CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 31, 2000
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: January 1, 1955
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved for Release 2000/08/
195.5 CS I GRES
bedfellow, a backer of-Communists and fel-
low travelers. MeI natter, referred to appears in
Some of the 'headlines give the general the Dendix.]
Power EhETIO?N;,OF SEAKE1 ;PRO
"Red Rag First Newspaper 'r'o $ailyhoo for ']'EMPORE
Ike."
"Ike's First Sponsor Acted for Powerful~t Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
,
i
forr tc remniedia ' co R do ationariCi.
` CEienhower Subversive
Joins IR Is
in Stands A?ainstl ask
The Clerk
"IkpCoddled Coznrtrynists.While Preside
of Columbia Universit
But perhaps the lowest depth of
sJi
read as follows:
a Representative from the State of Massa-
ethusetts, be, and he is hereby, elected
is Speaker pro tempore during the absence of
"Moscow Thinks Ike Can Ge9t t1.-,g V tes." Resolved, That the President aid the Sen.
That headline is follpvied by the fol wing ate be' n6tifled liy the dierk pi the election
paragraph: of Hon. Jorrn W. MCCORMACIE as Speaker pro
RIGHTEOUS WORDS
On. one page an oddity appears an in-
dignant attack on any one who use smear
experts in his entourage to k6eucli filth
"'These despicable smear tists have been
!td successful fn destro g' flieir atriotic
opposition so many tim in the past that in
their present role as- senhower supporters
they can be expecte to use their Eying tac-
tics again and ag " "
Then dips` his pen and writes:
"The opppo~r#nts of G'ieneral Ike can meet
such opposition only by telling the truth
Over and over again:"
EXTENSION NO E AR R" G,Rl7=
ING 1 EAI INGS', Y OLVI ITi')"I'l E
.ON WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. COOPER. lv r, Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to include in th@ Ap-
pendix of the RECORD explanations of
two bills which I introduce! of M;ay 5,
1955. I am informed by the Public
Printer that the cost of including this
material in the RECORD will be a total of
The first of these explanations relates,; yoke of Russian-Communist imperialism.
to H. R. 6040, the Customs 0implifica- While it i6 true drat the Rumanians have
Lion Act of 1955,. 'he C tte .~n, i~rioavn tb],e cruel, whip of Moscow in past
I ays and Means is schedu ed to }begin genrratiops? the Communist whip now in
public hearings on this lq islat}'on on the hands of the KrewUn masters is more
May 23, 1955. The cost of printing this -r ruel, brutal, and inhuman- than any
analysis is $180, before lashed oyes the. backs of _the Ru-
The second explanation relates to manian people,, The well-known resist--
H. R. 6059, the Philippine Trade Agree- ance of the Rumanians to both the Czar-
ment Revision Act o;,1955,,. Th_e com- 1st and Cpnlmunist Russian types of im-
mittee on Ways and Means is scheduled , perialism,has made their task_of keeping
to begin public hearings on this legisla- ? alivg the.5park, Of fregdon} and.the na-
tion on lu[ay 15, 1955. The cost of print- tion'al heritage fltr more .difficplt, It.is a
Ing this explanation fs $187. truism, that.the, l3.ussians hand out their
I deem it desirable that these.explana- rt=cQgnized punishment iii direct, propor-
tions be included in ,the Gf2NCR SS ONAr. tion to t4e degree of ,resistance to Russ
i
RzcoRD so that the. }nf`or natipn con- :ication Q, eSed,tsy the population of any
tamed ill.e..PWpe available tg the p1 tliecaptlv
Members ess nd tp the pi}b1C. e r3pr>ti-lussian nations. All
qt. co~} . ffiegdgm ~lpXirlg ~rnerl n s. therefore, on
The SPEAEER~.f I4 here,-objection to this, the, traditional Rumanian Inde-.
the request of the gentleman from Ten- pendence?Day, pay tribute to those loyal
nessee? and, stuicly pati{iots who stand fast in
and all mankind.
It is proper-that on this day wt sl.r oulri
recall tl#aton.March 6, 1945, anitfap=ous
executrgyier o communist crimes, Af drt i
Vyshinsky, with the over.fhelmi ig -rel.
of the Red army, instal ed a Lm iia i
puppet government in Sue iarest. Al th"
very moment the master crimir al, Vy-
shinsky, was proclaiming that ' in Ru-
Itrarlla, I am Yalta," 19 Rimanirn .iivi-?
sions, comprising over 335,00s finer+,
were fighting shoulder to should sr :pit-.
the allies. This first act of tr ac: per
was followed by the signini of a' es ileV
peace treaty for Rumanit. in F -b:ruarv
1947.
While we pay tributes to Ru narkiai
Independence Day, it is tamely - hai? w>-
turn our attention to the d ploma is con-
ference now going on in V. enna...us:ria,
looking forward to the sign ing of p- ac ,
treaty for Austria which w ruld gi rnt her
well-deserved` independence. J ,or 1,r
long, years tlrb United Sts tes ha . tEke::
the initiative to bring about a p-?acf-
treaty for Austria. For 10 long y al th.r
Russians have used evei.y cons eiv_ibk
excuse and evasion to p2 event Sucn ii
treaty from coming into t ff ect. Now iL
seems the Russians are att 'rnptin tc us.-
the just aspirations of the Austr^in: for
national independence as a prop igand:+_
weapon to ;lfievent the- free West errs
World from finally achieving Evropean
unity or a common defens ' The Kr -m
lin claims, however, that they are in eri-
In their desire to give Au stria it ; it ode =
pendence, that they are sincere .a their
claims that peaceful coexistence 1eta een
the free world and the to alitari in z'm-
pire of Moscow is feasibia. Th re ari-
those who say that the Russiaiu might:
be sincere in_ their claims. Th-re are
those of us who have m idea ?ar_:fui
study of tie records of C' jmmun st 'yr-
tinny who of necessity, descand t rat the
Russians show good faith on a ea. rn.?
able scale before any serious thoi ghi. be
given to their ;claims of,pe.ceful c oe st.-
ence and desire to lesser, world t 3ns on-
I believe, however, that J he con 'erf Tice
of diplomats now taking pace in Vieernct
provides the Russians with an l nu-ual
opportunity to demonstra>c whe he- o
not they have any good faith. TV sat op?-
portunity is provided by a. title 2 of the
Rumanian Peace Treaty t 3f 1945 wl,icli
provided the legal basis for the Sovie
Union to maintain armed forces in lto"-
mania for the purpose o rain air ins'
lines of communication be weer I tOs,sov?
and the Red army of l,ccupa. ion in
Austria. It is important i o note in ! his
connection that the presen lines i f c? m?-
rrrunication tllx?ough Rumanian Lt rri ors
into. Austria. varies in distance t ,t'a en
845 and 910 miles, whereon: the most di-
rect route from Moscow to Vienna is onlx
3,95 miles long and moreQ per, th fe cil--
sties already established i ri thL f di cc-
route are .;Duch superior ,o tho e 1 Der
established through Rur-ania. It i.-
clear that-A. wQUld be far- less ex- en -ive
and in every sense more elilcient or the
Kremlin.tQ maintain direQ lines i f ci,m
munication with its diplq natic ins 10!-
in Vienna. after the Al .triaia Pi tcf
Treaty comes, into force f nd erf? ct. 1?
the Russi91us rise th& dire., lure i t q -m-
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-
SWJ1ARING IN OF SPEAKER PRO
TEMPORE
r 'M r. ORMACK appeared at the bar
of ~kt House and took the oath of office
RUMANIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY
The SPEAKER. Under the previous
order of the House, the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. FEIGH.AN] is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Speaker, today,
May 10, we commemorate Rumanian
Independence Day which has long .been
celebrated by Rumanian patriots "in all
parts of the world as a day of national
unity.
The R~7ani
qli
natign,story tells us,
Ras con acts 4 t escgnilant~ of
the Roman colonists Many centuries ago.
Down through history Rumania has
stood as one of the strong and sturdy
rare parts, of E opean freedom,and thq
noble cause o iristianity. As a conse-
quence of pcr geographical position as
well as r strong loyalty to the cause
of an a0 - anted Civilization Rumania has
oftenieen the scene of war and martyr
dorr#?
, rpday this hi?toric nation of some 20
ItilUons of people suffers under the heavy
PZ 4A000'1000 ~ 1Q0L7 9
 ,`,,~
om -4pk}R 3'9-00224A"1000007-2
Approved For Release 2000/08/2,, -
5092 CONGRESSIONAL RECO3D --- HOUSE May 10
munication between Moscow and Vienna,
it would no longer be necessary for them
to keep Red troops quartered in Rumania
unless'the Kremlin either :fears that the
stooge government it set tip will not be
able to keep the Rumanian people under
control, or the Kremlin is planning a war
against the West in the immediate fu-
ture. These are the only two possible
reasons which could account for the
Russians continuing their occupation of
Rumania. The Russians can prove any
good intentions they may possess by a
complete withdrawal of all military and
economic cadres from Rumania and
Hungary at the same time they are with-
drawing their troops from Austria.
All of us sincerely hope that the mas-
ters of the Kremlin have seen the folly
of their ways and are now willing to join
with us in all steps leading to peace and
justice throughout the world, but we
must not allow our high hopes for man-
kind to lead us up any blind alleys with
the masters of the Kremlin.
It has been called to my attention that
the Russian master planners have in-
stituted a new program of mass depor-
tations from Bessarabia, that territory
taken from Rumania and now referred
to as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republic. This program of mass, de-
portations is, of course, being carried out
under one of the new banners of Soviet
patriotism created by the new czar,
Khrushchev. While making appeals in
the Russian-controlled newspapers and
radios for workers to pioneer in vast
areas of the empire and at the same
time holding out what appear to be rich
financial rewards for those who coop-
erate with the Kremlin, the mass trans-
fer of population is, nevertheless, carried
out on an involuntary basis.
This Congress was officially informed
of mass deportations of this type affect-
ing the Crimean. Tatars, the Chechin-
Inguish, and the Kalmuck nations by the
Select Committee To Investigate Com-
munist Aggression, 83d Congress. Testi-
mony was taken by that committee :from
a Russian colonel who was directly in
charge of an operation transferring the
entire Chechin-Inguish nation to the
Tundra regions of Siberia in the course
of 24 hours. The Russian colonel made
it clear that this mass deportation was
carried out for the purpose of destroying
a non-Russian nation because of its op-
position to the plans of Moscow. In the
case of Bessarabia, the masters of lVlos-
cow have become more clever and de-
ceptive, but have in no way altered their
formula of treatment for nations which
oppose their desire for world domina-
tion. While Khrushchev may call, for
pioneers to settle and develop vast re-
gions of the U. S. 8, R., the fact remains
that this is nothing but a cover for the
brutal transfer of an entire population
to geographical areas of the Russian
Empire where it is impossible for them
to eke out an existence and where the
likelihood remains that they will perish
in the course of several years.
On Ia'ebruary 10, 1955, under special
order which appears in the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD) on page 1218, I took oc-
casion to call public attention to the
tremendous crisis which had developed
In the agricultural life of the Soviet
Union. At that time, I called atten-
tion to the Khrushchevalsopl n for moving
huge segments of the non- ussian popu-
lation of the empire into b rren and un-
productive: regions of the V. S. S. R. for
the purpose of eliminating tesistance ele-
ments. Here is an excerpt from my ad-
dress of that date:
More recently Khrushchev has been the
advocate of a new population t ansfer within
the U. S. S, R. He calls it t pioneer-re-
settlement program. Some R Sian propa-
gandists have even likened thi program to
the efforts of the American pi eers. The
essence of his plan is to move millions of
people from their native lands to he interior
reaches of the U.. S. S. R.-there\,,to reclaim
to go their voluntarily because thej are not
fooled by the propaganda of Khr shchev.
resist the decaying process of commu m
are rounded up as volunteers, for t new
pioneer movement. This is the late device_
created by Khrushchev to break the spirit
of resistance within the empire and at the
same time to hide the facts concerning it
from the civilized world. How many m,11-
lions of people will be purged by this scheme
is anyone's guess. But of one thing we may
be sure, this silent but thorough purge would
not be underway if there were not great
internal troubles confronting the Commu-
nists.
In my opinion the good people of Bes-
sarabia are now being subjected to this
brutal treatment by Khrushchev.
Against this background, I have here
before me a translation of an article
which appeared in Sovietskaya Moldavia,
a Moscow publication in Bessarabia
which appeared a few days ago. I would
like to read it because it bears upon the
clever scheme of Khrushchev to camou-
flage the extermination of whole nations
with clever propaganda terms which
even the Nazis lacked the evil cunning
to create:
The General Directorate for the transfer
of residence and planned recruitment of
workers, of the Council of Ministers of
the S. S. Republic of Moldavia, organizers
of the planed transfer (of workers) from re-
gions of the S. S. Republic of Moldavia to
the kolkhozes in the regions of Astrakhan
and Rostov (R. S. F. S. R.) and of the region
of Pavlodar of the R. S. S. of Kazakhstan.
Citizens who will enlist voluntarily for
this transfer will enjoy free traveling facili-
ties to the locality of-residence, including
all personal belongings up to 2 tons for
each family
The State will grant, at the same time, a
bonus of 500 to 7300 rubles to the heads of
family and 150 to 300 rubles to other mem-
bers of the family. On their new residences,
the settlers will enjoy exemption. of agri-
cultural taxation as, well as of state de-
liveries of farm products for a period of 2
years. They will receive foodstuffs as addi-
tional relief.
The settlers are offered long-term credits
for the construction of dwellings (with a
10-year amortization) and for the purchase
of livestock (with a 3-year amortization) as
well as other facilities.
The transfer Is in force in the districts of
Ataky, Belzy, Beedery, Bravitchy, Britch-
ansk, Grodiansk Drokiew, Iedinet:z, Zgour-
itz, Kalavach, Korpensk, Kichenev, Not-
ovak, Kotionpane:k, Nisporiensk, Oknitza,
Resink, Soroky, Sbrachensk, Souelensk, Tyr-
now.
All informationv can be obtained from the
executive committees of the districts and
from the delegates in charge of transfers and
planned recruiting of workers.
On this, the traditional anniversary of
:Rumanian independence, I call upon
President Eisenhower to issue an official
protest against the new program of mass
deportations which the Kremlin has an-
nounced for the good and patriotic peo-
ple of :Bessarabia. The conscience of
mankind demands that we take official
notice of and raise our voices in protest
against what the Russians are about to
do to the people of Bessarabia.
Let us all hope and pray that the day
is not far distant when the Rumanian
people will be able to celebrate their his-
toric day of independence, free of Rus-
HOOVER COMMISSION REPORT ON
LEGAL SERVICES AND PROCE-
DURES
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
address the House for 20 minutes, to re-
vise and, extend my remarks and include
extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey"
There was no objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, on March 28, 1955, the Com-
mission on Organization of the Executive
]Branch of the Government submitted its
report on legal services and procedure
to the Congress. Three days later its
chairman, Mr. Hoover, issued the report
of the task force which was concerned
with this problem.
As a Member of Congress and as a
lawyer..:[ believe that the issues involved
are of the utmost gravity and should be
carefully considered by the Congress. the
legal profession, and the citizenry at
large. Therefore, I am introducing the
two bills which were developed by the
task force to implement the suggestions
made in its report. I have included an
amendment of my 'own in the bill to
Improve legal procedures in the execu-
tive branch of the Government through
the enactment of an administrative code
which I believe merits serious considera-
tion. This amendment provides that the
sections dealing with hearings and judi-
cial review of administrative decisions
shall apply to certain proceedings which
may result in the dismissal of officers or
employees of the Federal Government.
The New York Herald Tribune said
editorially on April 12, 1955, that the
Hoover Commission report on legal serv-
ices and procedure faces up to one of the
knottiest problems created by the vast
expansion of Government in recent
years. This is administrative law-a
body of regulations which have virtually
'the force of law which are drawn up
and enforced by executive agencies. The
problem with which the Commission
deals involves the 50 agencies of the
Federal executive department which
have come into being as the powers of the
Government to regulate our economic
and political life have grown, such as the
Federal Trade Commission, the National
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDp59-0 224A000100600007-2
CONGRESSIONAL. RECOR15 = HOUSE
Labor Relations Board, the Civil Aero-
nautics Board, and the Interstate Com-
merce Commission.
The New;York Times in an editorial
on April f4, '1955, said:
For the most part these Boards and Com-
missions not only investigate alleged viola-
tions of the laws with which they are con-
cerned-and of their own rules and regula-
tions-but they have the power to pass judg-
ment on those they believe to be transgres-
sors. As the Hoover Commission points out,
they often act "as judge, jury, defense and
prosecuting attorney" in the same case-as
if a police department had the power to try
and to sentence those they arrest.
The New York Times added that-
The proposals of the Hoover Commission
may be faulty in details-and the details are
multitudinous-but the administrative court
idea raises an issue of deep import to' the
American people, and at a time when the
executive arm of the Government increas-
ingly elbows its way into our private and
business affairs. It deserves the widest pos-
sible discussion-and prompt action, if no
serious objections can be found.
The Hoover Commission itself is divid-
ed on some of the recommendations of
the task force which considered this dif-
ficult subject. Half of the members,
including Mr. Hoover, did not vote for
a series of proposed amendments to the
Administrative Procedure Act, but be-
lieved they should be included in the
report because of the importance of the
issues and the eminence of the task force.
However, the major recommendation of
the task force in this field, the creation
of a new administrative court, won the
support of all but 2 of 'the 12 wmembers of
the Commission. I should like to call to
the attention of my colleagues the sepa-
rate statements by the members of the
Commission which appear in the report
submitted to the Congress. These are
included here. The Commission had the
services of a task force, consultants, and
assistants of the most distinguished or-
der. The consultants included Robert
H. Jackson, former Associate Justice of
the United States Supreme Court, and
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, chief justice of the
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Short statements on, each of the task
force members, its consultants, and as-
sistants have .been included here, as well
as some of the newspaper articles deal-
ing with the report which appeared in
various newspapers throughout the Na-
Dr. Lillian Wald Kay, assistant di-
rector of research, Citizens Committee
for the hoover Report, recently made
available to me a roundup of editorial
opinion on the legal services and proce-
dure report. This also is included here.
IV. SEPARATE STATEMENTS BY COMMISSIONERS
SEPARATE STATEISSNT OF CHAIRMAN HOOVER AND
COMMISSIONERS BROWNELL, FLEMMING, HOL-
LISTER, KENNEDY, AND MITCHELL i
This report on legal services and procedure
contains 52 recommendations. We fully sup-
port recommendations Nos. 1 to 28, inclusive,
and Nos. 49 to 52, inclusive.
Recommendations Nos. 29 to 48, inclusive,
deal, mostly with proposed amendments to
n Commissiongrs Flemming and Kennedy
were absent from the Commission meeting.
at which recommendations Nos. 29 to 48 were
approved, and thus did not vote.
the Administrative Procedure Act. We did
not vote for these recommendations because
of their possible consequences and possible
increase in the expenditures of the Govern-
ment.
However, we felt that in view of the search-
ing investigation and the eminence at the
bar of the members of the task force who
proposed the changes upon which recom-
mendations Nos. 29 to 48, inclusive, are
largely based, these should be furnished to
the Congress but without Commission action
HERBERT J. BROWNELL, Jr.
ARTHUR $- FLEMMING.
SOLOMON C. HOLLISTER.
IIFRBERT HOOVER.
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY.
SIDNEY A. MITCHELL.
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER BROWN
The nature of some of the recommenda-
tions in this report on legal services and
procedure makes it necessary for me to re-
serve the right to disagree with them in my
capacity as a Member of the 84th Congress.
CLARENCE J. BROWN,
Commissioner.
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER FARLEY
With some reservations, I voted In favor of
adopting the recommendations in chapter
III on administrative procedure, so that by
,Commission action these recommendations
would be transmitted to the Congress for
its consideration. I am aware that these
recommendations are extremely technical
and it Is difficult for a layman to conceive of
the practical problems which 'might be
created by theme. For this reason they will
require careful analysis and study by the
Congress.
Among others, I do not agree with recom-
mendation No. 36 because it makes it pos-
sible for Ally one wishing to interfere with
or delay proper administrative investigation
to go to the courts at its inception and hold
off the investigation by claiming that the
agency is exceeding its constitutional or stat-
utory power. With subsequent appeals, this
would make it possible for those who would
benefit from such action to forestall for a
long period agency Investigations and the
performance of the regulatory duties im-
posed upon the agencies by the Congress.
I do not agree with recommendation No.
37 as it raises the serious problem'ofwhether
agency heads can consult with their expert
and technical advisers in deciding cases if
the latter have had any part in the investi-
gation or prosecution of the cases. This
may require establishing costly duplicate
staffs whose work would be confined solely
to furnishing the agency members with tech-
nical guidance for the purpose of making
decisions.
I do not agree with recommendation No.
48. This is much broader than recommen
dation No. 36, since it applies to all agency
proceedings at any stage and is not limited
only to investigations.
With respect to recommendation No. 51,
creating an Administrative Court, I agree
that the Tax Court could properly be trans-
ferred from the executive brai,}ch to the
judicial branch. However, with respect to
the suggested trade and labor sections of
the Administrative Court, I have reservation
aS to the advisability of withdrawing certain
regulatory functions from the agencies con-
cerned, and transferring them to such a
court.
JAMES A. FARLEY,
Commissioner.
DISSENT AND SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COM-
xxssroN*t CHET HOLIFr4I.D
My objections to the Commission's report
on legal services and procedure are noted
below under specific subject headings. Gen-
erally, I believe the report is too legalistic
)(Y)3
Inits approach to problems o' Gover ant at
organization and management. The i icain-
mendations would vest in the Office A F.t-
torney General duties and prer,Igatives which
I consider unnecessary and unwis(', and
would recast the administrative prof ess in
the image of the courts.
It is difficult for one who k not a t.aw?rer
to evaluate the impact of es'.h and ev':ry
recommendation In the rep, rt refiard ag
changes in administrative pro ?edure. Con-
sidered individually, some have merit.
Taken together, they may hav( conseq lien :es;
that are drastic and costly acid imps tctiaal
from the standpoint of etiicier-I Governmi'nt
administration.
In agreeing that chapter l (I (legi l pro.
cedure) should be included ,n the rep.'rt
submitted to the Congress, I am cos seri-ed
with those ecoinmendationg which wocdd
insure fair treatment of citizei s dealii g with
their Government and prote Lion 0: tI eir
legal rights. I do not believe that these ~b-
jectives require a basic alterai ion of ne id-
ministrative process.
A further P.areful exploratic i of this aib-
ject by the Congress is indict.ted.
Authority for legal i. affs
It might be well for the Con ,ress to review
the employment of legal staffs by et -.cut.lve
agencies to determine whether there v o+ er-
staffing or improper classific ition c =: legal
personnel. However, the argument ;ti sup-
port of recommendation No. s is the , to me
agencies lack statutory authority to ml:ioy
legal staffs seems misplaced.
Either there is a presumpt on of ',aliditj
based upon the general authority of an
agency to employ personnel and upon recur-
ring appropriations for legal rs well S-i other
staffs, or else the salaries should ha' e been
disallowed by the Comptroll -r Gerwral.
Laws dating back to the c cation of the
Department of Justice In 1370 bw other
departments or agencies from hiri g .mid
compensating lawyers excep' whet, their
employment is specifically ^iuthorl,ed by
law, and even then the Ati)rney len coral
must certify that the service - could not be
performed by his Department (secs. 119, .:57.
361, 363, 365, and 367 of the Revised d atutes,
codified as 5 U. S. C. 49, 306, 3(17, 309, c 12, .i14,
and 316, respectively).
From time to time the At orney len.'ral
and the Coniptioller Genera have tpp'ied
these statutes and decided th if Gove nment
agencies could not employ or nay lawyers (18
Op. A G. 135. 19 Op. A. G. 328, 4 Con p. Lien.
386; 5 Comp. Gen. 382, 517; 2 1 Ct. of Claims
483).
Indeed, by virtue of this statutory au.
thority, the Attorney General once e. tended
his sway across the ocean l o prevent the
Navy from hiring a lawyer to mal-itaiu t.
damage suit in a foreign c=iurt against s
British steamer which collided Will, Cipt.
Alfred T. Mahan's vessel in the ha=bon of
Antwerp (21 Op. A. G. 195).
As late as 1952 the Compuoller +3eneral
reviewed and applied these a:.atutes to pre-
vent employment of counsel ay the )ep in
ment of Navy In certain attempted lit.ga
tion (32 Conip. Gen. 118).
What would be gained b;, congr ssionai
amendment of various agency atatutei merel)
to include "attorney" or "c -unsel" in the
sections of those statutes which authorize
employment of personnel? M ire to tie point.
are the size and functions of legs. st. ills
and these are subject to revi.'w and fern ta-
tion by the Congress in yearl appro ria ion
acts.
The report implies, but does not ape: 4fic ally
state as a recommendation, - :hat no agency
requiring less than 10 legal posit ons bc+
authorized to h)re its own l wyers Eat i hai;
its legal work be performed >v the )epcrt?
ment of Justice. The contention. is ''nal.
lawyers in small agencies IPCk the desirei-
professional caliber and Ind'pendcice Line-
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
 5094
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. - HOUSE May 10
that economies could be effected by elimina-
ting their positions. I cannot agree.
If the Department of Justice were to un-
dertake the performance of these legal serv-
ices for other agencies, it would have to add
various small legal units, highly specialized
in agency programs and requited to give
them full time and attention.
Either these lawyers would be constantly
running back and forth between the Depart-
ment of Justice and the agency that needs
them, or they would be detailed on it full-
time basis-the very situation the report
seeks to avoid.
The difficulties would be compounded by
the fact ' that legal staffs In some depart-
ments or agencies are located in field offices
as well as in Washington.
Department of Justice lawyers perform-
ing legal services for other departments or
agencies would be involved In the adminis-
tration of programs for which their own
department head is not responsible. Thus
problems of dual supervision of these attor-
neys would arise.
Of course a statutory ban on employment
of legal staffs would not prevent agencies
from hiring examiners or specialists with
legal training but not classified as attorneys.
In such cases there would be duplicate legal
staffs in the Department: of Justice and In
the agencies, where single ,staffs prevailed
before.
Coordination of legal services
It seems gratuitous to say (recommenda-
tion No. 2) that the Department of Justice
should be recognized as the chief law office
of the Government and that it should, con-
duct all litigation before the courts except
as Congress authorizes. This is substantial-
ly the situation today.
Traditionally and by statute the Attorney
General is the chief legal adviser to the
President and may be called upon to give
advisory opinions to the heads of depart-
ments.
The courts have long recognized this statu-
tory provision of the Attorney General and
his authority and duty to institute and con-
duct litigation (United States v. San Jacinto
Tin Co. (125 U. S. 273, 279); Walling v. Crane
(64 F. Supp. 88, 90); U. S. v. California. (332
U. S. 19, 27)).
It is true that in certain cases Congress
has empowered departments or agencies to
conduct their own litigation. The tax force
has not made a comparative analysis of the
results of separate agency litigation. It is
difficult to. say, therefore, whether Congress
should be asked to remove the exceptions
by statutory amendments.
There may be a few instances of substan-
tial duplication of legal staffs,; for example,
lawyers of the Department of Justice and
of the Treasury Department both are en-
gaged in tax litigation. However, the
special status and jurisdiction of the tax
courts are here involved and should be con-
sidered as a separate problem.
I would suppose that i.n most litigation,
whether carried on by the Department of
Justice or by agencies individually, there is
a close degree of cooperation. Because of
the specialized nature of agency litigation,
the Department of Justice, In most cases
would depend upon, or be associated with,
agency legal personnel in the preparation, if
not the presentation, of suits.
Aside from litigation, the emphasis in
the report on "positive coordination through
the Department of Justice" seems to con-
template for the Attorney General more than
an advisory role. If so, the Attorney Gen-
eral would be placed in the position of in-
terfering with specific agency programs or
with the performance of legal personnel re-
sponsible to their agency heads. Such in-
terference has been considered Improper by
holders of the Attorney General's office (17
Op. A. G. 332; 38 Op. A. G. 182).
Recommendations of this sort assume that
legal services are a homogeneous activity
which can be segregated from department
or agency functions and supervised or di-
rected by an outside legal authority (the
Attorney General). Thus the report states:
"The lack of effective coordination of legal
staffs has created a fragmentation of legal
services within the executive branch."
Legal services are "fragmented" because
numerous agencies, bureaus, or divisions re-
quire legal services in the administration of
manifold governmental programs. To as-
sume that the Attorney General could give
direct or immediate attention to the legal
features of these programs is wholly un-
realistic. In years past, when Government
was simple and small, this concept may have
had some validity, but today it is hardly
applicable.
Part of the trouble with the argument,
it seems to me, lies in the assumption that
the business of Government lawyers is mainly
with the courts. Litigation and adversary
proceedings are a relatively minor part of
the legal work of the Government. Agency
lawyers devote a large portion of their time
to legislative work and to the rules and
regulations that flow from legislation. Fre-
quently they must participate in the presen-
tation of their agency programs to the Con-
gress and in assisting congressional commit-
tees in developing technical legislative bills
concerning their particular agencies.
It is neither fitting for the Attorney Gen-
eral to attempt Go supervise such work nor
possible for his office to acquire the fund of
knowledge concerning legislative detail which
is held by legal staffs of Government de-
partments or agencies.
Resolution of legal conflicts
Recommendation No. 3 proposes an ar-
rangement whereby the Attorney General
would attempt to, resolve conflicting depart-
ment or agency legal opinions or interpreta-
tions of statutes. To the extent that these
are matters of law arising in the administra-
tiou of department programs, the Attorney
General already has authority of great force
and effect. Vesting additional authority in
the Attorney General by statute would create
a number of complications:
(1) The Attorney General might be placed
in the untenable positions of deciding con-
flicts between his Department and other
departments or agencies.
(2) He might be faced with the problem
of overriding the decision of an independent
agency not completely subject to executive
direction or of a Government corporation in
which the Congress has vested the authority
of suing or being sued in any court of com-
petent jurisdiction,
(3) He might come in conflict with the
Comptroller General Who has statutory au-
thority to snake certain decisions which are
binding upon the departments and agencies
(see 33 Op. A. G. 265; 38 Op. A. G. 181).
(4) Where conflicting statutes authorize
different agency programs, he might acquire
the role of deciding, in effect, which of con-
flicting national policies should prevail.
Thus he would become the arbiter of con-
gressional intent in certain situations rather
than the Congress itself or the courts.
(5) Generally speaking, he might be con-
fronted with matters which require judicial
determination, an area In which the Attorney
General traditionally has refrained from
giving advice.
(6) In most cases he could not prevent a
court test of litigation because private par-
ties would be involved, another area in which
the Attorney General traditionally has re-
frained from giving advice.
(7) In matters which finally reached the
courts despite the Attorney General's objec-
tions, he would boo called upon to prosecute
or defend the casir on which he had already
rendered an opinion.
It Is true that initiation of the recom-
mended procedure for resolving conflicts is
voluntary; yet if resorted to, the agencies
would be bound by the Attorney General's
decision. It seems to me that this arrange-
ment would make agencies less inclined than
they are now to seek the Attorney General's
legal assistance in controversial matters.
Attorney General Black's advice back in
1867 (9 Op. A. G. 36) still is a good maxim:
"The duty of the Attorney General is to ad-
vise, not. to decide."
Integration of legal staffs
The proposal in recommendation No. 4
that each department or agency legal staff
be "integrated" under an Assistant Secretary
for Legal Affairs or a General Counsel raises
the, question of the relationship between the
general counsel and the department or
agency head.
Although the report disavows any intent to
Interfere with existing line and staff organi-
zation of departments or agencies, it sug-
gests that Government attorneys have re-
sponsibilities which transcend those of de-
partment or agency heads, that these attor-
neys should have a certain "degree of inde-
pendence from administrative control," and
should act as a restraining influence on ad-
ministrators.
From. the standpoint of efficient agency
performance, emphasis on the authority and
importance of the legal staff and general
counsel is not an unmixed blessing. Admin-
:istrative personnel frequently complain that
their programs are slowed down or Involved
In needless red tape because the general
counsel insists on'routing all papers through
his office and in writing rules or orders in
complicated legal jargon.
Veterans' Administration guardianship
service
I do riot agree with the contention that the
need for the Veterans' Administration guard-
lanship service is now obviated.
The fact that a State has adopted the Uni-
form Veterans Guardianship Act does not
mean that the Veterans' Administration Ad-
ministrator no longer has to perform certain
legal services to insure the proper use and
disposition of Government funds. State laws
specifically recognize the continuing respon-
sibilities of the Administrator.
The possibility of, reducing the number of
Veterans' Administration legal personnel en-
gaged in performing these services is, of
course, a different matter.
Separation of legal management and litiga-
tion functions
Separation of legal management and liti-
gation functions of the Department of Jus-
tice (recommendation No. 6) would seem to
impose an artificial division of labor in func-
tional units of the department or else would
result in an arbitrary allocation of units to
one or another area. Consequently the cre-
ation of two new offices of Assistant Deputy
Attorney General to coordinate in each area,
proposed in the report, would appear
anomalous.
As outlined by the task force, the Internal
Security Division, for example, would be un-
der the cognizance of the new Assistant
Deputy Attorney General for Litigation.
This "division administers laws relating to
the internal security of the United States,
Including such functions as the registration
of foreign agents and subversive organiza-
tions. The litigation features of this activ-
ity appear to be relatively minor.
On the other hand the task force proposed
that the Office of Alien Property be under
the cognizance of the new Assistant Attor-
ney General for Legal Administration. As is
well known, the litigation features of the
Alien Property Office have assumed major
proportions.
The Immigration and Naturalization Serv-
ice, which would be under cognizance of the
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
 1955
Approved For Release 2000/08/Z5 : CIA-RD 59-0p224A000100600007-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECO'1R - - R ME
same Deputy Attorney General, also has Im-
portant litigation aspects.
Whether or not the Attorney General re-
quires the services of two additional deputies,
it seems unnecessary to recommend a divi-
sion of la' or that might be unworkable.
Legal career service
Although I favor a career system for Gov-
ernment legal personnel, t see no good 'rea-
son to vest personnel recruitment and ad-
ministration within the Department of Jus-
tice (recommendation No. 11). This would
make the Department of. Justice the only
agency besides the Civil Service Commission,
responsible for personnel administration out-
side its own establishment.
Many of the legal positions required In the
Government involve detailed, often routin-
ized, examination of documents, claims, ap-
plications, etc., and other duties which are
far removed from .the. ofalce of general and
associated counsel. To assume responsibil-
ity for filling such legal positions would
make the Department of Justice in some re-
spects a civil-service agency, a function re-
mote from its major purpose.
If, on the other hand, the Department of
Justice concerned itself only with "attor-
neys," there would be a"division of person-
nel functions in the legal field between the
Department and the Civil Service Commis-
sion,
According to recommendations Nos. 11 and
12, the legal career service is to be admin-
istered by a proposed new Office of Legal
Services and Procedure established' in, the
Department of Justice, In the contempla-
tion of the task force this new office was to
be established "for the dual purposes of ad-
ministering the legal career service and as-
sisting agencies in the improvement of ad-
ministrative procedures.*'
The proposed office is a watered-down ver-
sion of the recommendation n}ade by, the
Attorney General's Committee on Adminis-
trative Prpcedure in 1941 that there be estab-
fished by statute an independent Office of
Administrative Procedure (S. Doc S., "17th
Cong., 1st sess., p. 123).
The establishment of sqi h an office within
the Department of Justice to assist and ad-
vise agencies in standardizing certain legal
forms and procedures could be useful; A
legal career service should be established and
administered by the Civil Service Commis-
sion, possibly with the help of a reconstituted
Board of Legal Isxamineis.
It seems unnecessary to go beyond the
making of a strong recommendation for a
legal career service to spell out (recommen-
dations Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16) the details of
.probationary periods, veterans' preference,
performance ratings, etc. These should be
handled as part of the general career service
with minor modifications where necessary for
legal personnel.
Representation before agencies
Considerable attention is.given iri the re-
port to canons of conduct and ciualiflcatIons
for persons appearing before Federal agen-
cies. These matters seem more of interest
to the legal profession than to a Commission
concerned with Government organization.
There seems to be great concern, for ex-
ample, that nonlawyers may appear before
Government agencies on matters which are
considered to be within the lawyers' domain.
It might be well to point out, in turn, that
many lawyers in Washington appear before
agencies on matters which do not require
the services of a lawyer.
While better standards of conduct always
are to be desired, it is not the function of
our Commission to bolster a segment of the
legal profession engaged in Washington
agency representation to the detriment of
other persons engaged In the myriad activi-
ties involving contact with the Federal Gov-
ernment.
This should,upt be taken as a reflection
on the motives of the eminent lawyers and
50)5
judges who comprised the task force and their part In administering 1 ublic I olicxes
provided the basic studies for" the Commis- which must-ineditably reflect changi,Ig at-
sion's report. Their outlook necessarily is titudes of the electorate?
that of the'legal profession. Our-viewpoint These and many other vexin problems :re
in the Commission must be a broader one. not resolved in the Commie lion's ecom-
In chapter III the Commission report pro-
poses fundamental revisions of administra-
tive procedure, including the transfer of cer-
tain quasi-judicial functions to a specially
constituted administrative court.
Some of the recommendations are too gen-
eralized to offer useful guides to legislative
or administrative action. Others affect the
organization of the judicial branch and
therefore are beyond the Commission's pur-
have merit,, These are aimed at preventing
abuses in the administrative process and
in affording individuals a greater measure of
protection against arbitrary Government ac-
tion. There are top many instances of such
abuse to allow an attitude of complacency
and indifference to the possibilities of im-
provement in administrative procedure.
At the same time we must not lose sight
of the fact that the various regulatory agen-
cies and commissions were created to carry
out certain broad public policies established
by the Congress. In so doing, they perform
functions which are both legislative and ju-
dicial by nature. The very existence of these
administrative bodies means that neither the
Congress nor the courts could undertake by
themselves .to make all the rules and deci-
sions implicit in Government regulatory ac-
tion in modern industrial society.
The drift of the Commission recommenda-
tions is to "judicialize" procedures in the
administrative agencies as much as possible
and to go even further by breaking off some
judicial-type functions and placing them in
an administrative court. To the extent
that the proposed changes in administrative
procedure seek a basic shift of administra-
tive power to the courts or offer loopholes
for thwarting agency action in carrying out
congressional policies, I must record my
objections.
Furthermore, I am opposed to the estab-
lishment of an Administrative Court which
would include Trade and Labor Sections as
well as a Tax Section. There may be good
grounds for makin'; the Tax Court a part
of the judiciary, although' this would in-
volve additional organizational problems rel-
ative to the Court of Claims and the district
courts. However, I see no point in consti-
tuting the Tax Court as a Section of the
Administrative Court. The functions of the
Tax Court are sufficiently specialized to war-
rant separate treatment.
The proposed transfer to an administra-
tive court of certain quasi-judicial functions
affecting trade and labor matters raises a
host of organizational problems involving
both the judicial and executive branches of
the Government. '
What functions would be transferred and
What would remain with the administrative
agencies? flow would the statutory re-
sponsibilities of the agency heads be af-
fected? Can some adjudicatory functions
be conveniently separated from others and
from a given complex of regulatory functions
without jeopardizing the execution of con-
gressional policies? What internal agency
reorganizations would be required?
What status and functions would the ad-
rninistrativg court have relative to,tl;e estab-
lished district and circuit courts? This is
a particularly important question since it
is not known whether the Commission in-
tends, the administrative court to have origi-
nal or appellate jurisdiction. Is it not true
that a large number of. judges _ would be
required to, pass upon the complex subject
matters to? come before the proposed new
court? Would they enjoy lifetime appoint-
ments as do other Federal judges despite
He>IaF'IZtn
Cc'em Ssie:ner.
AppzNnnc A
This Commission has had the services of
a task force, consultants, anc assists me of
the most distinguished order.. They v :ere.
.CHAIRMAN
James Marsh Douglas, St. Louis, Mo. Lc.w-
yer; formerly chief justice Supreme Court
of Missouri; chairman, Judicial Cons ere.ce
of Missouri; chairman, App(slate J idtrial
Commission of Missouri; lac urcr, .eds. al
jurisprudence, Washington U>dversitl M-d-
ical School; chairman of the board of Wa,4h-
ington University.
` MEMBERS
Herbert Watson Clark, Ste Pc-8 icit',,o.
Calif.: Lawyer; formerly specs 1 assist ant to
United States Attorney General; chi rm us.
Committee of Bar Examiners; State o, CapIi-
fornia; member,'American Law Insti ute
Cody Fowler, Tampa, Fla.: Lawye ; f.~r-
merly president. American Bar Associati.-?n;
member American Law Institrte; An:erioan
Judicature Society.
Albert J. Harno, Urbana, 111. - Lawyc ; ; f sr-
merly president," Association tmerica I I,xw
Schools; president, Nations Coos erer*ce
Commissioners on Uniform Site Lau.; now
dean, College of Law, Univers ty of I linois;
chairman, board of directors, 1 mericar Ju,li-
cature Society.
James McCauley Landis, Ne-v York, N. `t.:
Lawyer; formerly with United Sates I.epa t-
ment of Labor; member, Feder it 'frail.: Coin.
mission; Chairman, Securities and Ex hange
Commission; dean, Harvard Law ::chcol;
Chairman, Civil Aeronautics B )ard; m emt'er,
Commission on Uniform Statc Laws. 'dasa-
chusetts; consultant to Advisory Cc urn ;s-
sion, Council of National De `sense, : nd to
War Department.
Carl McFarland, Missoula, ), ont.: Iawyer;
formerly assistant to Attorn-y General of
the United States; member of variou com-
missions and committees cc oeernec. w th
legal procedures; now president,, M mtr.aa
State University.
Ross L. Malone, Jr., Roswell, N. Mex Lc w-
yer; formerly city attorney, Rc .well, N Me s.;
Deputy Attorney General of rnited ;tat es;
trustee, Southwestern Legal Fr undati. gyn.
David F. Maxwell, Philadelp ria, Pa.: Ls'w-
yer; member, Pennsylvania rid An eriran
Bar Associations (chairman, :souse o: dtle-
gates, 1952-53).
Harold R. Medina, New York N. Y.; lud. e;
judge, United States District =.:ourt. ;ou-h-
ern District of New York; nor; judge of she
Court of Appeals for Second 15rcuft.
David W. Peck, New York, N. Y.' rude:
presiding justice, Appellate ;.)ivision, Furst
Department, Supreme Court os New Y rk.
Reginal Heber Bmith, Bostc ,,Mass. Lr w-
yer; member and vice press rent, N .tio:sal
Legal Aid Association; assistant ed for of
the Journal of the American B ar Assoc ati n,
and director, survey of legal profess on in
America for American Bar As ociation.
E. Blythe Stason, Ann Arbo , Mich. L:.w-
yet; formerly Michigan Comm ssioner n `r>a-
tional Conference on Uniforr i State Laws;
member, Michigan Constitu?.ion R vie on
Study Committee; now dean,-\fichigs I Uni-
versity Law School.
Elbert Parr Tuttle, Atlanti . C.a. ~ rud :e;
formerly General Counsel for the Tf eas ry
Department; now judge of thf United Ste a:e*
Court of Appeals, Fifth Cb cult; I 'use ee,
Cornell University and Atlant, Unive: sits .
Edward Ledwidge Wright, Little Rc ;k,
Ark.: Lawyer; served on Natia :al Con ere ice
of Commissioners on Uniform State La;vs;
!~ z
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2~
 Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
5096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
American Law Institute; American Judica-
ture Society; trustee. Southwestern Legal
Foundation; International Association of
Insurance Counsel.
CONSULTANTS
Robert H. Jackson, Washington, I). C.:
Judge; after 20 years of private practice, ap-
pointed General Counsel, Bureau of Internal
Revenue; became successively Assistant At-
torney General, Solicitor General, and At-
torney General of the United States; ap-
pointed Associate Justice of United States
Supreme Court in 1941; named chief of
counsel for the United States to conduct
prosecution of trials of European Axis war
criminals (deceased, October 9,.1954).
George Roberts, New York, N. Y.: Lawyer;
formerly special counsel to Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, and member of Secre-
tary of War's Advisory Board.
Arthur T. Vanderbilt, Newark, N. J.: ,;fudge;
formerly dean of New York University Law
School; judge, circuit court, New Jersey; now
chief justice of the Supreme Court of New
Jersey.
STAFF DIRECTOR.
Whitney R. Harris, Chicago, Ill.: Lawyer;
formerly professor of administrative law,
Southern Methodist University; chairman,
Texas State Bar Administrative Law Com-
mittee; member of council, section of ad-
ministrative law, American Bar Association;
Chief, Legal Advice Branch, Military Govern-
ment for Germany; member, California,
Texas, and American Bar Associations; now
executive director of American Bar Associa-
tion.
RESEARCH DLIECTOR
Courts Oulahan, Cleveland, Ohio: Law-
yer; member, Federal Communications Com-
mission Bar, American, Federal, and D. C.
Bar Associations.
From the New York Herald Tribune of April
12, 1955]
GOVERNMENT AND THE LAW
The Hoover Commission :report on legal
services and procedure faces up to one of the
knottiest problems created by the vast ex-
pansion of Government in recent years. This
is administrative law-a body of regulations
which have virtually the force of law and
which are drawn up and enforced by execu-
tive agencies.
The Hoover Commission itself is divided
on some of the recommendations of the task
force which considered this difficult subject.
Half of the members, including Mr. Hoover,
the Chairman, did not vote for a series of
proposed amendments to the Administrative
Procedure Act, but believed they should be
included in the report because of the im-
portance of the issues and the eminence of
the task force. However, the major recom-
mendation of the task force in this field, the
creation of a new administrative court, won
the support of all but 2 of the 12 members
of the commission.
The general principle behind the task-
force proposals is the fundamental one of
separation of powers. The agencies often
draft regulations (a legislative function),
prosecute offenders (an executive tas'.a), as
well as determine guilt and impose penal-
ties, which is a judicial process. The com-
mission suggests that wherever practicable
the judicial operations be ,separated from
the other phases of administrative work, by
turning some of them over to the regular
courts and by establishing an administrative
court which will deal with tax matters, ques-
tions of trade regulation, and the adjudica-
tion of cases involving unfair labor practices.
At present the subjects wh.Cli would come
ithin the jurisdiction of the admin.istra-
ive court are divided among a number of
agencies, Including the Tax Court and the
National Labor Relation.; Board. To define
the powers of the new court would require
major changes in. many laws; it may be chal-
lenged on the ground that judicial func-
tions now are exercised by specialists, familiar
with their respective complex fields, and
that a court of broader scope might slow
down and hinder the regulatory and adminis.
trative labors of the various agencies. But
the recommendation for the court includes
specialized sections, and the agencies are al-
ready slow in reaching quasi-judicial deci-
sions.
The project of an administrative court is
worth the most careful consideration of Con-
gress. It may not solve all of the problems
posed by the growth of administrative law.
It does promise to keep that law in closer
touch with the fundamental principles of
the Constitution and of American jurispru-
dence.
[From the New York Times of April 14, 1955]
ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS
The report of the Hoover Commission on
the legal and judicial activities of Federal
administrative agencies raises an issue that
goes to the roots of our Constitution and
form of government. It also offers a chal-
lenging program by which the issue may be
met. The report is based on a searching in-
vestigation by a distinguished task force,
learned in the law, under the chairmanship
of James Marsh :Douglas, formerly chief jus-
tices of the Missouri Supreme Court.
The problem with which the Commission
deals Involves the 50 agencies of the Federal
executive department which have come Into
being as the powers of the Government to
regulate our economic and political life have
grown, such as the Federal Trade Commis-
sion, the Interstate Commerce Commission.
the Civil Aeronautics Board, and the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board.
For the most part these Boards and Com-
missions not only Investigate alleged viola-
tions of the law:: with which they are con-
cerned-and of their own rules and regula-
tions-but they have power to pass judgment
on those they believe to be transgressors.
As the Hoover Commission points out, they
often act "as judge, jury, defense, and prose-
cuting attorney" in the same case-as If a
police department had the power to try and
to sentence those. they arrest.
A good deal of flexibility was probably jus-
ti:ied in the early life of these agencies as
rules and their - interpretations gradually
emerged from the everyday business of car-
rying out broad congressional directives. But
it has become increasingly clear that those
who decide such cases are subject to under-
standable pressure to justify the orders and
rulings of their own employees--a pressure
which runs counter to the public interest.
In fact, the Commission is convinced that the
public now need:, greater protection against
abuses of ;power and arbitrary bureaucratic
action. Moreover, the increasing exercise
of judicial powers by executive agencies vio.
lates the principle of the separation of powers
on which this Government Is based.
By far the most important proposal in the
Commission's exhaustive and detailed re-
port--endorsed by 9 out of its 12 members
including Attorney General Brownell-
urges the establishment by Congress of 3 new
courts to hear and decide cases arising from
orders of the various administrative agencies
in the fields respectively of taxation, trade,
and labor relatiofffi. The essence of this pro-
posal is the complete independence of these
courts from supervision or control by the
Executive branch of the Government. No
longer would those who pass judgment in
such cases be beholden to the agencies in-
volved, any more than is the judge who sits
in any existing Federal court.
It seems strange, however, that the Com-
mission failed to propose a court to take over
the judicial functions now being performed
by the Immigra4don Service. When aliens
May 14
are held for alleged violations of the immi-
gration laws hearings are conducted by em-
ployees of the Service and appeals from their
decision go before a board appointed by, and
responsible to the Attorney General, in
whose department the Service operates.
The proposals of the Hoover Commission
may be faulty in details-and the details are
multitudinous- but the administrative
court idea raises an issue of deep import to
the American people and at a time when the
Executive arm of the Government increas-
ingly elbows its way into our private and
business affairs. It deserves the widest pos-
sible discussion-and prompt action, if no
serious objections can be found.
[From the Washington Daily News of April
11, 19551
IN THE LEGAL MAZE
Many of the new Hoover Commission rec-
ommendations for improving the Govern-
ment's scattered and often confusing legal
services are logical and clear.
The legal-and legalistic-ways of doing
things here in Washington are frequently
out of hand and overlapping, and need a
close and careful look by Congress. A chart
of Government legal procedure looks more
like Rube Goldberg than Blackstone.
The biggest change recommended is an
administrative court to handle tax matters,
trade regulation cases, and unfair labor prac-
tices. These now are handled by boards,
commissions, and executive departments.
In a similar field, the report suggests re-
placing hearing examiners with hearing com-
missioners completely independent from the
agencies whose cases they consider.
And the Commission urges an oven-all
Independent Federal legal career service, in-
telligently recruited, well trained and super-
vised, and adequately paid.
The report contains several fuzzy recom-
mendations.
One (No. 47), limiting agency publicity,
could be interpreted as a muzzle on Federal
agencies as well as a real barrier to the
people's right to know.
At its best, it might safeguard a citizen
from governmental name-calling, but it also
could cover Important cases with impenetra-
ble secrecy.
. Another possible sleeper is the recommend-
ation (No. 29) that Federal agencies give up
jurisdiction to State agencies "which meet
reasonable standards of regulation."
In most cases, there never would have
been any Federal regulation in the first place
unless State bodies had been inadequate.
The final decision, of course, is up to Con-
gress. Excellent as most Hoover Commission
reports have been, there is no reason to
swallow them whole.
[From the Wall Street: Journal of April 12,
1955]
THE BADGE, THE HAT, AND THE ROBE
When a detective goes on a case and the
evidence he turns up convinces him that the
man he is investigating is guilty, the detec-
tive will be certain to let the prosecutor
know what he thinks.
But the prosecutor, if he is a fair one.
will not take just the detective's opinion.
He will want to look at all the evidence. If
he thinks there are grounds to believe that
the accused is guilty, the prosecutor may be
expected to present vigorously the evidence
against the man and it is likely that the
detective will appear as a witness.
But the judge-or the jury--must also be
convinced of the man's guilt or he will go
free.
All of these steps are safeguards in the law
or the Constitution to protect a suspected
person from arbitrary arrest and precon-
ceived prejudgment. It is not hard to
imagine how injustice could flourish if the
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
 CONG1 ESSO tAL IMCOR]
d8teotiye: were firmly convlnced of the man's
guilt and the detective, the prosecutor, and
the judge were all the very same man.
Yet that situation exists right now in
many of the Government agencies empow
ered to regulate business and commerce.
The Federal Trade Commission, for Instance,
puts on a detective's badge to investigate
charges against a company of unfair com-
petition; then it puts on the prosecutor's hat
and issues a complaint and holds hearings;
finally it dons the judge's robes and if the
five-man commission decides the company
is guilty it can order it to cease those prac-
tices.
The company, of course, has the right of
appeal to a Federal court of appeals, but in
many cases it is a long and costly process
and burdensome to the accused, to the
agency, and to the courts.
The Hoover Commission now has proposed
that Congress remove from some 50 Govern-
ment agencies the right to judgment on evi-
dence the agencies themselves have gath-
ered. The Commission's advice is for Con-
gress to create a Federal Administrative
Court to handle the judicial powers the agen-
cies now possess. "There can be no effective
protection of private rights unless there is a
complete separation of the prosecuting func-
tions from the functions of decision."
It would be difficult to dispute that `view.
But whether the creation of more' spe-
cialized courts is the best answer will cer-
tainly be questioned In Congress; presum-
ably either of the litigants may appeal the
decision of the proposed court to higher ones
and it Is not at all, certain that the crowded
dockets will be relieved of tax, labor and
trade disputes as the floovei Commission
suggests the result of its proposal will 'be.
There may be other and better ways than
the Hoover Commission proposes to reduce
the powers of bureaucracies. Congress, for
all we know, may some daydecide that some
of these agencies should never have been cre-
ated and that none of them should have
been granted such broad powers.
But what is certain is that there is great
.danger where any man or any agency has
power to wear the badge, the hat, and the
robe.
CITIZENS COMMITTEE
Fos THE HOOVEa REPORT,
Washington, P. C., May 6, 11)55.
I am sending you our 2-week roundup of
editorial opinion on the legal services and
procedure report. Most of the favorable
opinion (6 papers with a circulation of
8,506,174) was with respect to the adminis-
'trative court. The six ,.papers were:
PAPER, DATE, AND CIRCITLATION
Dallas (Tex.) News, April 12, 183,583.
Detroit (Mich.) Free Press, April 12, 413,624.
Newark (N. J.) Star Ledger, April 12, 192,-
699.
New York Daily News, April 17, 2,251,430.
New York, Herald Tribune, April 12, 328,892.
Rochester (N. Y.) Times Union, April 12,
.115,946.
As for the informational and reserved edi-
torials, the New York Times was in that cate-
gory only because they felt an immigration
section should be included, The Chicago,
Dallas, and New York Wall Street Journals
(total circulation 218,701) recognized the
need for separating the judicial function
-from executive agencies. However; they are
"riot convinced that tha administrative court
is the best solution.
"There may be other and better ways than
the Hoover Commission proposes to reduce
the powers of bureaucracies. Congress, for
a11 we know, may some day decide that some
of these agencies should never have` been
created and that. Gone of them should have
been granted such broad powers."
Since the time of the i-week roundup we
have received a few more editorials. I have
not yet been able in review them all. How-
ever, this is a summary of the larger papers:
Cincinnati (Ohio) Enquirer (circulation
194,369): Favorable with respect to the ad-
ministrative court.
Youngstown (Ohio) Vindicator (circula-
tion 94,375) : Favorable.
San Diego (Calif.) Union (circulation 65.-
219) : Generally favorable.
Fort Worth (Tex.) Star-Telegram (circu-
lation 114,857) : Generally favorable.
When we have the more complete 6-week
roundup, we will send you a copy. Please
let me know if you require any other infor-
mation.
Sincerely yours,
GILLIAN WAI.D KAY,
Assistant Director of Research.
Arlux 25, 1955.
In the first 2 weeks after the Commission's
report on legal services we reviewed 21 edi-
torials.
Of these, 9 (total circulation 3,930,821)
were favorable; 12 (total circulation 2,217,-
878) were reserved or informational.
It will be noticed that most of the positive
comments single out the administrative
court. This recommendation received some
comment in all the editorials.
Sample quotes are attached.
LILI.l4N WALD KAY,
Assistant Director of Research, Citizens
Committee for the, Hoover Report.
SAMPLE QVOTES
Favorable
Baltimore (Md.,), Sun (circulation 178,676) :
"But the Government in Its new role of man-
ager wants (like ail managers) as little out-
side Interference as ,possible with its
exercise ox discretionary authority The old-
fashioned_ private tycoon hated Government
in business; the new-fashioned Government
expert resists interference from any other
branch of-Goverrmient. lie especially doesn't
want interference from the courts. What,
he asks (sometimes scornfully), can a judge
know about the precise, technieal field where
he operates? He is an expert and, by defini-
tion, no judge can be such an expert."
Indiana rolls ,(Ind.) Star (circulation
196,M2):
"It will be recognized that these recom-
mendations hit at some of the means by
'which bureaucratic Government harasses
business, industry, and citizens as indi-
viduals.
"* * * The report contains potential dyna-
mite. It lays open the proesses by which
bureaucracy operates."
Favorable with respect to the administrative
court
Dallas (Tex.) News (circulation 183,583) :
"It is unlikely that the recommendation
will be translated into law without a fight.
Federal agencies that have become little
laws unto themselves will not be persuaded
to give up sovereignty. But for the general
good it is to be hoped that this reform is
accomplished.
" * *;But it is a sound point in Govern-
Inent that the fir-al disposition of what are
essentially law cases ought to be left to a
court of law."
Detroit (Mich.) Free Press (circulation
433,624) :
"ouch infringements of the executive upon
the judicial powers can be dangerous; if
they are allowed to become too common or
too extensive, the individual citizen's con-
stitutional rights would_ be in jeopardy.
"The Hoover Commission, by looking at
this question, has struck upon a serious
problem. It is not one which the Commis-
sion or anyone else is going to solve easily
or quicklyy, but It is a good thing to have
public attention centered 'upon It.,.
5(97
EX'ItN ON OF Rt'JARIt
By unanimous consent, >)ermis for to
extend remarks in the Ap>endix of he
RECORD, or to revise and ex end re narks.
was granted to :
Mrs. KEE and to include extr ne rus
matter.
Mr. FLOOD in. three instances and to
include in one a statement in sup=kor of
a resolution to establish a f,)reign ,en ice
academy.
Mr. PRICE, to revise and ' xtend Is re-
marks made in committee nd to acl ide
a statistical table.
Mr. FOGARTY in three inf';ances =anu to
include newspaper articles.
Mr. BOLAND (at the rc-ruest )f :fir
FOGARTY) and to include A. neu ipaper
article.
Mr. KLUczYNsrii and to Iiciude t rt so-
lution.
Mr. CARNAHAN and to include e) tra ne-
ous matter.
Mr. WILLIE.
Mr. THOrvMPSON of Louisis : a (at he re-
quest of Mr. WILLIS) in 'wo in tar ce.
and to include extraneous- matte
Mr. CURTIS of Missouri, n the E -od: o
the RECORD, and also to inc lode tv o a rti?
Qles; also In the Appendi- and nclude
extraneous matter.
Mr. SPRINGER in two insances ant to
Include articles.
Mr. JOHNSON of Californii, his r!mi rk:
on the Hawaii-Alaska statehood b 11; ino
include certain tables al d exti ant ou::
matter; also to extend his 4 em.ark . in thee
Appendix of the RECORD a: A inch tde ex-
traneous matter.
Mrs. FRANCIS P. BOLTON.
Mrs. ST. GEORGE (at the: request of Mr
MARTIN).
Mr. MASVEK and to ine"ude a res )lu
tion.
Mr. FoRAND.
Mr. LESINsxi in two instances.
Mr. LONG.
Mr. DAVIS of Georgia find to inc ude
extraneous matter in cQ mecticn wit)i
remarks made in Comr tutee of th-
Whole.
Mr. ENGLE and to inclu le ext an 'ou'
matter.
Mr. ROOSEVELT in two in ;taneci and to
Include extraneous matter.
Mr. FLOOD (at the rt quest of Mr.
ROOSEVELT) in one instal ce an( to in-
Mr. DAWSON of Utah.
elude extraneous matter.
Mr. EDMONDSON and to ncludi exe,ra-
neous matter.
Mr. O'NEILL and to include ext an?~ous
matter.
Mr. LANE in four instar e s an; to in-
clude extraneous matter.
Mr. COOLEY in two ins arice' an i I. P
include extraneous matter
Mr. HEBERT in three in. tanccs anti t: s
include extraneous matter
Mr. MACK of Illinois end to include
extraneous matter.
Mr. CELLER in four int mnces an i t.o
include extraneous matte .
Mr. KELLEY of Pennsyi' ania_
Mr. RooNty in two instances an-i to
include extraneous matte
Mr. HAGEN in five instaices an I to in-
elude extraneous matter.
Mr. DAVIDSON in two in lane,' and if)
include extraneous matte
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2
 5098
Approved For Release 2000/08/25 : CIA-RDP59-09224A000100600007-;
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOIJ SE
Mr. FULTON and to include extraneous
matter.
Mr, VAN ZANDT and to include extrane-
ous matter.
Mr. FORD and to include extraneous
matter.
Mr. BYRNES of Wisconsin (at the re-
quest of Mr. FORD) and to include extra-
neous matter.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN in two instances
and to include extraneous matter.
Mr. BENTLEY in three instances and to
include extraneous matter.
Mr. VAN PELT in two instances and to
Include a resolution.
Mr. MCDoNovGI in four instances.
Mr. DIXON in three instances and to
include extraneous matter.
Mr. VELDE and to include extraneous
matter.
Mr. SADLAI., and to include an editorial.
Mr. SAYLOR to revise and extend re-
marks he made in Committee of the
Whole and to include extraneous matter
therewith.
Mr. BURNSIDE.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent leave of. ab-
sence was granted to Mr. KEOGH (at the
request of Mr. ILEIN), for the balance
of the day, on, account of official busi-
ness.
SENATE BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTION REFERRED
Bills and a joint resolution of the Sen-
ate of the following titles were taken
from the Speaker's table and, under the
rule, referred as follows:
S. 265. An act to amend the acts authoriz-
ing agricultural entries under the non-
mineral land laws, of certain mineral lands
In order to increase the limitation with re-
spect to desert. entries made under such acts
to 320 acres; to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.
8,.614. An act to amend the Federal Prop-
erty and Administrative Services Act of
1949, as amended, to authorize the Admin-
istrator of General Services to donate cer-
tain property to the American National Red
Cross; to the Committee on Government
Operations.
S. 748. An act to prohibit the United
States from acquiring mineral interests in
lands acquired by it except when necessary
'to serve the purpose for which such lands
are acquired; to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.'
S. 824. An act to authorize and direct the
Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
lands erroneously conveyed to the United
States; to the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs.
8. 1007. An act to amend the Federal Prop-
erty and Administrative Services Act of
1949, as amended,, and for other, purposes;
to the Committee on Government Opera-
tions.
S. 1133. An act, to authorize the Secretary
of Agriculture to pay indemnity for losses
and expenses incurred during July 1954 in
the destruction, treatment, or processing,
under authority of law, of swine, swine car-
casses, and products derived from (Swine car-
casses, infected witls vesicular exanthema;
to the Committee on Agriculture,
S. 1650, An act to authorize the Territory
of Alaska to obtain advances from the Fed-
eral Unemployment Act, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Interior and In-
sular Affairs.
S. J. Res. 38. Joint resolution consenting
to an interstate compact to'conserve oil and
gas; to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. McCORMACK. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accord-
ingly (at 6 o'clock and 34 minutes p. m.)
the House adjourned until tomorrow,
Wednesday, May 11, 1955, at 12 o'clock
noon. -
EXECUTIVE co1\ MUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, executive
communications were taken from the
Speaker's table and referred as follows:
783. A letter from the Administrator, Gen-
eral Services Administration, transmittting a
report on contracts negotiated under section
302 (c) (10) (luring the 6-month period end-
ing December 31, 1954, pursuant to Public
Law 152, 81st Congress, as amended; to the
Committee on Government Operations.
784. A letter from the Acing Secretary of
Commerce, transmitting a draft of proposed
legislation entitled, "To aTend the act of
March 3, 1901 (31 8tat. 1449), as amended,
to incorporate in the organic act of the Na-
tional Bureau of Standards the authority to
use the working capital fund, and to permit
certain improvements in fiscal practices";
to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce.
REPORTS OF CC *VIMIT EES ON PUB-
LIC BILLS AND RE OLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule III, reports of
committees were delivered to the Clerk
for printing and reference to the proper
calendar, as follows:
Mr. BONNER: Committee on Merchant
Marine and.Fisheries. H. R. 3399. A bill to
lower the age requirements with respect to
optional retirement of persons serving in the
Coast Guard who served in the former Light-
house Service; without amendment (Rept.
No. 570). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BONNER: Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries. H. R. 5224. A bill to
amend title 14, United States Code, entitled
"Coast Guard," to authorize certain early
discharges of enlisted personnel; with an
amendment (Rept. No. 571). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union.
Mr. BONNER: Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries. H. R. 5875. A bill to
amend title 14. United States Code, entitled
"Coast Guard," for the purpose of providing
involuntary retirement of certain officers, and
for other purposes; with - an amendment
(Rept. No. 572). Referred to the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the
Union.
Mr. FRAZIER: Committee on the Ju-
diciary. H. R. 3786. A bill to authorize the
incorporation of Arpy and Navy Legion of
Valor of United States of America; without
amendment (Rept. No. 573). Referred to
the House Calendar.
Mr. FR.AZIER: Committee on the Judi-
ciary. H. R. 3813. A bill to amend the act
into oratin the American Legion so as
to refine eligibility for membership there-
in; without amendment (Rept. No. 574).
Referred to tine House Calendar.
Mr,, FRAZT iR: Committee on the Judi-
ciary. H. R. .4754. A bill to redefine eligi-
bility for membership in AMVETS (Amer-
ican Veterans of World War II) ; without
Ma
amendment (Rept. No,, 573). Rcf rr I
the Rouse Calendar.
Mr. I'RAZIER: Comn ttee n tl;e Judi-
ciary. S. 734. An act to anti on tits 18,
United States Code, see ion 871., tc provide
penalties for threats ag. inst Lh , P esi, e_at:-
elect and the Vice Presid, et; wit tou an.enei-
ment (Hept. No. 578). f eferred to file .om-
mittee of the Whole HC:lse on he Stt .e .,
the Union.
Mr. FRAZIER: Comn ittee a i t to luc?i_
ciary. H. R. 4791. A b tl to ar term. seetion
40 of the Bankruptcy A A. so a to inaaease
salaries for part-time and it 11-t me ref-
erees; with an amendm nt (lie it. :To. 791.
Referred to the Committee o; tie 117)cie
House in the State of tj e Uniul .
Mr. VZNSON: Commit tee on lrn ed Serv-
Ices. H. R. 6057. A bi 1 to in thee e tenci
the authority to requite the r )ec at egis-
tration. classification, a---d indu .tio o r.
tain medical, dental, tnd aid 'd -pe(,.list-
categories; to provide f )r the on: inu atior,
of special pay for physcians. a:enusts, ana
veterinarians, and for o lice pi% poses; vit l-
out amendment (Rept. No. 58(). Referred
to the Committee of t se Wlic'e llou's on
the State of the Union,
Mr. t)'NItILL: Committee on t ulna. ::louse
Resolution: 241. Resolu,fon wt ivir g poi it,;
of order against H. R. 3042, a bil' ro,kind:
appropriations for the Depart; sent: o De-
fense for 'the fiscal yf tr on di ig fur : :o,
1956, ai,d for other purpa e_,: wit tout. arrtccci.
ment (Rept. No. 581). 1 .eferred tot tie lotcso
Calendar.
REPORTS OF COMT I T T E , I S ON PRI-
VATE .?ILLS ANI2. RES80 aU' "IO i'TS
Under clause 2 of rile XIL rt poi is of
committees were deli:. ered t.i the ? lc_rl
for printing and refel nice s.c- th- p op=,1'
calendar, as follows:
Mr. Fr^,IGIIAN; Corrrf uttee (n tie Judi-
ciary. S. 128. An act f. =r the r' lief of i an..
cis Bertram, Brennan; ' Without air enc in :rt;
(Rept. No 556). Refers +d to tl-a C,,mr.fittee
of the Whole House.
Mr. II`EIGHAN: Comr ?t.ee c n tae r.-.?i-
ciary. S. 143. An act f tr the i 'lie of Kurt;
Glaser; without amends ent (Rapt, No 557).
Referred to the Committee o 1,1 e ,Vaaole
House.
Mr. FEIGHAN: Corns cit.tee c n toe ficl-
cfary. S. 163. An act f?ar the . he' o% l}i:f
lopimin Michalacopoulo i Milli akt?port toe I -
without amendment (1 ept. N(, 51'8). Re-
ferred to the Committee of the `- Vhce Louse.
Mr. I iGHAN: Comr titlee c q tie -frtra-
ciary. S. 271. An act f r the i :lie:: of June
Rose McHenry; without amend iien:t t t2[3tit.
No. 559+. Referred tote Conu.aittee of the
Whole House.
Mr. FEIGHAN: Comr it tee c i tie + + :-
cfary. S: 386. An act f,r the r ?liei of San-
dta Lea MacMullin; 'i ithout amencimrti,
(Rept. No. 560). Referr d to the Crmv'ittn:r
of the Whole House.
Mr. VEIGHAN: Comrrittee e 1 t it "dl-
clary. S. 409. An act f r the r-1ie of In-rn
Krarup: without amend:rnt (R- pt. No 561 1
Referred to the Conim:ttee o, tbs `.wt,-
House,
Mr. FEIGHAN: Comp-ittee o 1 t to Judi-
ciary. S. 416. An act ft r the r( aef of .Anas-
tasia Alexiadou; withou truer.( merit r ddet't
No. 562). Referred to We Coma aitt e c t cl:.e
Whole House.
Mr. FEIGHAN: Committee 0 a t to iudi-
ciary. 5.891. An act ft :r the r lief of C'ha-
kichi Iraha; without alI,ndauer t (Jeep - No.
503.) Referred to the. Cumin Stet cat ite
Whole house,
Mr. FEIGHAN: CornO it Lee o i t, to ,udi-
ciary, Senate Concurrent Resolution. 17.
Concurrent resolution f .v:.rini the su peii-
sion of deportation of_ ertaia sli?fas: w't.h
an amendment (Rept. 14 o. 564) . Refer., eii u
Approved For Release 2000/08/25: CIA-RDP59-00224A000100600007-2