The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1938-05-19
w
MEas a. EEfaSa + ! izs

Washington.-I have an idea that
most readers of newspapers over
looked the impor-
Decision lance of a recent
Hits Us All decision by the
Supreme court of
the United States. 1t is only nat
ural consequence If they did read
it and then dismissed the matter
from their minds. That result would
obtain in many places because the
average person, concerned with his
own problems, would not pause to
trace the application of a rather
obscure principle of law even though
it is the expression of the highest
court.
The decision to which I refer was
in the litigation that hereafter is
going to be known as "the Kansas
City Stockyards case" An official
and legal title in court proceed
ing ordinarily fails to identify it.
So, "the Kansas City Stockyards
case" it is and will be. But "the
Kansas City Stockyards case" did
very much more than bring a ruling
affecting the immediate parties to
that litigation; it applies to every
agency of the federal government
and, I suspect, its application even
tually will be broadened to cover
actions by agencies of states and
lesser subdivisions of government.
That is to say, the decision is of
moment to you and me and every
other individual in our nation. It is
fundamental.
Let us see, first, what the con-
troversy was in "the Kansas City
Stockyards case" The Department
of Agriculture, under a 15-year-old
law, has rather broad powers of
supervision over public stockyards,
one of the greatest of which is the
marketing yards at Kansas City.
Under that law, the secretary of
agriculture is empowered to fix the
maximum rates of fees, commits
sions and other charges made
against shippers of livestock into the
yards. That is, the secretary may
establish those rates latter the facts
have been determined" and due
consideration has been given to all
rights and duties of the parties con-
cerned.
Several years ago, complaint was
made to the department that the
Kansas City stockyards was charg-
ing unreasonably high fees. The de-
partment had no choice other than
issue a citation, hold hearing, de-
termine the facts and issue an order.
The law required that course. But,
according to the records in the case,
the hearing that was held was
something Of a farce. All of the
compliments were heard, and the
department. own investigators SUBJ
mitted their reports. 1t appears,
however, that the stockyards COM
pany was never allowed to pre-
sent it's side of the" case-did not
have it's day in court. Well, the
secretary of agriculture, Mr.. Wal
lace, issued an order fixing new
rates; the stockyards company ap-
pealed to the federal courts and
the case finally wound up in the
Supreme court of the United States.
That court has now rendered its
decision, and that is the reason for
this discussion. The highest court
did not mince words in overturning
Mr.. Wallace's rates. It did so, it
explained, because of the arbitrary
way in which he fixed the rates.
They may or may not be fair; the
court did not 60 into that question,
but the court very definitely said
that any respondent or defendant
was entitled to have his side of the
case presented and Mr.. Wallace had
not permitted the stockyards COM
pany its opportunity for a fair trial.
It may or may not be news to the
readers of this column to know that
there are upwards of so agencies of
the federal government that have
authority to act as Legislative
courts" That is, they are fact
finding bodies and from the facts
thus found, the agencies are en-
| powered to render decisions that
are as powerful as a court decision,
except that these agencies can not
render a final decision unless those
charged are willing to accept the
finding as final. That is to say,
the accused or those charged may
60 into court for review of the
| action taken or the order issued. In
''the Kansas City Stockyards case"
recourse was had to the court. A
precedent and guideline for future
orders by this flock of legislative
courts, therefore, has at last been
| established.
And why was the Supreme courts
decision so important?
80, The answer is
Why So that, in that one
Important? decision, the high
est court in the
| land laid down a rule of law that
again will insure the protection of
personal rights. It said, in effect,
that the action by Secretary Wal
lace had been denial of consti-
tutional rights of the individual and,
being such, the secretary had acted
as dictator who recognizes no law.
The decision was the more impor-
tant for the reason that such large
number of these legislative courts
| exist. They have a habit of ex-