24 A.B.A. J. 267 (1938)
The Place of the Administrative Tribunal in Our Legal System

handle is hein.journals/abaj24 and id is 293 raw text is: THE PLACE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Nature and Functions of Administrative Tribunals-Nothing New in Their Development but
the Significant Fact of Today Is the Velocity of That Development-Constitutional and Prac-
tical Objections to This Union of Executive, Legislative and Judicial Powers-Doctrine of
Separation of Powers not a Mere Technical Abstraction but a Constitutional Principle Based
on Historic Struggle and Express Provisions-How Far the Legislature Can Go in Delegating
Functions-Exercise of Judicial Powers by Administrators and Certain Safeguards Which
Are Imperatively Demanded-More Administration Needed in Courts of Justice and More of
the Fundamental Principles of Justice in Administrative Tribunals*
President of the Anmerican Bar Association

DMINISTRATIVE LAW               in common law coun-
tries has developed in an atmosphere of contro-
versy. Thus, in 1885 Professor A. V. Dicey,
who for many years dominated English thought on con-
stitutional law, sought to snuff it out by denying its
very existence:
In England, and in countries which, like the United
States, derive their civilization from English sources, the
system of administrative law and the very principles upon
which it rests are in truth unknown.
This denial he persisted in through the eighth edi-
tion of his Law on the Constitution, published in
1915, despite the decision in Board of Education v.
Rice' in 1911. Local Government Board v. Arlidge2
in 1915 forced him to capitulate; even Dicey recognized
the futility of arguing against the House of Lords. His
regretful surrender is set forth in the Law Quarterly
Review in an article entitled, significantly, The De-
velopment of Administrative Law in England.'
But if Dicey was willing to surrender, there were
many of his followers among English lawyers and
judges who were not. As late as 1929 Lord Hewart
of Bury, the Lord Chief Justice of England, left the
Bench, to quote Professor Frankfurter, to break a
lance for the pristine purity of Dicey's Rule of Law.'
It was the Lord Chief Justice's belief that someone in
high position owed a duty to the people to tell them
precisely what was going on. Accordingly, he out-
lined, with unrestrained vigor, his conception of the
aims of the modern bureadcrat:
(a) get legislation passed in skeleton form (b) fill
up the gaps with his own rules, orders, and regulations,
*Address delivered at the Cincinnati Conference on Func-
tions and Procedure of Administrative Tribunals, held in Cin-
cinnati on March 5, 1938. This Conference was the fourth in a
series organized by the Cincinnati Bar Association under the
auspices of the Ohio State Bar Association.
1. (1911) A. C. 179.
2. (1915) A. C. 120.
3. (1915) 31 L. Q. Rev. 148.
4. Hewart, The New Despotism (1929).

(c) make it difficult or impossible for Parliament to check
the said rules, orders and regulations, (d) secure for them
the force of statute, (e) make his own decision final, (f)
arrange that the fact of his decision shall be conclusive
proof of its legality, (g) take power to modify the provi-
sions of statutes, and (h) prevent and avoid any sort of
appeal to a Court of Law.
If'the expert can get rid of the Lord Chancellor, re-
duce the Judges to a branch of the Civil Service, compel
them to give opinions beforehand on hypothetical cases, and
appoint them himself through a business man to be called
'Minister of Justice,' the coping-stone will be laid and the
music will be the fuller.'
His action forced Lord Chancellor Sankey to ap-
point his Committee on Ministers' Powers. The Com-
mittee's report, an outstanding state paper, submitted
three years later, has been tersely summarized by
Professor C. T. Carr:
The verdict was 'not guilty, but be careful another
The distinguished Committee itself said:
We say deliberately there is no ground for public
fear, if the right precautions are taken.'
It then proceeded to give six pages of detailed
recommendations in regard to delegated legislation,' and
nearly four more pages of recommendations in regard
to judicial and quasi-judicial decisions-most of which
are still disregarded.'
On the other hand, in this country a new knight
has entered the lists in favor of Administrative Law in
the person of James M. Landis, Dean of the Harvard
Law School, and until recently the distinguished chair-
man of the Securities Exchange Commission.       His
point of view is indicated in a recent article, in which
he writes:
The continuity of the common man's radio programs,
the security of his bank deposits, his protection against un-
fair discrimination in employment, his right to have light
and power at reasonable rates, his protection against fraud
and chicanery in our securities markets, his right to cheap
railroad travel-to mention only a few of the necessities of
5.  id. at 14.
6. (1935) 51 L. Q. Rev. 61.
7. (1932) C. M. D. 4060 at 7.
8. id. 64-70.
9.  id. 115-118.

What Is HeinOnline?

With comprehensive coverage of government documents and more than 2,400 journals from inception on hundreds of subjects such as political science, criminal justice, and human rights, HeinOnline is an affordable option for colleges and universities. Documents have the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?