Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. MCFARLAND. I have a complete set and will be glad to let the committee have them. I know of no higher purpose that could be served by them. There are several volumes of hearings also, and there are reports and Senate hearings, perhaps, that would be of interest.

Mr. WALTER. I think that we ought to have the monographs that were prepared by the Attorney General's committee.

Mr. MCFARLAND. There are about 27 of them, I believe.
Mr. WALTER. Where could we get them?

Mr. McFARLAND. They are public documents, Mr. Aitchison points out, and have been printed, although a good many of them are out of print. I will be glad to see that the committee has a full set.

Mr. WALTER. Thank you.

Mr. McFARLAND. As † go, I think it would be helpful to compare, in a word or two, the previous proposals—chiefly the proposals that were made by the so-called Attorney General's committee.

All of these bills fall pretty much in the same pattern: The definition of an agency is probably the only one that would cause some difficulty to anyone that looks at it cold. The three initial definitions are the definition of “agency," the definition of "rule making,” and the definition of "adjudication." When you define an agency you still are not indicating very much about what any bill can do. The definition of an agency is merely an exclusionary device in all of these bills; it is a preliminary matter.

The first real subject of bills is the subject of public information. Most of the bills provide, and have in the last 5 or 6 years provided, that the agency should make certain kinds of rules. The Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure was in favor and stated that one of the most serious aspects of the whole system was a lack of common, ordinary, simple information.

It is a curious thing about information here in Washington. Many people seem to have little interest in information. But west of the Appalachian Mountains and further west you will find that people are thinking about the problem of how to find out about administrative operations. Americans generally do not like to ask somebody; they want some official place where they can find out about the organization of the board or the committee or the commission. It is of little comfort to the ordinary person to be told that while there is no official statement, they can ask and will be told what they wish to know. The difference lies in a guarded oral statement and authoritative written information.

There seems to be no dissent from the provision respecting information. There was at one time considerable comment about the possibility that legislation, if attempted, would force the agencies to make substantive rules. In other words, the argument was that you cannot require an agency to make all necessary rules to cover all conceivable situations at one time. That is not proposed.

Mr. WALTER. Was not that a spurious argument, in view of the efforts of the people who are opposed to the philosophy of this type of legislation ?

Mr. McFARLAND. I personally thought it was.

Mr. GWYNNE. People have asked me from time to time where to get information as to the rules and regulations respecting the Wages and 1 - Administration, which from time to time does make rules and

STATEMENT OF CARL MCFARLAND, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Carl McFarland. I am a member of the D. C. bar, and I am here as chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on administrative law.

I shall attempt to assist the committee by discussing the structure and the provisions of the various bills that are before the committee. After all, most of these bills fall into a fairly standard pattern.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to discuss the general subject?
Mr. McFARLAND. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Rather than the individual bills ?
Mr. McFARLAND. I am not particularly interested in "A, B, C” bills.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. MOFARLAND. All of these bills are drawn, and any intelligent measure must be drawn, on a functional basis. They do not relate to agencies by name. They relate to some of the specific kinds of things that administrative agencies do, just as legislation which you gentlemen have placed on the books relating to private individuals ordinarily does not relate to individuals by name but relates to what they do.

Furthermore, in this particular subject, no one has attempted to draw a set of rules of practice for any administrative agency. The whole idea has been to draw the skeleton, upon which administrative agencies may adopt their own rules of procedure.

All of these measures fall into a simple outline of three main points. The three subjects which they contain are: No. 1, public information; No. 2, administrative operation; and No. 3, judicial review. Every measure contains a series of formal provisions, such as title, definitions, effective date, and that sort of thing. Also, every measure contains some further provisions respecting some of the various incidents of administrative operation, the matter of appointment and status of examiners, the nature of the hearing, and the method of rendering decisions.

Administrative operation is the second of the three subjects, and necessarily divides itself into two parts, one relating to the making of general regulations, the second part relating to the determination of particular cases. Administrative agencies, despite all that has been said and all that has been tried, do nothing different than courts and legislatures do. They have invented new words, but nevertheless they legislate. They have invented new words, but nevertheless they adjudicate. They issue injunctions just as they issue statutes, and for those two different types of activities it is necessary that sharp distinctions be drawn.

It falls to me to discuss some of the details, and in discussing the operation of any measureMr. WALTER (interposing). May I interrupt for just a questioni Mr. McFARLAND. Yes.

Mr. WALTER. As a member of the Attorney General's committee, you participated in the preparation of a volume of research. I wonder where those volumes are. I think our committee ought to have a complete set.

Mr. McFarland. You mean the monographs ?

Mr. McFARLAND. I have a complete set and will be glad to let the committee have them. I know of no higher purpose that could be served by them. There are several volumes of hearings also, and there are reports and Senate hearings, perhaps, that would be of interest.

Mr. WALTER. I think that we ought to have the monographs that were prepared by the Attorney General's committee.

Mr. MCFARLAND. There are about 27 of them, I believe.
Mr. WALTER. Where could we get them?

Mr. McFARLAND. They are public documents, Mr. Aitchison points out, and have been printed, although a good many of them are out of print. I will be glad to see that the committee has a full set.

Mr. WALTER. Thank you.

Mr. McFARLAND. As I go, I think it would be helpful to compare, in a word or two, the previous proposals—chiefly the proposals that were made by the so-called Attorney General's committee.

All of these bills fall pretty much in the same pattern: The definition of an agency is probabiy the only one that would cause some difficulty to anyone that looks at it cold. The three initial definitions are the definition of agency," the definition of "rule making,” and the definition of "adjudication.” When you define an agency you still are not indicating very much about what any bill can do. The definition of an agency is merely an exclusionary device in all of these bills; it is a preliminary matter.

The first real subject of bills is the subject of public information. Most of the bills provide, and have in the last 5 or 6 years provided, that the agency should make certain kinds of rules. The Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure was in favor and stated that one of the most serious aspects of the whole system was a lack of common, ordinary, simple information,

It is a curious thing about information here in Washington. Many people seem to have little interest in information. But west of the Appalachian Mountains and further west you will find that people are thinking about the problem of how to find out about administrative operations. Americans generally do not like to ask somebody; they want some official place where they can find out about the organization of the board or the committee or the commission. It is of little comfort to the ordinary person to be told that while there is no official statement, they can ask and will be told what they wish to know. The difference lies in a guarded oral statement and authoritative written information.

There seems to be no dissent from the provision respecting information. There was at one time considerable comment about the possibility that legislation, if attempted, would force the agencies to make substantive rules. In other words, the argument was that you cannot require an agency to make all necessary rules to cover all conceivable situations at one time. That is not proposed.

Mr. WALTER. Was not that a spurious argument, in view of the efforts of the people who are opposed to the philosophy of this type of legislation ?

Mr. McFARLAND. I personally thought it was.

Mr. GWYNNE. People have asked me from time to time where to get information as to the rules and regulations respecting the Wages and In Administration, which from time to time does make rules and STATEMENT OF CARL MCFARLAND, WASHINGTON, D. C. Mr. McFARLAND. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Carl McFarland. I am a member of the D. C. bar, and I am here as chairman of the American Bar Association's special committee on administrative law.

I shall attempt to assist the committee by discussing the structure and the provisions of the various bills that are before the committee. After all, most of these bills fall into a fairly standard pattern.

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to discuss the general subject !
Mr. McFARLAND. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Rather than the individual bills !
Mr. MCFARLAND. I am not particularly interested in “A, B, C” bills.
The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. McFARLAND. All of these bills are drawn, and any intelligent measure must be drawn, on a functional basis. They do not relate to agencies by name. They relate to some of the specific kinds of things that administrative agencies do, just as legislation which you gentlemen have placed on the books relating to private individuals ordinarily does not relate to individuals by name but relates to what they do.

Furthermore, in this particular subject, no one has attempted to draw a set of rules of practice for any administrative agency. The whole idea has been to draw the skeleton, upon which administrative agencies may adopt their own rules of procedure.

All of these measures fall into a simple outline of three main points. The three subjects which they contain are: No. 1, public information; No. 2, administrative operation; and No. 3, judicial review. Every measure contains a series of formal provisions, such as title, definitions, effective date, and that sort of thing. Also, every measure contains some further provisions respecting some of the various incidents of administrative operation, the matter of appointment and status of examiners, the nature of the hearing, and the method of rendering decisions.

Administrative operation is the second of the three subjects, and necessarily divides itself into two parts, one relating to the making of general regulations, the second part relating to the determination of particular cases. Administrative agencies, despite all that has been said and all that has been tried, do nothing different than courts and legislatures do. They have invented new words, but nevertheless they legislate. They have invented new words, but nevertheless they adjudicate. They issue injunctions just as they issue statutes, and for those two different types of activities it is necessary that sharp distinctions be drawn.

It falls to me to discuss some of the details, and in discussing the operation of any measureMr. WALTER (interposing). May I interrupt for just a question 3 Mr. McFARLAND. Yes.

Mr. WALTER. As a member of the Attorney General's committee, you participated in the preparation of a volume of research. I wonder where those volumes are. I think our committee ought to have a complete set.

Mr. McFARLAND. You mean the monographs?

Mr. McFARLAND. I have a complete set and will be glad to let the committee have them. I know of no higher purpose that could be served by them. There are several volumes of hearings also, and there are reports and Senate hearings, perhaps, that would be of interest.

Mr. WALTER. I think that we ought to have the monographs that were prepared by the Attorney General's committee.

Mr. MCFARLAND. There are about 27 of them, I believe.
Mr. WALTER. Where could we get them?

Mr. McFARLAND. They are public documents, Mr. Aitchison points out, and have been printed, although a good many of them are out of print. I will be glad to see that the committee has a full set. Mr. WALTER. Thank

you. Mr. McFARLAND. As I go, I think it would be helpful to compare, in a word or two, the previous proposals—chiefly the proposals that were made by the so-called Attorney General's committee.

All of these bills fall pretty much in the same pattern: The definition of an agency is probably the only one that would cause some difficulty to anyone that looks at it cold. The three initial definitions are the definition of "agency," the definition of "rule making," and the definition of "adjudication.”. When you define an agency you still are not indicating very much about what any bill can do. The definition of an agency is merely an exclusionary device in all of these bills; it is a preliminary matter.

The first real subject of bills is the subject of public information. Most of the bills provide, and have in the last 5 or 6 years provided, that the agency should make certain kinds of rules. The Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure was in favor and stated that one of the most serious aspects of the whole system was a lack of common, ordinary, simple information.

It is a curious thing about information here in Washington. Many people seem to have little interest in information. But west of the Appalachian Mountains and further west you will find that people are thinking about the problem of how to find out about administrative operations. Americans generally do not like to ask somebody; they want some official place where they can find out about the organization of the board or the committee or the commission. It is of little comfort to the ordinary person to be told that while there is no official statement, they can ask and will be told what they wish to know. The difference lies in a guarded oral statement and authoritative written information.

There seems to be no dissent from the provision respecting information. There was at one time considerable comment about the possibility that legislation, if attempted, would force the agencies to make substantive rules. In other words, the argument was that you cannot require an agency to make all necessary rules to cover all conceivable situations at one time. That is not proposed.

Mr. WALTER. Was not that a spurious argument, in view of the efforts of the people who are opposed to the philosophy of this type of legislation ?

Mr. McFARLAND. I personally thought it was.

Mr. GWYNNE. People have asked me from time to time where to get information as to the rules and regulations respecting the Wages and Hours Administration, which from time to time does make rules and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »