About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

12 N.Y.U. L. Q. Rev. 601 (1934-1935)
Is the Test of the Reasonableness of an Administrative Determination Subjective or Objective

handle is hein.journals/nylr12 and id is 611 raw text is: IS THE TEST OF THE REASONABLENESS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE? FORREST REVERE BLACK THE problem for discussion grows out of the following in- teresting factual situation. Under the Sugar Act Amendment' to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Secretary of Agriculture fixed a quota for Hawaiian sugar producers. At the time the quota was promulgated, it is alleged that the Secretary of Agriculture did not have at his disposal complete and satisfactory economic data, but after the quota had been announced, economic advisers in the De- partment of Agriculture prepared an ex post facto justification of the figures previously determined. The specific question to be answered might be formulated as follows: Is it proper to admit evidence showing the raw materials, i.e., data and information upon which the Secretary of Agriculture acted, or is the test of the reason- ableness of the administrative determination to be objective? There is omitted from this discussion any consideration of the questions (a) whether the documents in the hands of the Secretaiy of Agri- culture at the time of making the administrative determination were privileged, or (b) whether their production would be incom- patible with the public interest. On October 22, 1934, in the case of Ewa Plantation v. Wal- lace,' the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upheld the Jones-Costigan Act in so far as it applied to the Hawaiian sugar quota and refused to permit the introduction of evidence to show the mental processes or the controlling influences responsible for the determination by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Supreme Court of the United States will not have an opportunity to pass on this interesting question for the reason that a compromise has been reached and the Ewa Plantation has had its appeal dismissed. FoRR~sr RxER BrAc= is the Chief Attorney for the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, and a Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky. He is the author of At What Stage May a Licensee Seek Equitable Relief Undor the Agricul- tural Adjustment Act? (1935) 12 N. Y. U. LAw Qu.nRILY RLrmw 354; and of numerous other law review articles. 'Jones-Costigan Act, 48 ST.n. 670, 7 U. S. C. A. § 608 et seq. (Supp. 1934). 2See 1 U. S. L. Week, Aug. 21, 1934, at 1045; 2 U. S. L. Week, Oct. 23, 1934, at 125. Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most