Evening star., 1935-05-28

code on his own motion or on COM
plaint, and he Is free to prescribe one
If q code has not been approved. The
act provides for the creation by the
President of administrative agencies
TO assist him, but the action or re-
ports Of such agencies, or Of his other
assistsnts-their recommendations and
findings in relation to the making OF
/ codeS-haye no sanction beyond the
will OF the President, who may accept,
modify or reject them as he pleases.
Such recommendations or findings in
! no way limit the authority which sec
! ton 3 undertakes to vest in the Pres
ident with no other conditions than
/ those there specified. And this au-
! thority relates to q host of different
! trades and industries, thus extending
the Presidents discretion to all the
varieties of laws which he may deem
to be beneficial in dealing with the
vast array of commercial and indus
! try.
Such . sweeping delegation Of leg
islative power finds no support In the
decisions upon which the Government
| especially relies. BY the interstate
commerce act Congress has itself pro-
vided a code of laws regulating the
activities of the common carriers sub
| ject to the act, in order to assure the
/ performance of their services upon
| just and reasonable terms, with ade-
Quate facilities and without unjust dis
elimination. Congress from time to
! time has elaborated its requirements,
! as needs have been disclosed. To
facilitate the application of the stand
ards prescribed by the act, Congress
has provided an expert body. That
administrative agency, in dealing with
| particular cases, is required to act
upon notice and hearing, and its or
ders must be supported by findings Of
fact which in turn are sustained by
evidence. Interstate Commerce Com
mission VS.. Louisville g. Nashville
! Railroad Co. 227 U. s. SO: Florida
VS.. United States, 282 U. S. 1874: United
States vs.. Baltimore g. Ohio Railroad
Co., 293 U. 8. 454. When the COM
mission is authorized to issue. for the
| construction, extension or abandon
ment of lines, a certificate OF public
convenience and necessity" or to per-
! init the acquisition by one carrier Of
the control of another. II that is
! found to be "in the public interest" +"
We have pointed out that these provi-
sions are not left without standards
to guide determination. The author
ity conferred has direct relation to the
standards prescribed for the service
OF common carriers and can be exer-
cised only upon findings. based upon
evidence, with respect to particular
/ conditions of transportation. New
/ York Central Securities Co. VS.. United
States, 287 U. S. II, "a, IS: Texas L.
Pacific Railway Co. vs.. Gulf. Colorado
d Santa Fe Railway Co. 27o U. S.
266, 273; Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
Co. VS.. United States, 283 U. S. IS, ~.
Similarly. We have held that the
radio act of 1927 established stand
ards to govern radio communications
and. in view of the limited number
of available broadcasting frequencies.
Congress authorized ALLEGATION and
/ licenses. The Federal Radio Com
mission was created as the licensing
authority in order to secure q rea-
sonable equality Of opportunity in
radio transmission and reception. The
authority Of the commission to grant
licenses 'as public convenience, in
terest or necessity requires" was linn
tied by the nature of radio communi-
cations, and by the scope, character
and quality Of the services to be rem
dered and the relative advantages to
be derived through distribution of
! facilities. These standards established
by Congress were to be enforced upon
hearing and evidence, by an admin
istrative body. acting under statutory
restrictions adapted to the particular
activity. Radio Commission VS.. Nelson
Bros. Co., 289 U. 8. 266.
Flexible Provisions
in Tariff Law Is Cited.
In Hampton & Co. VS.. United States,
276 U. s. 1894. the question related to
the flexible tariff provision" of the
tariff act Of 1922. We held that Con-
gress had described its plan ito secure
by law the imposition of customs
duties on articles of imported mer-
chandise which should equal the diff
ference between the cost of produc-
ing in q foreign country the articles
in question and laying them down for
sale in the United States, and the cost
of producing and selling like or sim
liar articles in the United States"
As the differences in cost might vary
from time to time, provision was made
for the investigation and determine
ton of these differences by the exec
utive branch so as to make "the ad-
justments necessary to conform the
duties to the standard underlying
that policy and PLAN" Id, PIP. 404,
405. The court found the same prin-
ciple to be applicable in fixing Gus
toms duties as that which permitted
Congress to exercise its rate-making
power in interstate commerce, "by
declaring the rule which shall pre-
vail in the legislative fixing of rates"
and then remitting "the fixing of
such rates" in accordance with its
provisions Ito a rate-making body"
ID, p. 400. The court fully recog-
nized the limitations upon the dele
cation Of legislative power. Id, pp.
4O8-4ll.
To summarize and conclude upon
this point: Section of the recovery
act is without precedent. It supplies
no standards for any trade. industry
or activity. It does not undertake to
prescribe rules of conduct to be ap-
piled to particular states Of fact de-
termined by appropriate administra-
tive procedure. Instead of prescrib-
ing rules of conduct. it authorizes the
making Of codes to prescribe them.
For that legislative undertaking, sec
ton 3 sets up no standards, aside
from the statement of the general
aims Of rehabilitation. correction and
expansion described in section l. In
view Of the scope Of that broad dec
laratioA and Of the nature Of the few