovery Act," 

18 h inne sota Law Review 269 (1934) 

Finklestein, "Judicial Self-Limita tion, 11 

37 H~rvard Law Review 338_ll924) 

9838 
-. ' lFrankfurt e r, 11 The Task of Administ.,..,.,tive Lan , 11 

75 Univ0rs~tv _of Penn . Ln.'T ~eview 614 _(1927) 

Frankfurter and Lnnd is, 11 A Strd r in Sl'3J>aration of Po•:Te rs, 11 

'_j: Harva d Lnxr R~ vi w _lQlO ( 1924) 

Frankfurt e r a."ld Land is, 11 Po "Cr of ConGr ss over Proc edure in 1 Infe rio r' 

?ect.eral vourts 11 - A StudJ in Separation of Po we rs 

37 Harvard Lai'7 Revi w 1010 (1921 ) 

Glassie , 11 Some Le n·al Aspects of the Flexible Tariff," 

11 ir~inia Law ~e iew 329 (1925 ) 

Gris rold, 11 Governme,lt in Ignorance of t he Law- A Pl ea for Better Publica ti on of Exe cutive Leg i slation, '' 

48 Harvard La·• Review 198 (19 34) 

Hale , 11 The Constitution a."ld the Price Syst em ; Some Reflections on Nebbia 

v. N. Y, 11 

34 ColuTJll ia Law Review 40 (1934) 

Hough , "Due Process of Law - Today , 11 

24 Ha rva rd ~u Revi ew ) 6.o ( 1911) 

Hamilton , 11 Af:c'ectat ion •i7ith Public Interest ," 

39 YDl e IJa"' Journal 1089 (19 30) 

Handler , "Jurisdiction of the Fed.e r al J: r ade Commission over False Advertising , 11 

31 Columbia a~ RevieTI 527 (1935) 

Handler, 11 The National Indu st rial 2ecove r y Act , 11 

19 Ar1 erican Ba r Association Journal 440 (1933) 

Harriman , he Development of dr~ inistrf"l tive Law in the U. S.," 

2 ;) Ya l e Law Jou r nal 658 (1916) 

Lerner, "The Sup r en1e Co,J.rt and American Cap ita lism ," 

42 YD.le Law Journal 668 ( 1933) 

Langeluttina , "Constitutional LiP1.itati ons on Adm inistrative Powe r of Invest €;"D.t i on, 11 

28 I llinois La~' Revi ew 508 ( 1933) 

Lilienthal, 11 The Powe r of Governmental Agencies to Conpel Test i mony ," 

39 rla rvard Law Revi ew 694- 700 (1926) 

Laski , 11 The Limitation s of the Expe rt," 

Harpers, Dec. 1930 

Lask i, "Book Revien, " 

45 Harvard La\7 Revieu 734 ( 1932) 

1 aggs, 11 The Constitution and the Recove r y Leg i slation; The Roles of Document , Doctr ine and Juclge s, 11 

1 Un i versity of Ch icag o La•-.r .Revi ew 665 (1934) 

9838 
- 3E·2-

.. 

Le..u rcr t ?.ou e rt A., "Soue Co1:s ti t lltio:tla l As-r:, e cts of !T~A a.hc. P.Jl. ...A ., 11 

... ~;:.; Cco r {; e torm Le.1:: u:..~ J. ::;0 ? (l ~-:.4 ) 

? hilli) s , IIA P ::.'e.ctic2.l ;.:e ~1 c'.. for t l·.e -:,e t e :rmina tio:tl of 3usine s s Fa.c t, 11 

8 en lv~n E ~~ ~evie~ 330 (1934) 

? ounc. , 11 oo~-: :::-~ vi e,;.r, 11 

41 Ee rve.rc1

. LE'.r' -=:.e vi eu 113 ( 1 <? 2 7) 

? ou..:.1c'. , IILil; e rty a.n d Con tr3. ct, 11 _ 

1 8 Y e.l e Le.':' J o 1..1.rna 1 L1.54 ( 1 SO J) 

?.8. s~i vr , IIDelet;a tion to Ac:mi::, is tr2. t iye ;e nci es UnC. e r t he UI RA 

e.n cl. the .AilA", 

lS Sta Louis Law ?eview 46 (1933) 

?t.e.y f.; i) i enl:e, "Hot Oil on e. ,Sea of :-:ielege.tion of Por:e r , 11 

'1 0. Ill Tr ·r -.:J • ,-( lQ 'll (1 \''-' "") ,J J • ill\' . .:..e v:Le .. ,_,___ . .h.J,_; 

J.oss, 11A))lic8.bili ty of ?:ules of 3vi c1enc e in ?rocc ~. e; s 3efore :i or~c-.1en ' s 

Colil}")ensa tion CoEmi ssi ons," 

36 Ee.rve.rcl. lc".'rr -::J_e vie'.·: 263 ( 1S.2 0) 

St e)L , 11Ac.lmL1istr£'.tiv e Trih u.112.l s . t he :Tile s of c"'.e ncet " 

82 Uni v e rsi t v of Per1;.1s;vl vc-·.nie. 12-n ?evi e,.r 864 ( 1934 ) 

Va ;.1 Vleck, 11 AC:.mini str8 ti ve Justice i n .t he 3nforcem.en t of Qua si-C rimi ne.l 

lavr, II 

1 Geor{;e \7a J. in ton 18.1'7 ::. ev eri 1 8 (1 02 ) 

·: renbroc , ll }'ecl.e r a l Anti-Trust Lex,· c. . t h e l:I:?J>. , 11 

Z. 7 icrli ~~ :t1 L '3.Vl ~e vi G' ! 100 =: (1 9~<:. ) 

~iie. :c r e.no. Gnterma,n , "'i>·:o J',..s:}e cts of J.A Price ?i ~ B.J.lc. l ab or," 

14 1;0 

_,. c ,..J+-v 0 .J.. , , ~ 'r P.._, i_ 'S -i ~uu .L V .L~ P - ·

1"' · .. 

..

". e\r 1. e·

\ -. 

, ,?~ ...., .. ~ ., lJ·.· . ( 1 (' - "--' ~L1- ) 

',7ic::e l'shau, "De l egation of ? or:e r s to el , n, 

11 Vir;.iui B. La':I ?.evi e 1. · 18:3 (F ::!-22;) 

.7 ._;m l~ , 11 Ac.lnil1istre. tive l' c'. ;;.:ul es, 

17 Illi:no i s larr "'.ev e-rr .363 (l :::.::!2) 

ot 11 Th..1e Proce s s ReC2_uire;:ne:l t E o f i:otice s nc: EeE·.ri:1[,S i n .A..cl..r.1L.1i s t :re.tiv c 

:f :co c ee d i nb s , " '"'4 Col,,,. ,o . ..,. L J r . , .. '7,..:) r l " '"'Li·' ) 0 - u1!1 l c.c e.\"! .!.le\ l e I. ,) u.::... \ . ,_. :r 

:i.iote - Se e ? (a) of t he lTI :i.l.A An Att en:t:! t t o -=nw .l i ze :J 2. ::_; e.i:1in~ PoVJer, 

::;4 Columb i a La:.: :=levi er.: l .:J 2° ~::; ) 

l~ 11 COj

1.stitut :i.ona l Lev: .... De l ege., t i oil of Po,:re r s 11 

22 eor :~e to ' ... 'n Le.n Jonr nc:.l l CO ( 1:·'33) .: . 

l:o t o - It Sonc Con s ti tu ~~E l F. c,·)e c~ s o_I' ~:e J:::-· tio·-::c-. 1 l'1r11.ls t ria l ?.e cove r y 

Ac t 1:1:-:.C: t :1e At;r i c1 .. l~ £"·. 1 ;;..,' .j u s t : ont (..:-Ji :l: .s r. im~. " 

:J2 Georre torm 12-r.r Jo1.1.I'iF.l ;c. ?....J...L:~·~ ) 

~' 8 

11 Somo Le l;al As·• e ct 5 o f t Le re. tio ·~e. l I :1C

1

.USt ri!.1l ?.e cover:; Act II 

4 7 E<.·. r v:::.r c. 12.1-, :3.evi e, .. ~:-;. __(_::!.. ·_ ,;-;) 
i:otc -- II T~~c ?.i'-ht o" Ec!"''.rh'. ''-cron.) _·c. il"~ ittr tiv c 'j.'rit1..n<: l 11 

;-'~. 1> verr1 L-2::: """'cv:.c·..:.. 1 :-':'_' _(].'.Jl ' ) 

~iotc 11 ~C"l'"'r~B. tio .1 of ?c·'c.L · Co:"'. I"'SC" 11 

:_C-1~:~~ :/ ·.· ·.c·:_:t~·:-' 7'::'b ( _c:'3G ) 

Co t1..lc·2. t - "?o• .. cr of Co·,;r" ss ov;• !' ? :t·orc ·.i..ll c i~1 C 1·ini:K' l Co.1 t cr:n t s i.: 

1 Ini'Jrio:... Fe ·.crr.l CoL.:.:t.s 1 - A St u .. y in 1 Sc:)f'!' tio:1 of - o ~- , 1 11 

~7 1010 (1 ~~~ ) 

~- ot ·: - 11 D~ ~c u2. t:.o:n or Lc._;isl::1 t::.vc ?o· ('rs : 

Co ... ~ t .:. tu ~:.-Oil::' l i :e. Aim . 11 

~ r1 - ' - • 11' 8 ( l :-: .~ 'r''.) ( : :'l'Y:' 1" LP\ ~CVJ:.2_~_·--=:-=..:·:::.. ~=- --'-'-=-::.. ~:..:·~

£Tot·J - li "lc l c_ t~ : of LC islr. tivG rO'."'L: :' - };'}.cxi'o l ;; 'T? :.·iff Ac t, II 

2 7 J11inois I :>:' ?.cvic·:· 3U2 lC) ~Q ) 

Comme:1t - ~~' o.j l·ity ?..'t.llc i n CoJ.lcctive JJf'rf,!'. inijl::_: 17l1c:e r ?(a), 11 

G ,.., 0 1111. ~ s -· ::J,....v l· ,...., .. <J?'· fl ;""-4) .1 ..l.. L.:. _ ,..,-. •-ot\ -o~ ._; \ .J~..J

!Toto - 11 V::l ic'.it;>r o : "Je l c:.:;e.tior-. of Fo•.·crs l."".!1ci.c r ccovery k ct, 11 

l C' Io--r:::> 1::> ·· -CVl . ..,., .. . -..,r· (1,.. 11. ) ~ • - - · . • ..... .. ,) J <l .. v ~ 

Eote - 11Acl.rc:i"tist:r:: tj_ve 12., ... - .?1·cb::. tivc Value of Hce.rsa.y Tcsti":1on;>r, II 

;,~ ;.:icl1L ,211 l:?.P .?.cyier: 8:1 (1926 ) 

l'o te 

_._L --=:...:.:..--=;:~ T:: C 1 ::- z..:;) 

~Tote - 11 ':":'l-_c :;:)clct;;:->.ti .:m or' ~eC. :- r2 l I. e_; l~ ve Po:!e T to ::xccu.tive 

o::- Ac".mi:~ist:c :. tivc At:;c-:.-_ ct es," 

31 icl" e:1 L?.·:· _::;:Gvim .. ?So ( 1 S~·=:) 

lTotc - 11 T _c i.:ecess i t y cf a ~o t:.ce <:.11C:. He2·rinb i n .c mL strf'·. tive 

l.Je t C :7:1i ~1 2. t i 0:'1 S , II 

80 l-:1ivc :csi t y c_f ? C)l:l".S'.r lvE.E i9. l eT ?..evier· S6 (1 °'31) 

Co:x1e11t - 11 J1..1.r i cial :rte vic~.r o f J.;::;.: str::'. ti '!e 0:.·6.crs l.mt'.cr F?.A a.nd ).....ft.A", 

43 ~- "' e LaP Jm.:,Tn.8..l .:.;:.:·s) (1 ~' :'4 ) 

Corrrrnc11. t - 11 'l'hc Fe~ ere.l ""'o~1 ~sh o :::o:.1C'1: 1 s 8.nc. Eco. rbo :c Wor~;:ers 1 Com) en sa tion 

.Act, 11 

40 Yal e Le..-J Jo1.1.rne.1 C4:0 (l c· : 4 ) 

l'oto - 11 Ve.lic3.ity 0f Allotment 

F.:.ma l ?rovisi-cms e.s 

4:=- Ye.l e l e.;,; Jour:1.e l 

O:i. ~~.e r l.'.l!d..e r ·~..ube r Coc:e ; SusTJejlsion of 

to Li ti.;::.nt c~ -9 llen{:, :a;_; Orde r, II 

~? 1:''3~) 

Co -:mer.. t - ~~" ? t iona.l ?.e cove 1.~:' Co cl. c .As sc s smen t s , II 

-1( YE-.le 1£' :' Jol."..r na1 G49 (l ~\~· ) 

S838 
- 3E4-

( T~1is n o te, wri _t t en b v a_ 1 eviene r of ! ;r. AP-:en s rr.anu s cr i nt, 

C:.es e rves meG ~a~o pi n. g a_l on r; v:i th the mal1Us c rint) 

llel e a :L e t wo c.ont.r a cUctory theories r e ga r C.i:1g t h e Cod.e mc-.:<: ing 

poYre rs Qf the National. ... e c ove r y Ad.n inis t r a ti on. 

Th e firs t goes on the g1~0UJ. cl . tha t 't h e pr e cess wa s quasijudicia l 

in e a n c1 tha t theref ore the deta iled 11 due p r ocess of l a.n " p roce dur e 

We.. s E' l)p lic ble to it. As this thesis is d.eve l aped full y in this s tudy, 

it Hill not be necessary to discuss it further h e re • 

.According to the sec·J nd theo r t~e Code mak ing :p rocess is legislative in nature a nd as a co:ns equel1Ce it we,s not necessary tha t all of 

the c-:..eta iled. p rocedures re quireci to insure fl due p rocess ·of law" sh m.:u d· 

be comp liec1 with. However d.esirable a mor e a dequate p rocedure mi ,::;h t 

have been fr0:1 the vie';rpcint of sound a dm inis trn tive p ractice or eco~ cm

ic a n (!_ social e x9 ediency , it VIc.s n ot re quired as a mat t er of lan. 

The arguinen ts advance a_ by the p rup onen ts of this second theor :r 

go on ~eral grounds. 

The first of these had to do with the bread Ul~ cse and rinciples of the National Recovery Administrati on. One of the basic p rinciples of the Nationa l Recovery ACLninistration was 1fself-g overn:Jent i n 

in0_ustry ". The Presicien t in his me ssage of lla;;r 17, 1933, aske d Congr e ss fol~ the machinery necessa ry 11fcr a great co cp er a tive move"'"3 ent". 

Secti..:•n 1 of the tiL~nal Inrlustria l :::tecove ry Act sta ted th t it 'i7as 

the pnl ?C Se of Cvngr ess to p rov ici e f or t h e genera l v:elfa re :r p rOi'!lOtin,z t he organization of inC:.ustr;)T for the DUT-puse of couperative ac t i on 

among trade gr cups, to induce a nc:t mc.:.in tain l..Lni te6.. a cti vn of labor a nd 

manage:.1 e11t under aclequate g ove r m1enta l sa 1cti ., ns anc1 sup ervision .... 11 

In the state1-1ent of the Pr e sident tlini11 ~ the p olicies of t h e Hati nal Re covery .Administrati on (N3.t-'\. Bulle tin o. l. p l.) it was saiC.: 11 It 

is a challenge to industry vrh'ich ha s long insiste d t h n t , g iven t he 

right to e.ct in. unison, it coul c5_ ci o much f ur t he genera l s ocd nhich 

has hithe rt c ·be en unlan:ful. Fror'l t od.ay it ha s t hc-.t ri c;ht. 11 This '""7 f".S 

the vi i~) cint t aken by thos e n est clos e l Jr associat ed Ti i th the f ..:ruul a - · 

ticn of the p olicy of the lJa ti._·, nal 3.ec over y Adi:linistra tion, Gene ·a l 

Johnson an c1 Lr. Richberg . 

A f e·r:" quotaticns wil.l show. h ow s t:congl v the idea of self-government Yra s in the minds of t h ose resp cn si bl e fo r this Administra ti on. In 

Bulle tin l1To. 7 of the N:lA. we find the follou ing expressions: 

9838 

liThe aim of t he j:flA is to c;i ve ust ry , t l r u 5 h its 

Co G- e Auth oriti e s·, the wide st •}Ossible r an ge of selfg uvernment, subjec t to t h e ultimate resp onsibility 

cf the Admi n istra t vr11; 11It is fun daL1enta l, P-.i t h in 

both t h e letter a nd inten t of Yi llil ...• tha t as much a s 

p o s sible of both aspe cts of CoQe Adminis tra tion (Plaw!ing 
~,

.a"l' PrC' ~ress ru d Ccm_1J.ia.r.c \ be effe ed bv ind.untr r 

i tsel 1 "; 11 fol' a::1 i ncn1.stry suffici ently ornu1ized 

to have a-t;rccd 1. uon a Co{e cf Fail' CoMr) 'ti '~ i ·· n , there 

usnall y rTill be no need fu: G0vernmeilt· ac.binistrati un 

ia tho I ,'lD.."mL g .. nd pr ... •c ress I field. 11 

Il.t. his ~..'rnl arnu !E'n b L1 the Schechter Cas" , Donr"l d chbcr~ suiG_: • r 

'J ~le aticnal :aecovery Act r eco·:r·ni ?:ecl exp.J:ici tly the need. of 

cr:::ani zing a Nn.tion- Wi d c:oopera tion. · I't re cogni?ec. the 

utter impossibility ""nd im a:ct ic li ty of seeking tc 1:-ri te 

a sinc;l e CO(."..e 0.1. f n ir pre.cti.c'es fo.r a l l b.:usiness, or of seekiilt; to enfol'Ce a s in5 l e set of rit;id s tru1dc:nd.s of brLSines s 

c unduc t . It p rocePcled upon the souncl. theory that thousands 

of 'bur-iness r.cn t!lemse lves sho1.1.l d knov-.r bet te r than any small 

gr ..:u9 of a'.·.rma)~ ers wha t i mp roved p r a ctices would stir'lula.te a 

busine ss revivp.l, what ~he p r oh i bi tion. of un·f a ir practices 

would do in prl..'mo tins f 3.ir business, and. wha t would sub-. 

sti t ute :-:~.n orG..erl y adva. ce f or a disorcl erly retreat.. So the 

l aw p rovid.ed ~1.: t codes cf fair ·compe tition shcul d be drm7n 

up · by th,0.se truly rel?resente:.tive of tracl.es and. inctustries a nd, 

after pas.sh:.g thr • .::ugh an adm inis tl'ativ.e test a s 'to whether . 

.. they. effec tuated. the public policy' l a id down by Congre ss, then 

. t hese c ode s would. p rovi de the c tandards of fair ccmDe ti t i on 

~nder Tihi cn tr a~e qnd in~ustry might be stimula t ed. and im-

·proved. 11 ( *) · 

i.I:' • • ich ber g a lso p c inted cu t the f a ct .thr.t. the Co de s nere of the 

type .ca lle d. 11voluntar y " i.e .,· Ccdn s brou :·;h t forth vo l un t a rily by r epresente.tive o-:" the trade and. inG.u.strie s ffect ed . 

11 It ·'is perfectl y ·clea r th<:.t the fundamen t a l basis of .the Co de is 

is the asreemen t of a truly rep re senta:ti ve group of a trade 

·or inc":.ustry a s tc what ccnsti tute s f a ir compe ti ticn. n 

I n ... 1is ::ecen t book "The :Rc..i nbow" Mr . · Richberg · a~r : 

11 :!:n the f irst stages o:f cur endeavor He el~e f eE.'.rful of any-

~l in g even f lavor ed Ti i th gove r n:'1ental dictation . We sough t 

ciili gentl J to u r ovi o.e the r eality of ' s·elf- c overnmen t of 

i nclus try 1 • !' (p· l 2D ) 

In a r:'lenor andum i ssueo en :t .cvembor 22 , 1933 tc · the members of the 

Le gal DivisLm . ( us quoted fror.1 "the Ra in bow" · (p 1 2()) Richberg sai d. : 

"It is not required e ... nC::_ it is not p roper, excep t in special 

i nstance s t o gr e.n t in a Code any general power to the Admini s·tratc r to revievv and modi fy a ctions t aken by .the Cocce Au thori ty. If anyohe insists un·on inccl~ crc-:. ting such . a clause, y ou 

·r.:ay ref e r to this i1le'Iloral1.a."JJJ1 as a st at~Den t of policy to p romote · s·el f - go - ern::tent of industry , as d istinguished frcm po li t -

(* The NRA Ca s es . No . 854 and r:o . 864 . Il\ ~ SU?RE!:IE COURT 

OF THE TED STATES 

9838 
- 366-

ical government of industry, which should guide the Legal Division." _\ 

"The inciusion of a f ew compulsory requirements and criminal penalties 

in the Recovery .Act ·should not obscure the dominant int~ntion t to provide 

for the general welfare by promoting the organization of industry for 

the purpose of cooperative actiono t Nor was there ever a deliberate 

departure from this original intention."* 

Further the Administration took the view that 11 It is not the function of the National Recovery Administration to prescribe what shall 

be in the Codes to be submitted by associations or grou~s• The initiative ~n all such matters. is expected to come from within the industry 

itself." (NRA Bulletin No. 2 Sec. (6)). 

Another indication of the cooperative nature of the Code making 

process is found in the fact thet although often at the hearing of the 

proposed Code it might be "modified at the suggestion of the Administration· or otherwise 11 it was further provided: nand as so modified if it 

is agreed to by representatives of the Association or group presenting 

it and ratified by such Association or group under such conditions as 

the Administration may prescribe, it will be presented to the President 

for his approval or disapproval or suggested mcdification ••• 11 (NRA Bulletin No. 2 Sec (3)). It will thus be seen that Congress, the President, 

industry itself and those primarily responsible for National Recovery 

Administration regarded the Code making process as fundamentally an 

attempt at industrial cooperation and at self-government of industry 

rather than a mere regulatory procedure, such as exists where t he -government regulates and controls the manufacture and sale· of fo.ods and drugs, 

the use of navigable streams, foreign commerce or the use of the public 

domain. In all such cases the sanction of law results witho~t attempting 

to secure the participation, in the making Jf the_ law, of the ·real representatives of those regulated, without asking them to initiate the 

regulations, without securing their cooperative action in the formulation of rules and regulations, and without requiring their approval before the law goes into effect. Whatever one may think of the validity 

of such a process of law making the fact remains that it actually existed. 

Of course, it was agreed by all that the final sanction to the Codes 

was in the President. 

The next factor to be taken into consideration is the nature of the 

Code making process. The process involved the ma~ng of complicated 

sets of adjustments rather than merely laying down rules, standards and 

norms. The first of these adjustments resulted from th~ .very difficult 

problems involved in the classification of industry under Codes. What 

industries should be included within certain codes; in other words what 

industries fell within a particular competit:ive field? What factors 

constitute an industry? 

Adjustments had to be made between different kinds of -concerns within competing groups, because of vo_lume of output, different sales methods, 

different· purchasing methods, different advertising methods_. Adjustments 

had to be· made betwe en large companies and small companies; between 

(*) 11 The Rainbow" Donald R. Richberg. (1936) p.ll8 
- C?-

inter -industrial o•;me i tion and i'lter-industrial comm ti tion in various 

levels; bet.ve cn la::' ee C01:11a:1ies and ;>mall o:np:1nies; be •1een quasi-monooolistic nc e:c~1 and ot. .. E'l' .. Adjustments h'ld to be made in Codes 

to p r event injury to cons'tmers, ancl lilce•7iso to protect tho interests 

of labor , id to adjust tie relationshi ~ between organized and unorgani zed la Other adjustments h'ld to bP. made on account of geogr aphi -

cal locati ·n of industries. Others had to be made in r elationship to 

th Anti-Trust la s. 

In this process of adjustment it was not always uossible to know 

'.'Tho we re inter ested partivs, how particular pr ovisions would affect 

diffe rent i ndust!'ies, what .?..'..ltho r ities were r elJresentative . It is maintained that this process could not in any possible way be r educed to a 

judi ial P.r ocess :3y j ts ve:c·v natu:re it involved bar gaining , dickering 

and giving and tc::~ ing. It would nave been im:9ossible by me rely t aki ng 

testimony to ge at the truth of the contentions of va rious group s, for 

facts and statistics tc back u~ t hese contentions did not exist . Those 

who made the Co c1es wc!'e not c.e.aling in a ny i'!lanner with individual rights; 

on the contrary t~ ey er3 f o:·mulatlnt:. general policies. 

In r e spect to the co e~ ts of Codes even gr eater difficulties are 

encountered. -r."le t her or not tttl7e:t;ising a llowances, price fixing, pr ice 

filing , r esale ~J rice 'Tiai nte:1C:..llCe 1 CO St accounting provisions, loss 

lead~rs, limita tion of ma0hine h0 ~s , etc . a re desirable are matters 

largely of 1o~. Some of t hese provisions may be advantageous to 

certain concerns 'tli thin a Code , and disadvantageous to othe rs. In order to find out the effects of such provisions, a season of experimentation would probably be nece ssary and after that elaborate studies. A 

cru:_asi--judicial process would :9r oba.bl y come no nea rer to a correct solution than a proce ss of bergaini~g and agr eement . In all of this pr ocess there were se.;arate and distinc t i nterests involved but they we r e 

non-justicable int erests. 

Let u s now turn to t he strictly legal situation. The first question that ~~ould be ~s e~ed from the standyoint of law is what is the 

nature of tne se codes& Did they vo~ve r'..lles of futur e application 

governing a ;'!ide r ange of action , or were they specific orders such 

as might be rnade by tne Interstat e Commerce Co ~J ission or the Federal 

rrade Commission. Manifestly t hey we re the former . 

The next pertinent question is, what authority was ultimately r esponsible for tho formation of the Codes? The answer is the President 

of the United States; ( *) an authoritdr coordinate with the legislature , 

and not me r ely an administrative authority . 

Again , what kind of power ~as the President exercising? It was 

cleraly a delegated legislative po~er , as has been well r ecognized in 

the Panama Refining Company Case and the Schechter Case . In fact , in 

the latter ca se, t he whole Code mal::ing pro cess was declared unconstitutional on the gr.::m .. Yld t nat there ':'as an improper delega tion of legislative power. The court said; 11 Such a sweep ing dele gation of 

(*) See Schecht er vs u. s., where the Court says that the Codes "have 

no sanction beyond t he will of the President, who may accept , modify or reject them as he ple.:> ses. " 
... 366-

ical government of industry, which should guide the Legal Division.n \ 

"The inciusion of a few compulsory requirements and criminal penalties 

in the Recovery .Act ·should not obscure the dominant int~ntion 1 to provide 

for the general welfar e by promoting the organization of industry for 

the purpose of cooperative actiono' Nor was there ever a deliberate 

departure from this original intention. 11 * 

Further the Administration took the view that 11 It is not the functiort of the National Recovery Administration to prescribe what shall 

be in the Codes to be submitted by associations or grou~s• The initiative ~n all such matters is eixpectod to come from within the industry 

itself." (NRA Bulletin No. 2 Sec. (6)). 

Another indication of the cooperative nature of the Code making 

process is found in the fact thet although often at the hearing of the 

proposed Code it might be 11 modified at the suggestion of the Administration· or otherwise" it was further provided: "and as so modified if it 

is agreed to by representatives of the Association or group presenting 

it and ratified by such Association or group under such conditions as 

the Administration may prescribe, it will be presented to the President 

for his approval or disapproval or suggested mcdification ••. 11 (NRA Bulletin No. 2 Sec (3)). It will thus be seen that Congress, the President, 

industry itself and those primarily responsible for National Recovery 

Administration regarded the Code making process as fundamentally an 

attempt at industrial cooperation and at self-government of industry 

rather. than a mere regulatory procedure, such as exists where t he government regulates and controls the manufacture and sale· of fo.ods and drugs, 

the use of navigable streams, foreign commerce or the use of the public 

domain. In all such cases the sanction of law results witho~t attempting 

to secure the participation, in the making ~f the_ law, of the ·real representatives of those regulated, without asking them to initiate the 

regulations, without securing their cooperative action in the formulation of rules and regulations, and without requiring their approval before the law goes into effect. Whatever one may think of the validity 

of such a process of law making the fact remains that it actually existed. 

Of course, it was agreed by all that the final sanction to the Codes 

was in the President. 

The next factor to be taken into consideration is the nature of the 

Code making process. The process involved the m~~ng of complicated 

sets of adjustments rather than merely laying down rules, standards and 

norms. The first of these adjustments resulted from th~ .very difficult 

problems involved in the classification of industry under Codes. What 

industries should be included within certain codes; in other words what 

industries fell within a particular com eti~ive field? v1hat factors 

constitute an industry? 

Adjustments h8.d to be made between different kinds of .concerns within competing groups, because of vo.lume of output, different sales methods, 

different purchasing methods, different advertising methods. Adjustments 

had to be made between large companies and small companies; between 

(*) 11 The Rainbow11 Donald R. Richberg. (1936) p.ll8 
- ~c ?-

inter-industr ial o:n,Jetition and i'1ter-industrial com tition in various 

levels; be t wven la:·e;e COJu 1a:1ies and ;.>mall om}:Rnies ; bet•'Teen quasi-monop olistic conce i!1 u.nd othf'l' .. Adjustments h1.d to be made in Codes 

to p r event injury to consume l's, and like•7iso to protect the interests 

of labor , :- '1d to adju. t t~1e r elationshi'9 between orgn.nized and uno r ganized la o:· Other a justment.s h:td to b P- made on account of geogr aphical locati ·n of industries. Others had to be mnde in r elationshi:9 to 

th Anti-Trust la s . 

In this p rocess of adjustment it v1as not always u ossible to know 

'.'Tho were int e r ested parti. vs , how particula r p r o\ isions would affec t 

different indust!'ies, what ::.:u.thorities were r e:presentative . It is maintained tha t this process could not in any p ossible way be r educed to a 

judicial l?rocess By j ts v e:.-:y natu re it involved bargaining , dickering 

and giving a nd tu~ing . It would have b een im ossibl e by merely t aking 

testimony to get at the truth of the cont entions of va :hous groups, for 

facts and statistics tc back ~ t hese contentions did not exi~t . Those 

who made the Co cLe s wc!'e not cl . .?aling in a ny J!lanner with individual rights; 

on the contra ry ·t hey ero f o::·rnul at1nb general policies. 

In resp ect to the con t ents of Codes even gr eater difficulties are 

encountered.. W':.'1e the r or not n.il7e.:.1t:i.sing a llowances, price fixing, p rice 

filing, resale ~:> rice !ilainte:1LUCe, cost accounting provisions, ioss 

lead~rs, limitation of maGhine 0~s , etc . a re desirable are matters 

largely of op 1n1oa . Some of t hese provi sions may be advantageous to 

certain concerns ·11i thin a Code, and disadvantageous to others. In order to find out the effe cts of such p rovisions, a season of experimentation would probably be necessary and after that elaborate studies. A 

cru:.asi--judicial p rocess would y r obably come no nearer to a correct solution than a p rocess of be,r gaini:::.1g and agreement . In all of this process there were se.;:a rate and distinct interests involved but they we re 

non-justicable int erests. 

Let u s now turn to the strictly legal situation. The first question that ~~ould be a:::.1swe:red from t h e standu oint of law is what is the 

nature of t nese codes1 Did they invo~ve rules of future application 

governing a •:ide range of action , or were they sp ecific orders such 

as might be made b y the Intersta te Commerce Co~ ission or the Federal 

Trade Commission. Hanifestly they were the former . 

The next p ertinent question is, what authority was ultimately resp onsible for the formation of the Codes? The answer is the President 

of the United St a tes; ( *) an authori t ;,r coordinate with the legislature, 

and not merely an administrative authority. 

Again, what kind of p ower 1i7as the President exercising? It was 

cleraly a delega ted legislative po\'ler, as has been well recognized in 

the Panama Refin ing Company Case and the Schechter Ca se. In fact, in 

the latter c a se, t h e whole Code mal::ing pro cess was declared unconstitutional on the ground tnat there v:as an improp er delega tion of legislative power. The court said; 11 Such a sweep ing delega tion of 

*) See Schech t e r vs u. S., w~1ere the Court says that the Codes "have 

no sanction beyond the will of the President, who may accep t, modify or reject t h em as he ple,::- ses." 
legislative powe r fi nds no sup-·!ort i n t he decisions u-o on which t he 

GoverniLent especially relies. 11 

. The next question that may be a sked is whether t here were presen t 

in the Code hearings t he factors nece ssary to a judicial or quasi- judicial hearing. These f a ctors may be said to be parti e s, controversy over 

rights, an authority capable of passing judgment and some method of en- ·t ~ ,,a 

forcing the decisions of the judging authority . None of t hese fac t ors 

were present i n the Code hearing s. While there were a go od many peopl e 

with divergent views and diff erent interests they we r e in no sense parties 

to a suit. Nor were any rights involved, as is t he ca se where an administrative body is making an order. The interests i nvolved were of t he sa e 

nature as those present when any legislation is passed. The President 

was not an authority which made a decision or issued a rule governing 

specific cases, but was an authority issuing rules of future application. 

Further the subject matter of these rules and regulations was as wide 

or wider and equally significant as those issued by Congress itself. 

TO Sill~~~IZE: The Code making process consisted (a) in organizing t he 

business of the country into competitive group s, (b) in passing judgment 

upon the business and labor practices of these groups which they t hemselves, the Administration, l a bor representatives and representati ves st 

of the consumi ng public considered i ni mica l to t he welfa re of business 

and the public and (c) in formulating these judgments into Codes. This to 

process took place through the participation of real represa1t a tives of 

industry who initiated codes, cooperated in the process of formul a ting 

these suggesthms into law, and .approved t he ·law before i t went into 

effect. The passing of judgment upon the great mass of pr a ct ices .involved in the manufacture , advertising of, sale and distribution of go ods, 

as well as upon labor relationshi p s in respect to hours and condi t ions 

.of work, and wages, was in no sense a judicial or quasi-judicial process: 

it ·was a process of formulating social and econOinic policy . ·However 

desirable it might have be en, to have had f ar wider investigations f or 

the formulation of t his policy , this was not required from the viewpoi?t 

o.f 11 due proce·ss of law"; for "due process of law" is not a test of expediency but a test of legality . 
OFFICE OF THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION 

THE DIVISION OF REVIEW 

THE WORK OF THE DI VIS I ON OF REVIEW 

Executive Order No. 7075, dated June 15, 1935, established tho Division of evieH of the 

~at·onal Recovery Administration. The pertinent part of the E.·ecutive Order reads thus: 

The Division of Review shall assemble, analyze, and report upon the statistical 

information and records of experience of the operations of the various trades and 

industries he retofore subject to codes of fair competition, shall study the effe c ts of such c odes upon trade, industrial and labor conditions in general, and 

othe r re l ated matters, shall male available for the protection and promotion of 

t he public i nterest an adequate review of the effects of the Administration of 

Ti t le I of the National Industrial Recovery Act, and the principles and polir.ies 

put i nt o eff ec t thereunder, and shall otherwise aid the President in carrying out 

his f unc t i ons under the said Title. I hereby appoint Leon C. Marshall, Director of 

the Division of Review. 

The st udy sections set up in the Division of Review covered these areas: industry 

studi es, f ore i gn t rade studies, labo r s t udies, t r ade practice studies, statistical studies, 

l ega l studies, administ r ation studies , miscell aneous studies, and the writing of code histo r ies. The materials which we re pr oduced by these sections are i ndicated be l ow. 

Except for the Code Histori es, all items mentioned below are schedul ed t o be in mimeographed form by April l, 1936. 

THE CODE HISTORIES 

The Code Histories a r e docume nt ed a ccounts o f t he f ormation and admi istra~ion of the 

codes. They contain the definition of t he indust ry and t he p rinci pal p r oducts thereof; the 

class es of members i n the industry; the histo r y of code f ormat ion including an account of the 

sponso ring organi zations , the conf e r en ces , negotia tions and hearings which were held, and 

t he ac tivities in connec tion with obtaining app r oval of t he code; the history of the administra tion of the code, covering the o rganization and operation of the code authority, 

t he diff iculties encoun te red in administration , the extent of complian~e or non-compliance, 

and the general s uccess or l ack o f success of the code; and an analysis of the operation of 

c ode provisions deal ing wi t h wa ges , hours, trade p ractices, and other provisions. These 

~c o~h r ma tters are canvassed not onl y in terms of the materials to be found in the files, 

bu~ also in t e rms of t he experi ences of the deputies and othe rs conce rned with code formation 

and admin istration. 

The Code Histori es, (i ncluding histories of certain NRA units or agencies) are not 

eog ra d. They are to be turned over to the Department of Commerce in typewritten• form. 

All told , approximatel y eight hundr ed and fifty (85 0 ) histories will be completed. This 

~~ ill ber i ncludes all of the approved codes and some of the unapproved codes. (In ~Qili M§!~­

ri~l§ NQ..:.. 1§, Contents Qf Cog~ Histo r ies, will be found the outline which governed the 

prepa ration of Code Histories.) 

(In the case of all app r oved code s and also in the case of some codes not carried to 

fi nal approval, there are i n NRA f iles fu r ther materials on industries. Particularly worthy 

of ment ion are the Volumes I , II and III which constitute the material officially submitted 

to the President in support of the re commendation f or approval of each code . These v0lumes 

9768--1. 
se 

po 

re 

ci 

_

o
- 11 -

set f orth the origination of the codes, the sponsoring group. the evidence advanced to support the p;oposnl. the r port of the Division of Research and Planninv on the industry. the 

recommen ations of tho various Advisory Boards, certain types of official correspondGnce, 

t~a transcript of the formal hearing, and other pertinent matter. There is also much offici l i nformation relating to amendments, interpretations. exemptions. and other rulings. The 

matena s mentioned in this pa~agxaph were of course not a part of the work of the Division 

of Review.) 

THE WORK MATERIALS SERIES 

I n the ~ork of the Di vision of Review a considerable numbe r of s t udies and compilations 

of data (other than those noted bel ow i n the Ev i dence Studies Se ries and the St a tistical 

Material Series) have been made. The ·e a r e listed below, grouped accordi ng t o the chara te of t he material (In !YQrk Ma terial s No. 17, Tentative Qgtli!l§ .9,nd Summarie~ of 

Studies i n Process. the mat e rial s a r e fully described). 

Indus1£Y Studies 

Automobile Industry, An Economic Survey of 

~:t~oino s Coal Industry unde r Free Competition and Code Re gulation, Ecnomic Survey of 

Electri cal Manufac t uring Industry, The 

Fe rtili zer Industry, The 

Fishery I ndust r y and the Fis hery Codes 

Fishermen and Fishi ng Craft , Earnings of 

Foreign Tr ade under t he Nat ional Industrial Recovery Act 

Pa r t A - Competitive Posi t ion of the United States in International Trade 1927-29 through 

1934. 

Part B - Section 3 (e ) of NIRA and its administration . 

Part C - Imports and Importing under ~RA Codes. 

Part D Exports and Expo rting under NRA Codes. 

Forest Products Industries, Forei gn Trade Study of the 

Iron and Steel Industry, The 

Knitting Industries, The 

Leather and Shoe Industries, The 

Lumber and Timbe r Products Industry, Economic Problems of the 

Men 's Clothing Industry, The 

Mil l ine ry Industry, The 

Motion Picture I ndustry, The 

Mi grati on of I ndus t r y , The: The Shift of Twenty-Five Needle Trades From New York Sta te , 

1926 to 1934 

Nati onal Labor Income by Months, 1929-35 

Paper Industry, The 

Production, Prices . Employment and Payrolls in Industry, Ag ricul t ure and Railway Transportation, January 1923, to da te 

Retail Trades St udy , The 

Rubber Industry St udy, The 

Text ile Industry in t he Un i ted Kingdom , France , Germany , Ital y , and Japan 

Textile Yarns and Fabrics 

Tobacco Industry, The 

Wholesale Trades Study, The 

Women's Neckwear and Scarf I ndust ry, Financial and Labor Data on 

9768-2 

- i ii -

Women' s Apparel I ndustry , Some Aspects of the 

Com~odities , I nf o rmation Concerning: A Study of NRA and Related Experiences in Control 

Distribution, Manufacturers' Control of: Trade Pr a cti ce Prov isions in Selected NRA Codes 

Distr ibutive Relat ions in the Asbestos Industry 

Des:gn Piracy: The Problem and Its Treatment Unde r NRA Codes 

Elo~t ical Mfg. Industry: Pr~ce Filing Study 

Fertilizer Industry : Price Filing Study 

Geog r aphi cal Price Re lations Under Codes of Fair Competi t ion, Cont rol of 

Mi nimum Pri ce Regul ati on Under Codes of Fa i r Competition 

Mul t i ple Basing Po i nt System in the Line I ndust ry : Ope r ation of the 

Pr ice Control in the Coffe e Industry 

Price Filing Under NRA Codes 

Production Control in the Ice Industr y 

Production Control, Case Studies in 

Resa l e Price Maintenance Legisl at ion in t he Uni t ed States 

Retai l Pri ce Cutting, Restriction of, wi t h special Emphasis on The Drug Industry . 

Trada Pr a ctice Rules of The Fede r a l Trade Commission (191 4-1936) : A classifica.tion fu r 

comparision with Trade Practice Provisions of NRA Codes. 

Cap and Cloth Hat Industry, Commission Report on Wage Differentials in 

Earnings in Selected Manufactu ring Indu ~ries, by States, 1933-35 

Employment, Payrolls, Hours, and Wages in 115 Selected Code Industries 1933-35 

Fur Manufacturing, Commission Report on Wages and Hours in 

Hours and Wages in American Industry 

Labor Program Under the National Industrial Recovery Act, The 

Part A. Int reduction 

Part B. Control of Hours and Reemployment 

Part C. Control of Wages 

Pa rt D. Control of Other Conditions of Employment 

Pa rt E. Section 7(a) of t he Recovery Act 

Mate rials in the Field of Indus ri ~: Relat ions 

PRA Cens us of Employment, June , October, 1933 

Pue rto Rico Needlework, Homeworkers Survey 

Admini stra tive Studig§ 

Admini strative and Le gal Aspects of St ays, Exemptions and Exceptions, Code Amendments, Conditional Orders of Approval 

Administrative Interpret ati ons of NRA Codes 

Admi nistrative Law and Procedure under the NIRA 

Agreements Under Sections 4 (a) and 7(b) of t he NIRA 

Approved Codes in Indust r y Groups, Classificat ion of 

Basic Code, the -- (Administ r ative Orde r X-61) 

Code Authorities and Their pa rt in the Administra tion of t he NIRA 

Part A. Introduction 

Pa rt B. Nature, Composition and Or ganization of Code Authorities 

9768-3. 
.. 
Part C. Activities of the Code Authorities 

Pa rt D. Code Authority Finances 

Part E. Summary and Evalu tion 

C0de Compliance Activities of the NRA 

- iv -

Code Making Program of the NRA in the Territories, The 

Code Provisions and Related Subjects, Policy Statements Concerning 

Content of NIRA Administrative Legislation 

Part A. Exe cutive and Administrative Orders 

Part B. Labor Provisions in the Codes 

Part C. Trade Practice Provisions in the Codes 

Part D. Administrative Provisions i n the Codes 

Part E. Agreements under Sections 4(a) and 7(b) 

Part F. A Type Case: The Cotton Textile Code 

Labels Under NRA, A Study of 

Model Code and Model Provisions fo r Codes, Development of 

National Recovery Administration, The: A Review of its Organization and Activities 

NRA Insignia 

President's Reemployment Agreement, The 

President's R0employment Agreement, Substitutions in Connection with the 

Prison Labor Probl em under NRA and the Prison Compact, The 

Problems of Administration in the Overlapping of Code Definitions of Industri es and Trades, 

Multiple Code Ccverage, Classifyi g Individua l Members of Industries and Trades 

Relationship of NRA to Government Contracts and Contracts Involving the Use of Government 

Funds 

Relationship of NRA with States and Muni cipalities 

Sheltered Workshops Under NRA 

Uncodified Industries: A Study of Factors Limiting the Code Making Program 

Legal Studies 

Anti-Trust Laws and Unfair Competition 

Collec t ive Bargaining Agreements, the Right of Individual Employees to Enforce 

Commerc e Clause, Federal Regulation of the Employer-Employee Relationship Under the 

Delegat ion of Power, Certain Phases of the Principle of, with Reference to Federal Industrial 

Regulatory Legislation 

Enforcement, Extra-Judicial Methods of 

~e Je l Regulation through the Joint Employment of the Power of Taxation and the Spending 

Power 

Government Contract Provisions as a Means of Establishing Proper Economic Standards, Legal 

Memorandum on Possibility of 

Industrial Relations in Australia, Regulation of 

Intrastate Activities Which s o Affect Interstate Commerce as to Bring them Under the Commerce Clause, Cases on 

Legislative Possibilities of the State Constitutions 

Post Office and Post Road Power -- Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Industrial Regulation? 

State Recovery Legisl ation in Aid of Federal Recovery Legislation History and Analysis 

Tariff Rates to Secure Proper Standards of Wages and Hours, the Possibility of Variation in 

Trade Practices and the Anti-Trust Laws 

Treaty Making Power of the United States 

War Power, Can it be Used as a Means of Federal Regulation of Child Labor? 

9768--4. 
.. 
- v -

THE EVIDENCE STUDIES SERIES 

The Evidence Studies were originally undertaken to gather material for pending court 

cases. fter the Schechter decision the proj ect was continued in order to assemble data for 

use in connection with the studies of the Division of Review. The data are particularly 

concerned with the nature , size and opera tions of the indust ry; and with the relation of the 

ir.dustry to interst ate commerce. The industries covered by the Evidence Studies account for 

more than one-half of the total number of workers under codes. The list of those studies 

follows: 

Automobile Manufacturing Industry 

Automotive Parts and Equipment Industry 

Baking Industry 

Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Industry 

Bottled Soft Drink Industry 

Builders' Supplies Industry 

Canning Industry 

Chemical Manufacturing Indust ry 

Cigar Manufacturing Industry 

Coat and Suit Industry 

Construction Industry 

Cotton Garment Industry 

Dress Manufacturing Industry 

Electrical Contracting Industry 

Electrical .~anufacturing Industry 

Fabricated Metal Products Mfg. and Metal Finishing and Metal Coating Industry 

Fishery Industry 

~1rniture 1anufacturing Industry 

General Contractors Indust ry 

Graphic Arts Industry 

Gray Iron Foundry Industry 

Hosiery Industry 

Infant's and Children's Wear Industry 

Iron and Steel Industry 

Leather Industry 

Lumber and Timber Products Industry 

Mason Contractors Industry 

Men's Clothing Industry 

Motion Picture Industry 

Motor Vehicle Retailing Trade 

Needlework Industry of Puerto Rico 

Painting and Paperhanging Industry 

Photo Engraving Industry 

Plumbing Contracting Industry 

Retail Lumber Industry 

Retail Trade Industry 

Retail Tire and Battery Trade Industry 

Rubber Manufacturing Industry 

Rubber Tire Manufacturing Industry 

Shipbuilding Industry 

Silk Textile Industry 

Structural Clay Products Industry 

Throwing Industry 

Trucking Industry 

Waste Materials Industry 

Wholesale and Retail Food I ndustry 

Wholesale Fresh Fr~i t and Vegetable Industry 

Wool Textile Industry 

THE STATISTICAL MATERIALS SERIES 

This series is supplementary to the Evidence Studies Series. The reports include data 

on establishments, firms, employment, p~yrolls, wages, hours, production capacities, shipments, sales, co~sumption, stocks, prices, material costs, failures, exports and imports. 

They also include notes on the principal qualifications that should be observed in using the 

data, the technical methods employed, and the applicability of the m~terial to the study of 

the industries concerned. The following numbers appear in the series: 

9768-5. 

Asphalt Shingle and Roofing Industry 

Business Furniture 

Candy Manufacturing Industry 

Carpet and Rug Industry 

Cement Industry 

Cleaning and Dyeing Trade 

Coffee Industry 

Copper and Brass Mill Products Industry 

Cotton Textile Industry 

Electrical Manufacturing Industry 

- vi -

Fertilizer Industry 

Funeral Suprly Industry 

Glass Con ainer Industry 

Ice hlanufacturinv Industry 

Kn itted Outerwear Industry 

Paint, Varnish, ana Lacquer, Mfg. Indu stry 

Plumbing Fixtures Industry 

Rayon and Synthetic Yarn Producing Industry 

Salt Producing Industry 

THE COVERAGE 

The original, and approvE>d, plan of the Division of Review contemplated resources sufficient (a) to prepare some 1200 histories of codes and NRA units or agencies, (b) to conso) idate and index the NRA fHes containing some 40,000,000 pieces, (c) to engage in extensive field work, {d) to secure much aid from established statistical agencies of government, (e) to assemble a considerable number of experts in various fields, {f) to conduct 

approximately 25% more studies than are listed above, and (g) to prepare a comp rehensive 

summary report. 

Because of reductions made in personnel and in use of outside experts, limitation of 

access to field work and research agencies, and lack of jurisdiction over files, the projected plan was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtailments were the omission of 

the comprehensive summary report; the dropping of certain studies and the reduction in the 

coverage of other studies;. and the abandonment of the consolidation and indexing of the 

files. Fortunately, there is reason to hope that the files may yet be carec for under other 

auspices. 

Notwithstanding these limitations, if the fHes are ultimately consolidated and indexed the exploration of the NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them accessible 

and highly useful. They constitute the largest and richest single body of information 

concerning the problems and operations of industry ever assembled in any nation. 

9768-6. 

L. C. Marshall, 

Director, Division of Review. 

Asph lt Shingle nd R ofin 

Busine Furniture 

C n<l nnuf 'turing Industry 

C rp t nd Rug Industr. 

ment Inctu~try 

Cl nin n Dy in Tr 

ff e In ustry 

In ustry 

opp r nd Br ss Mill Prolu ts In u~try 

C tt n T xtil Industry 

Elect ri l M nufn turin Indu try 

- vi -

F rtiliz r In u~ ry 

Fun r l S prly Indu try 

Gl s C n ain r Injustry 

Ic M nuf cturinr Indu try 

Knitt d Out rw r In u try 

P int , V rnish, n L quer. f . Indu try 

Plum ing Fixtures Industry 

Rnyon n Syn th ti Y rn Producing Indu. try 

S lt Pro u i ng Iniu try 

THE COVERAGE 

Th original, and pprov d, plan f th Division of Review ontemplat l resourc s uff icient (a) to pr p re s me L ... OO historie of codes nd NRA units or g n ies, (b) to conso) id te and i ndex the NRA fHes contai ning some 40,000,000 pi ces, (c) to eng '"'d in xtensiv f ie ld work, (d) to secure mu h Lid from est blished stnt1stic l ng nci s of gov rnment, (e) to assemble considerable number of exp rt in ri.ous fields, (f) to con uct 

pproxim tely 25% more stu i s th n re liste bove, and (g ) to pr pare a ompr hensivo 

summary report. 

Because of reductions m do in personnel and in use of outsid e>..-perts, limi tntion of 

c ess to field work n r s arch agencies, and lack of jurisdicti on over file , the project d pl n was necessarily curtailed. The most serious curtnilm nts were th omission of 

th omprehensive summ ry report: the roppin of certain studie n the reduction in the 

coverage of other studies: nnd the abandonment of the consolid tion and indexing of the 

files . Fortunately, there is reason to hope that th fil s may yet be care~ for under other 

auspices. 

Notwithstanding these limitation , if the files are ultimately consolidat d nd i ndexed the exploration of th NRA materials will have been sufficient to make them n c ssible 

and hie;hly useful. They constitute the lare; st and rich st ingle body of inform tion 

concerning the probl ms and operations of industry ever assemble in any nation. 

9768-6. 

L. C. M rshall, 

Director, Division of Review. 




., . 
, 

I 

~ft;:'" ROO--

-

U. S. National recovery ad- I 

I 

ministration. ~ ~ 

no. 81 

Work materials. 

DATE ISSUED TO 

a 

I 

/ 

/ 

/ 

' /J 

/ 

no. 81 

/ --1t-

/ ~-~ 

/ 

/ 

/