Evening star., 1940-05-12
SUNDAY STAR WASHINGTON D. c. MAY L. 1910 PART ONE

Just % free o. they now are 10
execute, prosecute and decide. pro-
vided always that they function
within the terms Of the Constitu-
ton and the statutes. Unless they
travel outside the statutes the ju-
dicial review provisions Of the Lo-
gan-WAlter bill will not touch them.
Instead Of attempting to substitute
q rule OF men, Is might have been
the effect Of the court-packing
scheme. the Logan Walter bill would
insure q rule Of law by compelling
the army Of administrative ON
GERS and employees to remain with
In the terms Of the Constitution and
the statutes. These men, servants
of the people, have no reservoir of
underlined power. They have no
power except that conferred by stat
utes, and what the statutes have
given they may take away or cir
cumscribe as the Congress may see
fit. The Logan Walter bill is in
deed In this respect Z court-pack-
AAAA 0SA1CSlC AL xEVCISSs
Quotations Do Not Apply.
Mr.. Ross has quoted from . 1907
address by Chief Justice Hughes
when he was Governor Of New
York, but the statements 30 quoted
from the distinguished lawyer, Judge
and administrator have not the
slightest application to the issue
involved In the Logan Walter bill.
Gov. Hughes appears to have said:
"You must have administration
and you must have 1t by administra-
tive officers. You cannot have it
otherwise"
This statement is, Of course, too
true for argument, but as I have
above'Stated the Logan-Walter bill
does not attempt to have admins
tration by the courts" Mr.. Ross
confuses administration or execu-
ton Of the statutes with the exer-
else of wholly different powers-the
power to legislate, through the is
suance Of rules and the power to
judge. through the decision Of par
ticular controversies. The legisla-
tive power and the judicial power
has been conferred by the Consti-
tuition on the Congress and the
courts, respectively. 1t is merely 3
matter of convenience that the ad-
miniStrative agencies are permitted
to exercise some legislative power
as to the details Of statutes and that
they are permitted to Judge In the
first instance controversies which
normally would be for decision by
courts. Even the lone dissenting
member from the Senate and House
Judiciary Committees reports in
support of the Logan-Walter bill
declared in his dissenting report
that one administrative agency,
which he named, has overridden
the plain intent of the basic statute
creating it" and has sought to leg
islate and replace Congress. He was
equally critical Of other named
agencies.
Puts Us to New Test.
Chief Justice Hughes stated in
1881 before the Federal Bar Asso-
citation with respect to the judging
power of, administrative agencies
that:
The power of administrative bod
les to make findings of facts which
may be treated as conclusive, II
there is evidence both ways, Is a
power OF enormous consequence.
An Inscriptions administrator
might be tempted to say: Let me
find the facts for the people of my
country and care little who lays
down the general principles
But these new methods put US to
new tests, and the serious question
of the future Is whether We have
enough of the old spirit which gave
us our institutions to save them
from being overwhelmed.s
Former judge and later Gov.
Nathan L. Miller of New York
stated In an address of July 2,
1888, before the New York Bar As
sociation that in proceedings before
Federal administrative agencies:
The decisive question involved
is usually question of fact. The
members of these tribunals can OBJ
serve the forms Of due process and
still get some evidence into the
record to support what they have
decided to do. Under the present
practice they ought to score a hun
dred per centum Of afIirmances. If
they do not it can only be because
OF their contempt even for the forms
OF law. In fact the present limited
review is as a rule a vain and idle
effort and gives their proceedings .
purely fictitious appearance of fair
ness"
In exercising judicial power the
administrative agencies should be
required to observe q few basic prin-
ciples Of procedure as stated In the
Logan-Walter bill, and the review
Ing courts should have sumcient
Jurisdiction to prevent the admins
trative agencies from doing what
Chief Justice Hughes and Gov.
Miller have stated that they could
do-and which we lawyers with long
experiences within and without the
Federal service know that these ad-
ministrative agencies do in some
cases and may do in almost all of
them.
There is no sound argument to
support the conclusion that these
agencies should be free to follow
any general procedure they may see
fit In reaching quasi-judicial deter
limitations and that when they reach
such determinations, they should
not be reviewed by the courts to
the extent that thew have ravieund