Evening star., 1938-05-08
Verdict Bans Short Legal Cuts
Which Curb Rights of Litigants
Supreme Court Erects Safeguard Against
Possible Bureaucratic Dictatorship
by Government.
BY JOHN H. CLINE.
TINE Supreme Court has set its face
against short cuts in the admins
tration OF justice.

TINE Supreme Court has set its face
against short cuts in the admins
tration OF justice.
Enumeration by the tribunal Of that doc
trine, seemingly innocuous enough, has
stirred a major tempest in that vastly
powerful but little understood segment of
our Government embracing the quasi
judicial" agencies.
To some of these agencies the opinion,
rendered in the so-called Kansas City
stockyards case, has no immediate signifi-
cance but to others, notably the National
Labor Relations Board, it presages i'm
portant procedural changes in the admin
istration of regulatory legislation
The decision, of course, does not mean
that the court is opposed to equitable
methods of speeding up the judicial ma
chinery. but only that it will not tolerate
"hurry-up" devices which deprive litigant
before an administrative agency OF the
Government of some fundamental right.
To adopt any other course, as the court
said, would lead inevitably to the de-
struction of the basic concepts of fair
play that have become so deeply i'm
planted in our legal system.
Capitalization of Power.
The ruling is all the more important
because it comes at time when the trend
toward Capitalization of power in the Fed
eral Government at the expense OF in
dividual freedom is more pronounced than
ever before.
ind, trio oil Toyo1Onnent nf the
country the pressure of social needs in
creased to such an extent that Congress
could not deal directly with the problems
that resulted. Having no other choice,
1t set up a number of administrative agen-
cies exercising quasi-judicial functions,
supposedly in accordance with standards
laid down by the legislature.
- In some instances, however, these agen-
cies, especially in times Of social stress,
have shown a tendency to ride roughshod
over individual rights in the interest OF
speedier action. Unless checked at the
outset such tendencies are apt to become
more pronounced, and it was with that
fact in mind that the Supreme Court an
nounced its ban on all short cuts that de-
Drive tIe lIlUlfiuUdl lltlSdllC VI q Aull dliSA
fair hearing. BY taking that stand the
court erected a memorable safeguard
against the possible development of a bu-
reaucratic dictatorship in our Government.
The opinion, written by Chief Justice
Hughes, was handed down in suit by
number of Kansas City stockyard men to
set aside a schedule of rates fixed by Sec
80 HILL
the District Court. the high tribunal set
the rates aside on the ground the commits
sion men had not been given fair and full
hearing which Congress had said should
be given.
10000 Pages of Testimony.
Briefly summarized. the evidence showed
q hearing was held before an examiner of
the Department of Agriculture. About
10000 pages of transcript of oral testimony
were taken and more than 1000 pages of
statistical exhibits were submitted. The
commission men, but not the Government,
submitted a brief dealing with the testi-
mony. Except for statements made during
oral argument the Government formulated
no issues and furnished the commission
men no summary of its contentious and no
proposed findings of fact The commission
men requested that the examiner prepare
tentative report to be submitted as a
basis for exceptions and argument, but
that was refused
Findings were prepared however, by rep
resentatives of the department and were
submitted to the Secretary, who approved
them with minor changes. The commits
sion men had no opportunity to examine
these findings until served with the Secre-
tary's order. Mr.. Wallace did not hear
the oral argument and did not examine
the record in detail before signing the rate
order
On that state of facts, the court said:
I'VE assume that the Secretary sufi-
ciently understood its (the evidence's) pur-
port. But full hearing'-a fair and open
hearing requires more than that The
right to hearing embraces not only the
right TO present evidence, but also a rea-
sonable opportunity to know the claims
of the opposing party and to meet them.
Those who are brought into contest
with the Government in quasi judicial
proceeding aimed at the control of their
activities are entitled to be fairly advised
Of what the Government proposes and to
be heard upon its proposals before it issues
its final command = =
Regard to Judicial Standards.
Congress, in requiring full hearing
had regard to judicial standards-not in
any technical sense but with respect to
these fundamental requirements of fair
ness which are of the essence of due
process in a proceeding of a judicial nature.
If in an equity case, special master or the
trial Judge permitted the plaintiffs attor-
ney to formulate the findings upon the
evidence, conferred ex parte with the plain
tiff's attorney regarding them, and then
adopted his proposals without affording an
opportunity to his opponents to know their
contents and present objections, there would
be no hesitation in setting aside the report
or decree as having been made without a
sair hearing. The requirements of fair
ness are not exhausted in the taking or
consideration of evidence. but extend to
the concluding parts of the procedure as
well as to the beginning and intermediate
steps,"
In other words, the court held the pro-
cedure in the Kansas City case to have
been fatally defective because the depart
ment did not submit tentative report or
the findings of fact to the commission men
and give them an opportunity to present
ohiactiope