Evening star., 1940-12-18

The bill apparently also requires
a decision Of trial examiner un-
favorable to an independent agency
to stand, however inconsistent with
the Interpretation of the law in other
cases. The independent agency
seems not to have been thought of
as an "aggrieved party" for in order
to bring itself within the language
of the bill, 1t would be obliged to
file objections with itself "by regis
tered mail" The only alternative
to this construction of the bill would
be a construction which permitted
the agency to change the decision
of the trial examiner without fur
the hearing and to the surprise
OF tine newly aggrieved party.
vi.
Judicial Review.
The bill provides that any party
to an administrative proceeding who
is aggrieved by the final decision OF
the agency may secure review in a
Circuit Court of Appeals or the
Court of Appeals for the District OF
Columbia. Already under existing
statutes specific decisions affect
ing the rights of individuals are
made subject to judicial review.
This act, however, does not conf1ne
review to the specific matters here
tofore allowed, but sweeps into the
judicial hopper all manner of ques-
tions which have never before been
considered appropriate for judicial
review.
For example, such matters as the
awarding of contracts, the accept
ance or rejection of supplies, the
granting or withholding of COM
pensation or disqualification from
veteran, fraud orders of the Post
Office Department, the granting or
withholding of a license for YES
sci or Of masters or mates ticket,
the determination of claims for
benefits under the Social Security
Act, are a few examples, taken at
random, of governmental actions
Of an executive or administrative
nature which may become subject
to judicial review were this bill to
become law, but which have never
been regarded as SO renewable. The
ultimate consequences would be not
only to swamp the courts with a
flood of minor administrative mat
tiers, but to retard and hamper the
work of the executive branch of the
Government. TIE discretion which
must be exercised in performance
of executive duties would, to a con-
siderable extent, be transferred to
the courts.
Conclusion.
There is no reason to doubt that
administrative procedures, as we'll
as court procedures, can be SUBJ
stantially improved. There is no
doubt that instances of arbitrary
action, of excessive zeal, and of in
competence can be cited in admin
istrative agencies, as they can in all
branches of government. None
should be more anxious to see these
tribunals become better instruments
for the attainment of justice than
those who realize their indispensa-
bility in accomplishing the chief
reforms of our century and their
necessity to supplement the courts
where the volume of business makes
the conventional court process too
slow, expensive and technical.
If this bill has this objective. I
cannot believe that it accomplishes
it. 1 find myself in substantial
agreement with the conclusion of
the committees of the Associa alton
OF the Bar of the City of New York.
which have studied this bill and
which find the need for improve
ment in administrative procedures
urgent, but say:
Nevertheless, we think that the
present bill. under the guise of re-
form, would force administrative
and departmental agencies having
wide variety of functions into a
single mold which is so rigid, 50
needlessly interfering, as to bring
about a widespread crippling of the
administrative process.
This letter is wholly devoted to
criticism of the present bill and ad-
vances no alternatives. 1t would be
much more difficult to suggest suit
able alternatives than to criticize this
present effort. This would not be an
appropriate time to advance sugges-
tions in ary event, and, fortunately.
it is not necessary.
Your own recognition of the need
for improvement in administrative
procedures led to the appointment
OF the Attorney Generals Commit
tee, which has devoted very great