Evening star., 1946-05-12

thereof 1t will be the duty of
agencies not to permit international
releases to be utilized as penalties or
to the injury of parties"
Provisions concerning judicial re-
view do not apply where existing
statutes otherwise preclude judicial
review or where agency action is by
law committed to agency discretion. y
States Rights of Complainant.
In general, however, this section
states the rights of a person to OBJ
tain judicial review who feels he
has suffered a legal wrong as a
result of agency action, and also
lists in considerable detail the course
to be followed by complainants and
in court jurisdiction.
While leaving the present exami-
nerS system essentially unchanged
the bill provides that examiners
would be appointed under civil
service and perform no incon-
sistent duties They would be re-
movable for good cause" but with
oIPOA eulIlIy lOl llcdI l1lS.
The bill would become effective
three months after enactment, but
its provisions concerning hearing
and decision procedure would not go
into effect for six months. The Sec
ton on examiners would become
operative after II months, largely
to permit ex-servicemen to qualify
Provisions would not apply to pro-
ceedings begun before enactment
OF the measure.
Started in 1887.
In 1887 the Presidents Commis-
sion on Administrative Manage
ment urged that every agency hav-
ing mixed duties be divided into
administrative and judicial sections.
1t proposed that the judicial sec
ton be independent though tech
nically and necessarily a part OF
the agency.
Complete separation of admins
tratlve and judicial functions was
suggested again in 1941 by the At
torney Generals Committee on Ad-
Procedure. The COM
mittee was appointed in 1889 at the
Presidents request in connection
with a Justice Department report
on progress in establishing simple
uniform rules for Federal court pro-
cedure.
Most subsequent proposals, in
Guiding the present bills provisions,
did not come out for separate
judicial section or special courts
within agencies. They upheld, how
ever, the principle of separating
prosecution and adjudication and
stressed the Importance of draft
ing well-deflned conditions for ju-
dlcial review of agency decisions.
Congress in 1910 passed an ad-
tive procedure act-the Wal
ter-Logan bill-but President Roose-
welt vetoed it. He said he SYM
pathized with it's aims but wanted
to await the report of the Attorney
Generals committee before ap-
proving any measure in this COM
plicated field
Differences Explained.
A main difference between the
Walter-Logan bill and the present
act is that the former contained
no public information provision OF
the type now proposed The Walter
Logan bill also would have greatly
revised the examiner system.
New bills were introduce in 1914
but the current measure dates di-
rectly from the bills which Senator
McCarran and Representative Sum-
ners introduced early in l945. There
were further studies and commit
tee hearings as we'll as favorable
recommendations by forr1er Attor-
ney General Biddle and by his sue
cessor, Attorney General Clark.
Last March, the Senate passed the
bill without adverse vote. Mean
while, the House subcommittee
headed by Mr.. Walter followed all
the proceedings. The full commit
tee reported the Senate bill to the
House May 3 in an amended form
which is substantially the text of a
draft sponsored by Mr.. Walter.
The comparatively minor
changes. corrections and clarifica-
tions in this amended measure have
been approved by the Attorney Gen
eral, the House committee reports
and ARE obviously desirable from
the standpoint of all concerned"