Evening star., 1936-05-02
VIGIL ON RIGHTS
SHOWN BY COURT
Supreme Tribunal Guards
Against Usurpation by
"Fact" ProberS.
RY DAVID LAWRENCE.

value IN aldlng tne cltl1en anu Iile
Government to steer a safe course
through the mazes of new law that
have been set up in recent years.
The average man probably does
not realize that as government has
become more and more complicated
and overburdened with tasks that the
legislative bodies have turned over to
executive agencies or commissions, the
rights of the citizen have to be de-
termined in a judicial fashion especi-
ally if some question arises whether he
Is or is not complying with a given
regulation.
The tendency on the part of Con-
gress, and for that matter State Legis-
latures, too, has been to write a law
in general terms and leave it COM
mission or board to proclaim regula-
tions at to details More than this,
the right has been given to commits
sions to take testimony at hearings.
some public and some private, and
then it has been stipulated that as to
questions of fact" the decision of
the commission shall be final and
conclusive.
Findings Can be Colored.
This merely means that while court
review is not taken aways, the op-
portunity for court to look into
case to see whether a citizens con-
stitutional rights have been forfeited
might seem to be limited. In other
words, the reviewing court, If it had
to accept the findings Of fact by
commission or executive department,
would never be able to tell whether
constitutional rights have been lost.
For the so-called findings" amount
usually TO an Interpretation of the
evidence, and hence reviewing court
would get a colored view Of that
evidence if the executive agency
happened to be politically minded or
prejudiced with the viewpoint OF a
particular class in the economic
struggles of today.
How, then, can citizen be assured
of court review? Congress has shown
an inclination to write into the law
itself some limitation on the right Of
appeal. The Supreme Court of the
United States alone, however. can
determine what is the supreme law
of the land. It becomes important
now to see whether Congress can limit
the right of court review. Chief
Justice Hughes speaking for the Su-
preme Court upheld the right Of re-
view where constitutional rights were
1eopardized.
The case in point arose with refer
ence to the enforcement of the stock
yards act by the Secretary of Agri-
culture. 1t so happens that the find
ings" of the Secretary were affirmed
as correct by all the members of the
court. A question developed as to
how far weight should be given to
evidence taken by the Secretary and
whether the facts themselves should
be examined by the revising courts.
Justice Brandeis seemed to think
the decisions of these fact-flnding
commissions should be final Justice
Cardozo and Stone thought his
reasoning was right, but conceded
that the weight of precedent supported
the contentious of Chief Justice
Hughes, who delivered the opinion
of the court. In that opinion, Mr.
Hughes said:
Legislative declaration or finding Is
necessarily subject to independent
judicial review upon the facts and
the law by courts of competent juris-
diction to the end that the Constitu-
tion as the supreme law of the land
may be maintained. Nor can the
Legislature escape the constitutional
Limitation by authorizing its agent to
make findings that the agent has kept
within that limitation.
Legislative agencies, with varying
qualifications, work in field pecu-
iarly exposed to political demands.
Some may be expert and impartial,
others subservient. 1t is not difficult
for them to observe the requirements
OF law in giving a hearing and re-
sewing evidence. But to say that
their findings of fact may be con-
elusive where constitutional rights
OF liberty and property are involved.
although the evidence clearly estab-
fishes that the findings are wrong
and constitutional rights have been
invaded, is to place those rights at
the mercy of administrative officials |
and seriously to impair the security |
inherent in our judicial safeguards. |
That prospect, with our multiplication
OF administrative agencies, is not one
to be lightly regarded"
The foregoing quotation will SURELY
DO OF historical importance as a re-
statement Of doctrine or funda-
mental principle of constitutional law.
1t may take on new meaning because |
many New Deal laws have contained |
what are called legislative declarations |
that now become mere declarations" |
and are not binding on the courts. |
For instance, the securities act of |
1888 says:
The findings of the commission as |
TO the facts, if supported by evidence,
Shall be conclusive"
The securities and exchange act of |
1884 contained a duplication of the |
same provision.
Others Contain Provision.
The national labor relations act
after prescribing methods of filing
petitions in United States Circuit
Courts for enforcement of the boards
orders says:
THE findings of the board as to the |
facts, if supported by evidence, shall
be conclusive"
The public utility act of 1885 and |
che Guffey coal act contain identical
provisions stating that the findings of |
the commission which enforces each |
act shall be conclusive"
Many cases are pending in the |
lower courts touching on what are or
are not the facts" in labor disputes. |
If a labor board which consists of |
pro-labor members or pro-employer
members should have the power to
declare what are the facts" and this |
declaration were to be binding, the |
constitutional rights of the citizen |
could be swept away virtually by fiat |
laaroa nf rnprrare fI,~1,,r1, A.. |