III. PENALTIES AND BENEFITS

1. Imposition of sanctions is restricted.

2. Licensing requirements are restricted.

3. Exercise of investigative powers is limited.

4. Subpenas are made available to private parties.

5. Right of appearance in person or by counsel is prescribed.

IV. JUDICIAL REVIEW

1. Right of judicial review is prescribed.

2. Powers of courts on judicial review are specified. 3. Interim relief is provided.

4. Scope of judicial review is prescribed.

V. SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS

Complete separation of prosecuting and adjudicatory functions is provided.

1. Public notice is required.

2. Procedures are prescribed.

VI RULE MAKING

3. Provision is made for petitions for amendments, etc.

VII. ADJUDICATION

(Where hearing is required by statute)

1. Adequate notice is required.

2. Fair procedure is required.

3. Declaratory rulings are provided.

4. Hearings

(a) By ultimate authority, or subordinate hearing officers.

(b) Evidence required to be in record.

(c) General rules of evidence are prescribed.

(d) Content of record is prescribed.

5. Decisions

(a) Intermediate reports are provided.

(b) Briefs, argument, exceptions, etc., are provided.

(c) Decision based on record is required.

(d) Findings and determinations are required to be in writing, accompanied by reasons therefor.

Mr. MILLER. I have also prepared and had placed before your committee a chart which looks very much like a genealogical chart, and I would like to call your attention to that chart very briefly. It is headed at the top "Administrative law bills" and is a chart which shows all of the bills introduced in the Congress from the first bill on this general subject, back in the Seventy-third Congress, first session, which you will note was S. 1835 and was introduced by the great Senator Norris, "father of administrative procedure" as he is now called.

Then there was a succession of bills in the Congress down to and including the bill in the Seventy-sixth Congress known as the LoganWheeler bill, which is on that chart. In that column the committee will note that the thinking was on the basis of an administrative court. Then, during the Seventy-sixth Congress, S. 915 and H. R. 4236, also

of an administrative court, so to speak, and went over to the subject of administrative procedure.

Mr. WALTER. I think that perhaps is due to the fact this committee in discussing generally the proposition decided we did not want any special courts.

Mr. MILLER. That is my recollection of about what happened. I think the folks who were considering that ultimately reached the conclusion it was not a workable idea.

My first purpose in presenting this chart to your committee is to show the change in the thinking on the subject; but another major purpose is to show the sequence of those bills and how they have developed. So you will find at the appropriate place I am showing where the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure intervened and I am also showing where the report on administrative management in the executive branch of the Government intervened in 1937.

That chart, Mr. Chairman, if you think it wise and worth while, may be incorporated in the record so far as I am concerned. The CHAIRMAN. I think it should be incorporated.

Mr. MILLER. I have also prepared and am going to present to you another mimeographed statement which is entitled "History of McCarran-Sumners bills, S. 7. and H. R. 1203, with special reference to the American Bar Association." I do not intend either to read that statement in detail or discuss it in detail, because it was mimeographed and presented to you in order to avoid that very thing. I want to say to the committee, however, that this was prepared for your possible benefit to show you, first, the exhaustive consideration which has been given to this subject of reform of administrative procedure so far as the American Bar Association is concerned and so far as the congressional bills are concerned. You will find that this statement very largely coincides with the genealogical or diagrammatic chart which has been presented to you. That statement shows in detail and all based upon matters of historical and documentary record that this subject has been receiving consideration and serious consideration of the American Bar Association for a period of 12 or more years at least 12 years. That statement will show to you, also, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, that the consideration by the American Bar Association has followed pretty generally what we call today the democratic process.

As the president of the American Bar Association told you, this has not been the subject of consideration of a small group of people, but it has been receiving consideration of a large group of people within and without the American Bar Association, and every effort has been made to give the subject a thorough study. Whether or not sound results have been reached as a result of that study, of course, is a matter of opinion that I will not debate at this time, to say

the least.

Here again, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is desirable that this statement be read in detail. I think, however, it might be well for

so that the historical background will be as complete as it is possible for me to make it.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be incorporated at this point. (The matter above referred to is as follows:)

HISTORY OF MCCARRAN-SUMNERS BILL (S. 7 AND H. R. 1203, 79TH CONG., 1ST SESS.) TO IMPROVE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BY PRESCRIBING FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

(Prepared by C. A. Miller, Washington, D. C., January 31, 1945)

The McCarran-Sumners bill is the product of long study of administrative agencies, which have been defined as "something that looks like a court and acts like a court but somehow escapes being classified as a court whenever you attempt to impose any limitation on its power" (58 A. B. A. Rept. 197 (1933)). The subject of administrative law necessarily had to be studied along with the subject of administrative agencies. It has been said that administrative law "results from the reposing of what are essentially legislative or judicial functions (or both) in an official or board, sometimes belonging to the executive branch of the Government and sometimes independent" (58 A. B. A. Rept. 202 (1933)).

Genealogically speaking, the McCarran-Sumners bill can trace its ancestry back to the time when Senator Norris, of Nebraska, introduced S. 1835 in the first session of the Seventy-third Congress. This was a bill to establish a United States Court of Administrative Justice, which would have been a consolidation of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, with 5 additional judges, so that it would have been composed of 15 judges. It was proposed to transfer to this court the adjudications by the courts of the District of Columbia in mandamus and injunction proceedings against Federal officials, the review of decisions of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, and the jurisdiction of the United States district courts over claims against the United States and against collectors of internal revenue. This was the first bill introduced in Congress looking to the improvement of administrative justice. No action was taken on this bill.

At the meeting of the executive committee of the American Bar Association, in May 1933 a special committee on administrative law was created (58 A. B. A. Rept. 197 (1933)). That committee submitted its first report at the annual convention of the American Bar Association at Grand Rapids (58 A. B. A. Rept. 407 (1933)). The chairman of the committee stated that: "The committee is not prepared to make a definite proposal * * * I incline toward the view that the ideal solution lies in the direction of a Federal Administrative Court, with appropriate branches so as to take over or review the judicial functions of the multitudinous Federal administrative tribunals" (58 A. B. A. Rept. 203 (1933)).

The special committee on administrative law submitted a report to the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Milwaukee in 1934 (59 A. B. A. Rept. 539-564 (1934)). The special committee was continued (59 A. B. A. Rept. 148 (1934)). The following resolution of the committee was adopted: "That, subject to the approval of the executive committee, the association authorizes the special committee on administrative law to confer with the appropriate Government officials and to appear before the appropriate committees of Congress and to draft and urge the enactment of legislation in furtherance of the special committee's conclusions" (59 A. B. A. Rept. 152 (1934)).

The executive committee of the American Bar Association, at its meeting in January 1935, authorized the special committee on administrative law to draft a detailed bill giving expression to the committee's proposal for an Administrative Court. No bill was precented at the annual convention of the American Bar Association in Los Angeles, in 1935, for reasons explained at that convention (60 A. B. A. Rept. 136-143 (1935)).

S. 3787 and H. R. 12297 were introduced in the second session of the Seventyfourth Congress by Senator Logan and Representative Celler. These were identical bills providing for the establishment of a Federal Administrative Court. The special committee on administrative law submitted a report to the executive committee of the American Bar Association at its meeting in May 1936, detailing features of an Administrative Court bill. The executive committee approved a resolution to be submitted at the annual convention of the American