OCR Text |
Show I 9gs(f,..A.: Washington. I hnve an idea Uiat most readers of newspapers overlooked over-looked the impor-Decision impor-Decision tance of a recent Hits Us All decision by tho Supreme court of the United States. It is only a natural 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 a court proceed-! proceed-! ing ordinarily fails to identify it. J So, "the Kansas City Stockyards : case," it is and will be. But "the I Kansas City Stockyards case" did very much more than bring a ruling I affecting the immediate parties to I that litigation; it applies to every agency of the federal government and. I suspect, its application eventually 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 controversy 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, commissions commis-sions and other charges made against shippers of livestock into the yards. That is, the secretary may establish those rates "after the facts have been determined," and due consideration has been given to all rights and duties of the parties concerned. con-cerned. Several years ago, complaint was made to the department that the Kansas City stockyards was charging charg-ing unreasonably high fees. The department de-partment had no choice other than issue a citation, hold a hearing, determine 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 hold was something of a farce. All of the complainants were heard, and the department's own investigators submitted sub-mitted their reports. It appears, however, that the stockyards company com-pany was never allowed to present pre-sent its side of the case did not have its day in court. Well, the secretary of agriculture. Mr. Wallace, Wal-lace, issued an order fixing new rates; the stockyards company appealed ap-pealed to the federal courts and the case finally wound up in the Supreme court of Die United Stales. That court has now rendered its decision, and that is the reason for this discussion. Tiie 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 go 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 tho stockyards company 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 .r)0 agencies of the federal government that have authority to act as "legislative cruris." That is, they are factfinding fact-finding bodies and from ttie facts thus found, the agencies are empowered em-powered to render decisions that arc 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 go into court for a 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 court's decision so important? The nnswer is Why So tlin t, in that one Important? decision, the highest high-est court in the land laid down a rule of law that again will insure the protection of personal rights. It said. In cITed, that the action by Secretary Wallace Wal-lace had been n denial of constitutional consti-tutional righls of the individual and, being such, the secretary had acted ni n dictator who recognizes no law. The decision wan the more important impor-tant for tin? reason that surh a largo number of these legislative courts exist. They luivo n habit of expanding ex-panding and extending their powers; pow-ers; they lake notion which con-ittitutes con-ittitutes a precedent, and In a mib- sequent order go further than In the prior one. As precedent is built upon precedent, it happens frequently fre-quently that after a period of years such an agency is exercising authority never intended by congress. con-gress. The authority has grown up frequently because none of tho respondents re-spondents have money to contest the case further. It costs money to prove innocence when you are accused ac-cused by your government. Again, as to the importance of the decision from the standpoint of its scope: there has been an immediate imme-diate and vigorous reaction by the national labor relations board. That crew started running immediately after the court's opinion was read. They tucked their tails between their legs and went quickly into a retreat from the bold and brazen position they had held against all who sought to challenge their authority. au-thority. To seo the swagger and braggadocio transformed so suddenly sudden-ly into a meek and lowly attitude well, any one with a sense of humor could hardly keep from laughing. There never has been a federal agency in my 20 years in Washington Washing-ton that has relegated to itself tho arrogant authority, the dictatorial authority, shown by the labor relations rela-tions board. If the national labor relations act were sound in every respect, the personnel that is administering ad-ministering it would destroy whatever what-ever chance it had of succeeding. So, when the court ruling told the legislative courts to be fair with those accused or Only One charged, tho labor Side Heard relations board smelled a number of legal proceedings against it. Its members recognized that there were cases it had "decided" that would not stand the test in the spotlight of a federal court for the reason that tiie respondents had not been allowed al-lowed to tell their side of the story. There were cases, for example, where the board had heard it own investigators' testimony, the testimony testi-mony of several C. I. O. organizers whose job had been to stir up trouble and where the respondents had been informed that the board had "no interest" in what they had to say. There were other cases where board investigators had gone into factories and had used methods taught the world by Dictator Stalin's OGTU. Naturally, the board tried to get out from under. The board's lawyers, recognising the dangerous ground upon which their cases in federal court were standing, sought to withdraw their request for court enforcement. But Mr. Henry Ford, one of those whom the board and the C. I. O. -Lewis labor group sought to punish, felt that the case should be tried in court, and he is insisting through his lawyers that the proceedings continue. The Kord lawyers happen to be the lawyers who fought the late and unlamented NHA in tho famous Sehechtrr case, and won It which ended NRA. Tliey are going after the labor relations board and when they get through, it is possible we will know how much power that board has. Along with the Ford case, the board has other troubles. The great Inland Steel company of Chicago, and the Douglass Aircraft corporation corpora-tion have decided they diil not get a square deal from the New Deal board. They have asked federal courts to review their cases and decide whether the orders issued by tiie board were in accordance with the facts, and they have nsked also for a ruling as to whether they had been denied legal rights. It is made to appear, therefore, that the board mny have to undo n lot of things it has This Board done. It may have on the Spot ,(j admit, also, that In some rases there has actually been malicious-ness malicious-ness on the part of some of its Investigators. In-vestigators. Consider the Ford case, for example. If the board withdraws its original order, It will be saying In elTeet that the facts upon which It based that order were not the facts at all. That will be somewhat embarrassing, it seems to me. It will be more embarrassing, however, how-ever, if it comes forth with a new order which Is based upon n ditTer-ent ditTer-ent net of facts. Kithrr the first set of facts or the second of facts obviously ob-viously Is wrong not facts at nil In one of the two instances. There are other Instances of other boards and commissions which have been exercising all too much authority author-ity for the good of the country, according ac-cording to the way we see things. Few of them have been bo blatant about It, however, lis the Department Depart-ment of Agriculture) nnd the labor relations board. Some of the agencies, agen-cies, notably the interstate commerce com-merce commission, has never been accused of unfairness, as far ns I know. It may have made nili-takes, nili-takes, or legal questions in. , 1 been tested In court, but II. I n, h holds the respect of rail iy .m i i lives, nhippers and labor WruU-rn Nowii;iiJcr 1 n; n |