Evening star., 1940-12-18
Courts Conventional
Processes Are Called
Too Complicated
U. S. Agency System
Keeps Eye on Results,
Congress Is Told
Continued From First Page.)

Continued From First Page.)
handling controversies in the mass.
Court procedure is adapted to the
intensive investigation of individual
controversies. But it is impossible
to subject the daily routine of fact
finding in many of our agencies to
court procedure. Litigation has be-
come costly beyond the ability of the
average person to bear. It's technical
rules of procedure are often traps
for the unwary and technical rules
of evidence often prevent common
sense determinations on information
which would be regarded as adequate
for any business decision. The in
creasing cost of competent legal ad-
vice and the necessity of relying
upon lawyers to conduct court pro-
ceedings have made all laymen and
most lawyers recognize the inap-
propriateness of entrusting routine
processes of government to the out
come of never-ending law suits.
New System Keeps Eye
On Results, Not Precedent.
The administrative tribunal or
agency has been evolved in order to
handle controversies arising under
particular statutes. It is character
iStic of these tribunals that simple
and non-technical hearings take the
place of court trials, and informal
proceedings supersede rigid and
formal pleadings and processes. A
common-sense resort to usual and
practical sources of information
takes the place of archaic and tech
nical application of rules of evidence,
and an informed and expert tribunal
renders its decisions with an eye
that looks forward to results rather
than backward to precedent and to
the leading case.
Substantial justice remains a
higher aim for our civilization than
technical legalism.
The administrative tribunal is not
a recent innovation. The Interstate
Commerce Commission, one of the
first of the kind, was created as
long ago as 1886. The administrative
process and the administrative
tribunal were firmly recognized by
the courts many years ago. Before
the commencements of this admins
tration the Supreme Court, speaking
through the present Chief Justice,
definitely recognized the usefulness
and constitutionality of the admins
trative tribunal and, speaking OF
statute to create such a tribunal,
referred to "the obvious purpose OF
the legislation to furnish a prompt,
continuous, expert, and inexpensive
method for dealing with class OF
questions of fact which are peculiarly
suited to examination and de-
termination by an administrative
agency especially assigned to that
task"
Forward looking judges, expe-
rienced administrators, and many
progressive and public spirited law
yers have recognized that American
Jurisprudence must advance along
two lines:
First, the cheapening, expediting
and simplifying of the judicial pro-
cess itself. This cause has been
greatly advanced through the adop-
ton by the Supreme Court OF
simplified rules governing civil pro-
ceedings under an authorization
made upon my recommendation:
Revision of the rules of criminal
practice has now also been author
lied, upon my recommendation.
Tribunal a Necessity
For Quantity Production.
Secondly, the reservation of the
judicial process for cases approprl-
ate to its exercise and protection OF
the courts from being overwhelmed
with masses of controversies, grow
ing out of regulatory and remedial
statutes. For this purpose the
judicial process requires to be sup
plemented by the administrative
tribunal wherever there is neces-
sity for deciding issues on quantity
production basis.
Notwithstanding recognition OF
this necessity by many lawyers,
iurists, educators, administrators,
and the more progressive bar asso-
Citations, large part of the legal
profession has never reconclled 1t
self to the evidence of the admin
tstrative tribunal Many OF them
prefer the stately ritual OF the
courts, in which lawyers play all the
speaking parts, to the simple pro-
cedure of administrative hearings
which a client can understand and
even participate In. Many OF the
lawyers prefer that decision be IN
fluenced by a shreWd play upon
technical rules of evidence in which
the lawyers are the only experts
although they always disagree.
MANY of the lawyers still prefer to
distinguish precedent and to Juggle
leading cases rather than to get
down to the merits of the EFFORTS
in which their clients are engaged.
For years, such lawyers have leo
nersistent fight against the admin
istrative tribunal.
In addition to the lawyers VINO
see the administrative tribunal en-
croaching upon their exclusive pre-
negatives there are powerful IN
terests which are opposed to re-
forms that can only be made e1-
fective Though the use OF the
administrative tribunal. Wherever
a continuing series OF controversies
exist between a powerful and con.
centrated interest on one side ana
a diversified mass of individuals,
each of whose separate interests
NAV be small on the other SIDE,
the only means of obtaining equality
before the law has been to place
the controversy in an administrative
tribual. Individual shippers coulo
not cope in the courts with great