*1 DEPUTY CROWELL, COMMISSIONER, BENSON.* February 23, Argued 20, 21, 1931. Decided No. 19. October * Together Crowell, Deputy No. with Commissioner, and Knud sen Benson. *4 Thacker, Erwin with whom Mr. N. .General
Solicitor Crowell, brief, petitioner. on was Griswold *8 Gresham, Alexis T. with whom Mr. Palmer Mr. Pillans brief, Knudsen, petitioner. was on *9 Smith, with whom Harry T. Mr. Vincent Kil- Mr. F. born brief, for respondent. on the was *12 Hughes delivered the opinion Justice
Me. Chief the Court. in the brought District was Court enjoin
This suit an award made petitioner enforcement Crowell, of the United commissioner States Employees’ in favor Commission, petitioner Compensation the respondent Benson. against The award Knudsen Longshoremen’s and under the. Harbor made Work- was. (Act of March 4, Act 1927, c. Compensation ers’ § n 901-950) Tit. C. rested upon Stat. *13 Knudsen commissioner that finding deputy of the the perform- of Benson and employ while the injured was waters the United States. upon navigable ing service contrary that the award was complainant alleged The Knudsen not at the time of his was reason law and his claim was complainant an injury employee ’ ‘ of the jurisdiction within the commissioner. not charged that the Act was uncon- complaint An amended it grounds proc- violated the due upon stitutional of the Fifth of the Amendment, provision ess clause by jury, to trial that of the Fourth Amendment as Seventh as to unreasonable search and Amendment seizure, III respect judicial of Article with the provisions Judge United States. District denied power granted a'nd de hearing upon to dismiss novo motions law, opinion and the that the Act the facts expressing if to permit invalid not construed a hearing. would such be admiralty docket, The case was transferred answers the issue as to the presenting filed of employ- were fact parties the evidence of both ment, having been heard, decided that Knudsen District Court not in the was and restrained the petitioner of the employ enforcement (2d) 137; 33 F. 38 F. (2d) award. of the 306. The by the Circuit affirmed Court of decree was Appeals, Court granted and this (2d) 66, writs of F. certiorari. validity of the Act may The question be con- (1) its provisions in relation defining substan- sidered (2) procedural requirements. its rights, tive has two limitations that The Act are First. fundamen- with exclusively compensation in It deals respect of tal. resulting “from an injury or death disability occurring waters United States” if navigable re- “ compensation through workmen’s covery proceedings law,” validly provided by State applies and it only when the relation master and servant exists. 3.1 “ Injury,” statute, within the means accidental injury arising death out of and the course of employment,” *14 “ ” “ and the employer any means one of whose em- term. are ployees employed maritime employment, whole inor part,” upon navigable (2) such waters. (4). § Employers are liable for payment made the to their em- of ployees prescribed compensation “irrespective of-fault as a for The injury.” § cause the 4. liability exclusive, is the fails to employer payment unless secure of com- the pensation. required § 5. employer The is to ap- furnish medical and other treatment. propriate § 7. The com- pensation permanent or temporary total disability, or the partial, according statutory classification, and in case the the is employee, fixed, being of death of based upon average of prescribed percentages weekly wages, and payments the to whom to be persons are are desig- made 8,6, Employers §§ nated. 10. must the pay- secure “ ” Coverage provides: Section three of the Act as to “ (a) Compensation payable 3. shall be Act Sec. under this. respect disability employee, only the or death an but if disa- bility injury occurring upon navigable an or death results from (including dry dock) recovery any waters of the United and if States disability through compensation pro- workmen’s -for or death may provided by compensation ceedings validly not be law. No State payable respect disability or death of— shall be any vessel, any person crew “(1) A master member of a nor or repair or engaged by any load or unload small master vessel eighteen net; or under tons any agency
“(2) employee of the or An officer or United States foreign government, political or or any any or of thereof State thereof. subdivision compensation payable injury occasioned
“(b) shall be if was No employee or intention of the the willful solely by the intoxication injure himself or another.” employee or kill of the compensation by procuring ment of insurance or by be- in the manner self-insurers coming stipulated. § is security § Failure to such provide misdemeanor. injuries relates solely occurring the Act As navigable United it deals with the States, waters law, maritime to matters that fall within the applicable (Const. admiralty jurisdiction III, and maritime Art. Y., H. H. N. N. & R. Nogueira 128, 138); general authority of the to alter throughout law which shall prevail revise the maritime In beyond dispute.2 limiting applica country recovery through Act cases where work tion of the validly pro compensation proceedings men’s law,” had view Congress evidently State vided respect scope of this Court with the decisions legislature.3 The authority pro the national exclusive Clarke, Waring Lottawanna, 441, 457, 458; How. Wall. *15 Steamship Co., 130 U. S. v. Boston & Savannah Butler 558, 577; Hamilton, Garnett, 1, 14; The 557; In U. S. re 141 U. S. 207 527, 556, Transport 52, 62; Imbrovek, Co. v. 234 Atlantic 404; U. S. 398, Jensen, 244 Knickerbocker 205, 214, 215; S. Co. v. U. Southern Pacific 160; Washington Dawson, 264 149, Stewart, 253 U. S. v. v. Ice Co. Johnson, 375, 386, 264 219, 227, Panama R. Co. 228; v. U. S. U. S. 388. authority are of the exercise of this Important illustrations 635; Accident & Liability (9 Act of 1851 Stat. of Limitation Hartford Co., 213-215); 207, 273 S. Indemnity v. Southern U. Co. Pacific v. Luckenbach (38 1185; Chelentis 1915 Stat. of Act Seamen’s 381, Ship Mortgage 384); Act 1920 372, SteamshipCo., 247 U. S. Dry Repair Star, dock & v. Northern Co. 271 Morse 1000; (41 Stat. 1920, incorpo Act 556); the Merchant Marine 552, 555, U. S. Employers’ Liability seamen, the Federal Act to rating, in relation (41 1007; Panama Stat. law of United States maritime into Davenport, 33, Engel v. Pan 35; Johnson, supra; 271 S. U. R. Co. v. Coal 557, 559, 560; Northern Co. Vasquez, 271 S. U. ama R. Co. v. C., Titles 33 See U. and 46. 142, 147). S. Strand, 278 U. S. v. 3 Jensen, 205; Knickerbocker Ice 244 S. Co. v. U. Southern Pacific Washington Dawson, 219; v. 149; 264 U. S. Stewart, S. 253 U. v. Co. 40
priety providing by Federal for compensation statute employees in such cases had been recog expressly **4 nized this and within its Court,* sphere the statute designed accomplish was the same general purpose as the workmen’s compensation laws In of the States.5 de Dry Repair Dahl, Robins Dock & v.Co. 266 U. 449. For S. decisions passage since the question, Co., Act in see Messel v. Foundation 427; 274 Strand, U. S. & Dock 142; Northern Coal v.Co. 278 U. S. London & Guarantee Accident v. Commission, Co. Industrial 109, 125; Baizley Span, U. S. Iron Works U. v. 222. S. application Compensation The of State Workmen’s Acts has been employee where the work sustained of the has been deemed to have navigation no direct relation operation or commerce and the of the “ prejudice local law would work material no essential features general of the maritime Fuel Garcia, law.” Western v.Co. S.U. 233, 242; Rohde, Grant Co. v. 469, 477; Smith-Porter S.U. Indemnity Braud, 59, Millers’ Underwriters v. S.U. Sultan Department Railway Labor, & Timber Co. 135, 277 U. S. Baizley Span, at pp. Iron Works v. supra, See, also, Red Cross Line Atlantic Fruit 264 U. 4 Washington Dawson, where the Court said “ power doubt alter, has amend or revise the Without general application maritime embodying law statutes of its will judgment. power, thintí, This permit we would enactment.of general liability provisions employers’ general compensat law ing injured employees; delegated it but to- the several . States.” Judiciary Senate, reporting Committee on the upon proposed measure, (Sen. Rep. Cong., said No. 69th 1st 16): sess., p. unnecessary The committee it deems comment the mod- change employers-and employees ern in the relation between estab- systems lishing compensation distinguished liability. from Nearly every compensation through State the Union has a law *16 injuries employees compensated occurring which are for the course employment regard negligence of their without part on the of the employer contributory negligence. part employee. or on of the the longshoremen If could avail themselves of the of benefits State com- pensation laws, there legislation; but, would be no occasion for tins from, unfortunately, they-are excluded these laws reason of the they of employment; only character their are not excluded but recovery Act provides for rights, fining substantive resulting disabilities fault, of the absence classifies of range compensation fixes injuries, from case of bene designates the classes disability death, and revise power In view of Federal to alter ficiaries. room for ob law, maritime there be no appears these creation of jection grounds on constitutional in the clause process it can be found due unless rights, that it said of the Fifth But cannot be Amendment. extent or the either the classifications of statute In view compensation provided are unreasonable. inhere in the difficulties which ascertainment to provide was entitled damages, Congress actual reasonably ap which would payment amounts Q. B. & Chicago, See proximate probable damages. Cram, Pa Missouri R. 70, 84; S. Co. compare v. U. Tucker, Liability Ry. Co. 230 U. S. 340, cific and, law,6 fault unknown to the maritime without legislation once held that Federal Supreme has than Court more laws apply that constitutionally, can be enacted will State not, 205; (Southern Jensen, 244 U. occupation. S. this Co. Pacific Stewart, Washington 253 U. Ice Co. v. Knickerbocker 219.)” 264 U. S. Dawson & following report Committee made the The House its statement p. 20): (House Rep. Cong., 2d No. 69th sess., “ compensation firmly of workmen’s has become so principle The justice require simple would seem to this class established legislation. should be included in this . . . of maritime workers amended, discharge therefore, enable will The bill placed jurisdiction workers their obligation to the maritime under its by providing for them States a law the Constitution United compensation they may benefits of workmen’s whereby receive the provided by them the same remedies that have been and thus afford injured employ- in the legislation killed or course of their for those every nearly ment State in the Union.” Osceola, See, g., Iroquois, The e. 194 U. S. Chicago, Zernecke, In R. 240, 241, 242. R. I. & P. Co. v. 183 U. S. jurisprudence examples the Court said: “Our affords legal deprivation liability fault, property without and the without
42
from this
apart
fact, considerations are
applicable to
provisions
substantive
of this
with
legislation,
respect to
the relation of
and servant,
master
similar to those which
this Court has found sufficient to sustain workmen’s com
pensation
against objections
laws
the States
under the
process
due
clause
Fourteenth Amendment. New
White,
York
243
Central R. Co.
188;
v.
U. S.
Mountain
Timber
Washington,
v.
243 U.
Co.
S.
Ward &
219;
Gow
Krinsky, 259 U.
In
503;
v.
S.
Vein
Lower
Coal Co. v.
Board,
dustrial
S. 144;
U.
Madera Sugar Pine Co. v.
Comm.,
Industrial
501,
Accident
it is in re- questions all hear and determine authority full after (a). days Within ten the claim. spect §§ *18 in accordance deputy commissioner, the filed, claim is the must Commission, the by prescribed regulations with who is con- and other any person the notify employer to be an interested the commissioner by deputy sidered to or required make, commissioner deputy party. to he deems be investigations such as made, to be cause of interested any party upon application and necessary, at the claimant upon notice, a which hearing, must order evidence. may Employees employer present and the examina- compensation must submit to medical claiming conducting investigations hearings, In and 19. tion. § or by is not bound common law commissioner deputy the or formal evidence, of technical or rules rules statutory except as the Act but he is to procedure, provides, of to best ascertain rights in such manner as the of proceed (a). He may subpoenas, issue adminisr parties.” the § testimony the attendance and of wit- oaths, compel ter or documents other evidence or production nesses, and all may do conform- taking depositions, things may necessary law which be enable him able to effec- his duties. discharge tively Proceedings be may appropriate Federal before brought punish court contumacy or as case of misbehavior contempt. for 27.§ commissioner deputy before are to Hearings public be and the stenographically, reported and Commission is to for the preparation by regulation of a provide record. orders are to Compensation be (b).8 filed in the § deputy commissioner, copies of the must be office sent promulgated by regulations the Commission in In form .the deputy commissioners, provision was made for cf instructions find Employees’ Report, Compensation United States ings fact. Com ending 30, 1930, p. year June Howard for fiscal 64. See mission, (2d) Monahan, 33 F. 220. provides The Act § employer. claimant
to the of substantial absence presumed, that it shall within comes the claim contrary, evidence has of claim notice that sufficient Act, of the provisions solely not occasioned was injury been given, will- byor injured employee, intoxication kill or or himself injure employee ful intention such effective order becomes compensation A20. § another. instituted to sus- are proceedings unless filed, and when final expiration becomes at the it it aside, or set pend it If a condi- (a). change there is thirty days. § made. modified a new order may be the order tions, thirty days for the payment default In case of be made to the application compensation, (cid:127) declaring order supplementary commissioner an to be made after order is in default. Such amount the case claims. hearing, notice investigation, *19 the order copy supplementary a of filing certified Upon court, stated, judgment of the Federal as clerk with the in for the amount declared if default, be entered is to order accordance with law.” “is supplementary such had may be as in civil suits for judgment of the Review law and the judgment may common be at damages writ of execution. by § enforced if that provides compensation further order The Act “ “ law,” may with it be suspended accordance is injunction in. part, through in whole or pro aside, or set otherwise, brought by any mandatory or party ceedings, ” the deputy commissioner against making the in interest the in the Federal district court for order instituted injury Payment the occurred.9 which district judicial unless, on proceedings such stayed pending not to be is stay allows the on evi- the court notice, hearing after In the District of Columbia, the proceedings are be instituted Supreme of the District. the Court showing dence that the employer would otherwise suffer irreparable damage. (b). awards, Beneficiaries of or the for deputy commissioner, may apply enforcement Federal if and, to the district court the court deter- the order was made mines and served in accord- law,” ance with obedience of compelled by writ injunction proper (c).10 other process. § subject As the claims are the provisions which Act are governed by the the maritime law as established' by admiralty jurisdic- within are objection raised tion, by respondent’s pleading trial right jury as to to a under the Seventh Clarke, unavailing (Waring is How. Amendment under 460); and that the Fourth Amendment objections nor urged. The other explained neither as .to clause process invoke due and the procedure pro- to the judicial power United States. vision The contention under the (1) process due' clause Fifth' Amendment relates determination Rulings commissioner questions .fact. law questions. of are without' finality. So far as United' States n Employees’ Compensation 10 The Commission esti pjates-that employees who engaged the number times at are in em 300,000. covered the Act in excess ployments -Report .is énding June'30, 1931, p. 66. The fiseai;year Commission states that closed 138,788.cases during years have been four . the’ law has Id., p. During operation. year the last fiscal in been juries'reported 28,861, under the Act numbered of which were cases, disposed 'fatal’ cases.' The-total number of of during that including brought from preceding forward year, those yeai;s, was 13,261 of which were there 'non-fatal’ 30,489, Cases which caused *20 of time, 4,067 no loss of such cases in which the duration of dis ability days. Compensation did payments not exceed seven were completed 11,776 Hearings by cases. held commissioners year during 1,217, fiscal number of which compen 905 involved payments. sation the end of fiscal year, At there were 102 cases pending plaintiffs in federal district courts whérein the asked review Id., compensation orders. 68-70. full is concerned, opportunity afforded for
the latter are the Federal by through pro- determination courts their or aside a compensation order, to set ceedings suspend to judgment that is to by requirement be (b), § declaring order default only on a supplementary entered (§ 18), by follows the law the pro- the order case other injunction issue of in a process vision that beneficiary to obedience by compel to a proceeding dependent upon, order is a determination compensation lawfully order was made and by the court 21 (c). Moreover, the statute served. contains no ex- attempting preclude limitation press court, pro- an order as not in ceedings to set aside accordance with own law, from its examination and making determination deemed to be necessary of facts whenever to en- right properly force a constitutional asserted. See Ohio Borough, Water Co. Ben Avon Valley Fung White, 289; Ng Ho U. S. 276, 284, 285; Telephone Co., v. New York Prendergast 262 U. S. States, & Moorhead 50; Tagg Bros. v. United 280 U. S. Phillips Commissioner, 420, 443, 444; 283 U. S. As the is to be statute so as to construed support than to defeat no such it, rather limitation is to be im- Johnson, Railroad Co. v. plied. Panama U. involving from Apart rights cases constitutional be enforced appropriately proceedings court, there' can Act be no doubt that contemplates that, as to ques- arising tions fact with respect injuries to employees within purview Act, the findings of the deputy commissioner, supported by evidence and within the scope shall final. authority, of his be To hold otherwise- would defeat the obvious purpose of the legislation fur- nish a prompt, continuous,, expert inexpensive method with a dealing questions class of of fact which are suited to examination peculiarly and determination an administrative agency specially assigned to that task.
47 object The is within to secure the prescribed limits of the employer’s an liability immediate investigation and a sound practical judgment, efficacy and the of the plan depends finality of the determinations of fact with respect the circumstances, nature, extent and con- sequences of the employee’s injuries and the amount compensation that should be awarded. And this finality may also be as regarded extending determination of the question of fact whether injury was occasioned “ solely by the intoxication or employee by the willful intention of the injure or kill himself employee or an- other.” While the exclusion of compensation such ” cases found in coverage what are provisions called Act (§3), question belongs still fact routine of contemplated administration, for the case is one of. within employment of the Act scope and the cause sustained injury as well as employee its character and effect must be ascertained in applying for provisions compensation. The use of the adminis- trative method for purposes, notice, these due assuming proper heard, to be opportunity and findings are evidence, based upon easily falls within the principle of sustaining against the decisions similar procedure objec- under process tions the due clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.11
The provides statute notice an hearing; made suitable proper award without notice, opportu- 11 Long Supply 685, 695; 166 v. U. S. Brooklyn, Island Co. Water 147; v. Hahlo, 258 U. S. Federal Trade Comm. v. Curtis Crane 568, 580; Co., v. United Publishing States, U. S. Silberschein 221, 225; Virginian 658, 663; Ry. States, S. Co. v. United U. S. U. 442; Bros. & Moorhead v. United U. S. Tagg States, Inter 297; national Shoe Co. v. Federal Trade 280 U. S. Comm., Do 362, 369; Phillips hany Commissioner, v. S. v. Rogers, U. See, also, Fire Ins. Co. 600 Dealers Mutual . Hardware Co. Glidden, White, supra, 284 U. New R. R. York Central pp. supra, at Washington, 194, 207, at Mountain Timber Co. p. 233. heard,
nity be attacked set aside with validity. objection out is made that, as the prosecute commissioner is authorized to such inquiries as he may necessary, consider the award may be based *22 wholly parte or an partly upon investigation ex upon and information, unknown sources the hearing and a The may merely formality. statute, however, con a public hearing regulations and are templates require “ a hearings record of the and other before proceedings This deputy (b). commissioner.” implies by all the deputy commissioner proceedings upon par a ticular shall be appropriately forth, claim set and that whatever he ascertain facts and their shall sources be open be shown the record and to challenge op and posing conceivably evidence. Facts known to the deputy commissioner, but not so put evidence as to permit scrutiny contest, will not a support compensation Commerce order. Interstate Commission Louisville & Co., 227 88, 93; R. U. S. Chicago The Junction Nashville Case, United States v. Abilene & y.Co., S. An Southern U. award not sup R in the record is not ported by evidence in accordance with fact that law. But the commissioner is-not evidence which would be bound rules of applicable or technical rules of procedure, § to trials court proceeding, invalidate the sub (a), provided does not parties are not infringed. Inter rights stantial Baird, Comm. v. 194 U. S. Commerce Inter state Co., Comm. v. Louisville & Commerce Nashville R. state Atchison, Ry. Co., T. & S. F. U. Spiller v. supra; States v. Abilene & Co., United Southern 117, 131; Ry. & Bros. Moorhead v. United Tagg States, supra, supra; at p. upon judicial based power The contention (2) States, as extended to all cases of United admiralty (Const. jurisdiction” Ill),
and maritime Art. a presents In Murray’s Lessee v. question. distinct Hoboken Land Improvement 272, 284, Court, How. this through Mr. Justice said: “To Curtis, avoid speaking grave subject, misconstruction so a we think it to state that we do not congress consider can either proper judicial cognizance from matter any withdraw which, subject of a nature, from its suit at the common equity, admiralty; or in on law, nor, other hand, judicial power under bring it matter which, can subject judicial is not a nature, from its determi nation.” case, in. the question instant this aspect, can be only to to relate determinations of
deemed fact. The is to the legal questions same reservation court that has admiralty, the mere fact that jurisdiction the court as such is Nor unimportant. is not described is the pro *23 injunction proceedings, § 21(b), open vision to ob was at to jection. Congress liberty draw upon an of to the court system procedure equip other with suitable means for the adequate enforcing and standards of the the Act. by maritime law as defined The Genesee Chief, 460. Compare Panama R. Co. v. How. John son, rules, statute and p. By at courts of supra, to admiralty may empowered grant injunctions, be as in liability limitation of proceedings. case of Hartford Co., Southern Indemnity & Co. v. Accident Pacific See, also, Marine Transit Corporation Congress 263. The 284 U. S. did not Dreyfus, attempt law, of and the questions generality of the de to define no doubt of the intention to reserve leaves scription authority pass upon full to all court matters which Federal fall within held to that category. Court had There this with, interfere attempt to but rather provision no is thus facilitate, the exercise the court of jur- to its is made any finding administrative deny effect isdiction ‘ contrary indisputable or evidence, which is without ‘is hearing or where inade- of the character evidence/ ‘ in Interstate arbitrary any respect. or or quate,’ unfair/ at Co., supra, pp. 91, v. Louisville R. Comm. Commerce States, supra. & Moorhead v. United 92; Tagg Bros. is at fact, of distinction once As to determinations and private right cases those which between of apparent persons subject Government and arise between with the performance its connection authority legislative or functions of executive constitutional referred to distinction The Court this departments. Improvement Lessee v. Hoboken Land Murray’s and “ involving there are supra, pointing matters, out may which such form rights, presented public judicial acting them, on power capable but which judicial susceptible determination, which are cognizance may may bring within the not as it deem States, of the United of the courts Congress, exercising powers Thus the proper.” ‘ ’ legislative (as dis- it, may establish courts confided ' ju- from constitutional courts which tinguished can be de- conferred the Constitution power dicial part government form ’) which are to posited Columbia,12 or to serve territories or of the District “ to examine and determine various tribunals special others, arising government between the matters, require judicial deter- which from their nature do it.” mode yet susceptible are But mination within determining completely matters of this class is reserve to itself Congress may control. congressional *24 may delegate that to execu- decide, power power officers, may judicial commit it to tribunals.” Ex tive Canter, Insurance Keller v. 546; 1 12 American Co. 511, v. Pet. Co., 442-444; Postum 428, Power Cereal Potomac Electric 261 U. S. Fig Co., Nut 693, 272 700. Co. California v. U. S.
51 Familiar illus 438, S.U. 451. Corp., Bakelite parte deter created for the agencies administrative trations such, found in connection with are mination of matters to interstate congressional power of the as' the exercise pub immigration, taxation, foreign commerce, and office, post the facilities of the public health, lands, lic payments to veterans.13 pensions just categories fall within the The case does not present liability . private right, is one of is, described but But defined. to another under the law as of one individual in order that, no sortj requirement of that there is cases power, judicial of the to maintain essential attributes courts' shall all fact constitutional determinations of the Fed- On the common law side by judges. be made appropri- deemed courts, juries only eral the aid of is not In cases the Constitution itself. required by ate but is to call practice it historic equity admiralty, assistance of the without the consent courts, assessors, pass masters and commissioners or parties, example, to take questions, certain classes as, damages. an account or to find the amount of and state While the commissioners such reports masters advisory are of an it has been essentially nature, cases disturb their when practice findings they prop- are erly upon evidence, based the absence of errors of law,14 v. Ry. Virginian States, supra; Tagg Co. United Bros. & Moor v. Federal Trade States, supra; International head v. United Shoe Co. v. v. Phillips Commissioner, Comm., supra; supra; United States Ju 328, 253, 263; S. United States v. 250 U. S. Toy, Babcock, U. 321, v. Ry. 331; 163 U. S. Burfenning P., St. M. & O. Chicago, 106, 109; 323; Bates & Guild Co. v. Houston v. Payne, U. S. 479, 484; Packing Co., 249 U. v. States, S. Louis St. United Passavant S. 214, 219; 221, 148 U. v. 266 U. States, Silberschein United chancery, see Tilghman Proctor, 136, As to masters in v. 150; Callaghan 666, 667; Kimberly 149, 617, 128 U. S. Myers, 512, 523, 129 U. S. 155 U. S. Arms, Schwartz, Davis (C. admiralty, 6th), As to commissioners in see Cayuga C. A. (C. 2nd), 59 Fed. C. A. Fed. Bourgogne La *25 52 demand that court right no to have parties
and the In admiralty, facts thus found. shall redetermine in only in use not criminal cases but anciently juries were February 26, The Act of also.15 in civil cases apparently the ad- to extend (c. 726), purporting 5 Stat. 1845 20, cer- of the Federal district courts to miralty jurisdiction “ Lakes, gave right on the Great arising tain cases suits, of all issue such where jury put trial facts After the in the require shall it.” decision either party supra, holding that the Federal Chief, case of The Genesee jurisdiction in general admiralty possessed district courts navigable connecting waters lakes, them, over and the Act of Judiciary Constitution 1789 under the 77), 1 this Court (c. 9, pp. 76, regarded Stat. 20, § “ obsolete and of no Act of 1845 as with enabling effect, gives either party of the clause which exception requested.” The by jury Eagle, trial when 8 right And this the court 15, provision, said, was Wall. “ than exercising jurisdiction any mode of sub- rather R. of it.” See 566, C., 28, Tit. part stantial Taney, delivering Chief Justice the opinion 770.16 of The Chief, in the case Genesee supra, of the Court requirement, broadly thus stated the au- this referring change the procedure Congress courts thority ' admiralty: (C. 2nd), Western 168, 177; C. A. 151 Fed. North Star 783; The (C. Co. 6th), 701; C. A. Davidson S. S. 696, Fed. Transit Co. Corp. (C. Inc., Public Service Ross, 3d), C. A. Fed. P. Stanford (2d) 79, 80. p. Admiralty Reports, 74, note; Black Book Robinson’s 15 Chr. ed., 1, pp. 49, 53, 245; vol. 1 Abbott Admiralty, Twiss’ on of the Admiralty, 1 Benedict’s ed., pp. ed., 5th Am.
Shipping, 5th p. note. jury see The the, cases, such of the verdict effect As to 359; Sweeting States, The Western Fed. Western Nyack, The 383, 389; Fed. Benedict’s States, 210 U. S. ed., p. Admiralty, 5th change mode pro- The power admiralty, will, in its courts
ceeding respect in this Constitution de- suppose,.hardly questioned. we shall judicial of the United States power clares that ‘ jurisdic- admiralty all and maritime extend to cases of *26 proceed not the shall tion.’ But it does that court direct or forms, adopt and established shall according to ancient The defines practice. grant other form or of any mode extended jurisdiction may to which the be subjects the the as well as the But of the by Congress. power extent is be jurisdiction of in which that to mode proceeding like all the power the and other exercised, practice subject States, regulation the United are to the courts of by is limited the except power of where Congress, necessary or Constitution, implication terms of the In maritime cases there admiralty its and language. from to the mode of and proceeding, no limitation as is such description, in cases of that may give therefore Congress modify by jury, practice of trial the right party either deems more any respect other it con- court in of the of justice.” the administration to ducive while on an noted that ad- appeal It be also law the facts as well the would sub- miralty cases retrial,” this Court has recognized to' review jected “ to limit the effect an of power the of the law as applicable a review facts appeal The Wright, below.” Francis (cid:127)finally determined Connemara, The 108 U. S. Com- S.U. States, 272 S. S. Luckenbach Co. United pare 536, 537. deciding Congress, enacting whether the the
In review, of- under has exceeded au- the limits its statute of thority prescribe procedure injury in cases upon must be in other waters, regard had, as navigable cases constitutional limits are invoked, to mere where mat- but of form to the substance required. ters of what is application, a limited being statute has confined relation of master and the servant, the method of determining questions which arise in fact, the of the rou- making compensation awards to employees tine under- Act, necessary is to its effective enforcement. The it applies, where itself, Act establishes measure of the liability, leaving open thus determination employer's fact as to the questions circumstances, nature, ex- consequences injuries tent sustained compensation to be for which made in accord- employee Findings with standards. prescribed ance of fact by n such questions commissioner closely are n analogous findings amount of damages that to familiar according practice, by are made, commission- assessors; and the reservation of full ers or authority with matters court to deal provides law for the ip. judicial exercise functioh appropriate this class stated, are purposes For we cases. unable to find *27 to constitutional obstacle the action any Congress the of a itself method availing experience to be shown to its apply order to essential standards the thousands relieving thus the involved, of cases courts of a most preserving burden while their complete serious authority proper application insure the the law. What has been said-thus far relates (3) to the deter- of claims of employees mination within the purview of question A is presented Act. different the where the de- ‘ of fact are fundamental terminations or jurisdictional/17 their existence in the sense that is a condition precedent statutory the scheme. operation the These funda- although 'jurisdictional/ frequently term used, suggests 17 The complete not when the analogies which are reference is to adminis officials bodies. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. or trative Steamship Co., 474, 224 In Humboldt U. relation admin question given a agencies, istrative case is whether it falls scope authority validly within conferred.
55 are injury that occur requirements upon mental waters of the United States and that the rela- navigable of master exist. These conditions tion and servant are the statute, indispensable application only Congress (§ 3), has so provided explicitly because of the to enact the power but also because the existence of these upon turns conditions. legislation law,18 In the maritime amending revising the Con- cannot reach the constitutional limits which gress beyond jurisdiction.19 are inherent in maritime admiralty injuries to which the Act upon Unless the relates occur waters the United navigable they fall out- States, is jurisdiction.20 only navigability side that Not itself fact, as waters that are question navigable fact where is navigable law,21but, navigability are not in injury, is, whether it has dispute, locality navigable States, waters of the United occurred congressional power determines the existence of the liability Again, create the the statute.22 it prescribed 18 authority regulate power This from the distinct interstate foreign arising in commerce and is not limited to cases com 443, 452; 12 How. Chief, Commerce, merce. The Genesee The 574, 578, 579; 624, 640, 641; Black 7 Wall. Belfast, parte The Ex 629, 632; 1, 17; U. S. Boyer, Garnett, U. S. In re London & Accident Co. v. Industrial Comm., U. S. Guarantee Co. v. Belfast, supra; Johnson, R. supra; The Panama p. 459; Admiralty, ed., at 1 Benedict’s Chief, 5th supra, Genesee 32, p. 47. v. Steamship Co., Cleveland Terminal & R. V. Co. Cleveland 316; pp. at Transport Imbrovek, supra, Atlantic 208 U. S. Co. Corp., Industrial Commission Nordenholt pp. 227, 235; Nogueira supra, at Dawson, v. N. Washington Y., 128, 133, 138. 281 U. S. H. & H. R. N. *28 21 10 Wall. Ball, States v. Holt State United The Daniel 49, 56; 64, 76, v. Utah, U. S. Bank, United States 283 U. California, Arizona Co., Washington supra; v. Nordenholt Industrial Commission Nogueira Y., supra; H. & R. Dawson, supra; N. N. H. ed., 29, pp. 41, note. Admiralty, 5th Benedict’s be cannot maintained that Congress the any general has authority to amend the maritime law so as to establish liability without maritime fault cases regardless of particular or circumstances relations. It unnecessary is to consider what might circumstances relations per- mit the such imposition of a liability amendment of the maritime law, it is but manifest that some suitable selection would be In required. the present the instance, Congress imposed has liability only without fault where the relation of master servant exists maritime em- ployment while and, we hold the could do the fact of this, that relation is the pivot the of statute in the absence and, other any justification, underlies the constitutionality of this If enactment. in- person jured was an not employee person sought to be if held, or did injury occur upon navigable United States, waters there is no ground for an assertion that the person against whom the proceeding directed constitutionally was could subjected, in the of fault his upon absence part, liability which the statute creates.
In facts, relation to these is question basic not the ordinary propriety one as admin provision for istrative determinations. Nor have simply ques we tion of due relation process hearing. to notice is rather a question appropriate maintenance oi judicial Federal power requiring observance oí constitutional the question restrictions. It is whether the Congress may courts, substitute for constitutional whicl judicial vested, an ad power the United States this agency single ministrative instance com —in missioner 23—for the final determination of the existence of the facts which the enforcement the constitu rights depend. recognition tional of the citizen Compensation Report Commis Employees’ of United See States year ending 30, 1931, pp. 108, sion fiscal June *29 and convenience of administrative utility agencies of facts within investigation finding their proper their support action, and the authorized province, does the conclusion that there is no require limitation of Congréss their and that could oust use, completely fact by vesting the courts of all determinations of with its own instru authority finality to make them or in the Executive That Department. mentalities would it exists the Federal sap judicial power under Constitution, government to establish a of a bureau wherever system, cratic character alien to our funda mental do rights depend, they depend, as not infrequently facts, in effect upon finality as to facts becomes finality law.
In
aspect
irrelevancy
this
State
question, the
statutes and citations from State courts as to the distri
bution of State
A
powers
apparent.
is
State
dis
tribute its
as it sees
it
powers
fit, provided only
consistently
acts
with the essential demands of due proc
ess and does not transgress those restrictions of the Fed
eral
applicable
Constitution which are
to State authori
In relation to
ty.24
the Federal government, we have
already noted the
inappositeness
present inquiry of
with-respect
fact,
decisions
to determinations
authority
and within the
conferred,
evidence
made by ad
agencies which have
ministrative
been
created to aid
of governmental
performance,
functions and where
the mode
determination
within the
control of the
g.
as,
e.
Congress;
proceedings
Land Office
for the
pursuant
provisions
disposition
of public lands,
of the Post Office
of the authorities
in relation to postal
Bureau
of Internal
privileges,
Revenue with re
and of the Labor
spect
taxes,
Department as to the
210, 225;
24 Prentis 211 U.
Atlantic
Line,
Coast
Chicago,
Rock
Ry.
54, 56;
Cole,
Island &
Co.
Missouri ex rel.
Pacific
North,
Hurwitz 271 U. S.
parte
Ex
Bakelite
admission and
aliens.
deportation
to decisions
Corp., supra25
apply
Similar considerations
and com
of fact
to determinations
boards
respect
with
legis
Congress to assist it
its
missions created
subject
in governing
lative
various transactions
process'
*30
authority,
practices
the rates and
example,
to its
as'for
being able to
of interstate
the
thus
carriers,
legislature
it
im
its
to a host of instances which
is
apply
standards
and
legislate
directly
the
practicable
upon
consider and
character,
being
legislative
action
the less
because
none
body.26
through
taken
a
And where adminis
subordinate
trative bodies
created to
the
appropriately
have been
meet
of cases
their action is of
of certain
and
exigencies
classes
of
question
a
the
the conclusiveness
judicial character,
of
findings
generally
fact
arises
of their administrative
jurisdictional27
clearly
facts
the
where the
are
has
of
as to
facts
been determined
scope
review
such
None of the decisions of
legislation.
the
this
applicable
question
presented
which is
where the
sort touch
facts
jurisdictional28
question
or where
con
are
involved
judicial
of the
of
power
exercise
proper
cerns the
enforcing
constitutional
limitations.
United States
subject
where
lies within the general
Even
authority
of a
Congress,
propriety
challenge by judicial
the determinations
fact deemed
be
proceedings
underlying
authority
executive
jurisdictional,
When
recognized.
proceedings
has been
are taken
officers,
military law,
under the
person
a
and enlistment
against
tried
the issue has been
and determined de novo
denied,
is
re
corpus.
Grimley,
In
137 U. S.
147, 154,
habeas
25 Supra,
13.
note
Atchison,
Grocery
Topeka
Ry.
&
Arizona
Co.
Santa Fe
See
consideration and judgment
questions
equally
its decision of
it is
conclusive,
such
if
or had
public property,
true that
lands “never were
been
if
no
previously
disposed of,
had made
sale,
for their
or had reserved
provision
them,
depart
jurisdiction
ment would have no
to transfer them.” This
kind, disclosing.a
Court has held
“matters
this
a
jurisdiction, may
considered
court of law.
want
objection
In
cases the
to the patent
beyond
such
reaches
tribunal,
the action of the
special
goes
existence
subject upon
competent
of a
which it was
to act.” Smelt
104 U. S.
641. In
ing
Kemp,
Co. v.
such
case,
invalidity
patent may
be shown
a collateral pro
Wendell,
9 Cranch
ceeding.
87;
Winn,
Polk
Patterson v.
Crommelin,
Wheat.
Minter v.
Mor
How.
*31
Nebraska,
ton
United deporta- the Executive order 589, 600. Jurisdiction ,an alien, if the arrested is only person tion exists jurisdiction, if of fact of while, findings there were conclusive, would be claim Department the Executive “ an jurisdictional a denial of essential is citizenship ” sense, and the constitutional statutory fact both “ to corpus will issue a writ of habeas determine to be citizens of the United claiming Persons status.” judicial to a determination of entitled their are States White, Ho Fung Ng supra Court this claims,” said that case cause was re- 285), atS., p. U. (259 “ for Court District trial the Federal manded to citizenship.” question court argument instance, the that the Congress In the present commissioner a fact-finding the,deputy has constituted as the contention unavailing, makes un- tribunal the constitutional courts assumption tenable *32 “ having open the disease was investiga the horse The fact as finding and action, on the horse present did not in the tion ruling a entitled to plaintiff was had defendants it, have j:}ie See, Id., justification.” Pearson p. 548. also, Out their to make failed v.Zehr, 854. 48, 51, 52 E. Ill. N. in deprived all cases of the determination of facts though evidence even a constitutional right may be in- volved. Reference is also made to the power the Con- of gress in courts of change procedure admiralty, a power to we in which have dealing alluded with the func- tion of in the deputy commissioner the com- passing upon pensation claims of But when employees. fundamental rights are in question, this Court has repeatedly empha- “ security sized the of judicial difference over adminis- White, supra. Ho Ng Fung trative action.” Even juries where by issues of fact are tried the Federal courts, such trials are superintendence under the constant judge. by the trial In a jury trial a Federal court “ ” judge gover- a mere moderator but is nor proper of the trial” its purpose assuring of law. Her- determining questions conduct well as of as ron v. Southern 283 U. In the S. Fed- Pacific trial eral “is a a jury jury trial twelve courts, in the and under of a men, presence superintendence on the and judge instruct them law to ad- empowered (except vise them on on facts, acquittal a crim- inal set if in charge) aside their verdict opinion his it is Capital Traction Co. against the or the law evidence.” Hof, 1, 13, 174 U. an Where testimony equity before court, cause is not taken the proceeding is still constantly subject to the court’s control. And while the practice obtaining assistance in chancery masters in admiralty commissioners regarded, as we a out, furnishing have certain pointed analogy in rela- tion to the normal authority deputy commissioner is virtually what an making assessment damages, the of such proceedings masters and commissioners are always direction of subject to the court their reports are advisory, distinction of essentially controlling impor- of a questions fundamental tance when character are in issue.
62 the is drawn Congress an act of validity the
When of constitution- if a serious doubt and even question, Court principle that this a is it is cardinal ality raised, of the statute a construction whether will first ascertain be avoided.30. question may by which the fairly possible is is per- that such a construction opinion We are the in the instant case. adopted missible and should be determina- that expressly provided has or the fundamental commissioner of tions by locality injury of the jurisdictional facts as to shall of the relation of master servant the existence the dep- finality determinations final. The of such be predicated pro- is primarily upon commissioner uty “shall have full power he vision, (a), that § questions respect and determine all to hear authority ” “ claim the claim com- But is of such claim.” such provisions its explicit the Act and under pensation “ against Act, as defined employee,” is of an that “ an employment is essen- employer.” The fact his the claim. right make precedent tial condition argument is which rests The other provision court a which the Federal to set aside that authorizes is if it “not accordance with order compensation In as to the (b). any provision the absence of law.”- § by the deputy of the determination commissioner finality jurisdictional fact of the statute is .employment, determining construction that the court in open compensation order is accordance with whether law. employment determine the fact of which underlies ques- of the statute. to remove operation And, .the validity, tion as to we think statute should be expressly Further, requires the Act so construed. p. 390; at v. Johnson, R. Missouri supra, Panama Co. Pacific v. Boone, Richmond R. Co. Screw Anchor 331, 346; Blodgett States, U. Holden, United Co. S. 573, Alexander, 279 U. S.U. Lucas provisions if of its is found any unconstitutional, any “or the thereof to applicability person circum- invalid, validity stances” held the remainder applicability the Act and of its provisions to-other ” persons and shall not circumstances be affected. *34 think requirement clearly We that' this evidences the Congress intention the not that provi- of an 'only express to sion- found be should be disregarded unconstitutional without the remainder disturbing of the statute, but also any implication that from the terms of the Act which would render them invalid should not be indulged. This provision.also gives assurance that there is no violation the of of the purpose Congress in sustaining the deter- of minations fact of the deputy where commissioner he within acts his authority passing upon compensation while denying finality claims to his conclusions toas the jurisdictional upon facts which the valid application of depends. the statute
Assuming that the Federal court determine for itself the of jurisdictional these fundamental existence or we facts, come to the what is the question,- Upon record — determination to be made? There provision is no the statute which seeks to confine the court in a such case record before deputy the or the commissioner he the evidence has taken. The remedy which-the which statute makes not by available is or a appeal an writ of certiorari for a review his determination upon the record before him. The remedy through injunction proceedings, mandatory §- or otherwise.” (b). The in the question instant case is not whether the deputy acted improperly commissioner has as arbitrarily shown the in the course proceedings record his of adminis- contemplated by statute, tration in cases the but whether has he acted a case to which the statute is inapplicable. - injunction By providing for proceedings, the evidently a contemplated suit as in equity, and in such full complainant opportunity suit the would have did not occur
plead injury either that the prove or- rela- navigable that the waters of the United States exist, that tion of master and servant did hence As lay purview case outside the statute. authority of the question is one of the constitutional administrative agency, commissioner an deputy his obligation give weight proceed- court is under no If the question. of that ings pending determination gave deputy that existed which finds facts court for the claim com- jurisdiction to-pass upon commissioner far as these pensation, injunction will denied so if, contrary, are on the questions concerned; fundamental commissioner had' the court is satisfied him, deter- no before jurisdiction proceedings any them of their effectiveness? deprive mination will the essential independence think that purpose. We the United States judicial power the exercise *35 that the rights requires the of constitutional enforcement should, an its such issue determine Federal court it. facts elicited before and the own record are other facts besides made that there The argument is of employment and fact injury the locality of the the of the commissioner. deputy the action which condition not to any change could avail aspect That contention think that the instant case. But we there result the the locality between where a clear distinction cases is the admiralty the case out of mari- takes injury the the fact of employment being or where jurisdiction, time this lacking any is under statute basis for there absent liability fault, without and those imposition cases the jurisdiction maritime admiralty fall the within which relation master and servant the maritime and where is in the exists. It latter field that the employment pro- that, compensation apply and for the visions reasons of this part opinion, in the earlier determina- stated relating tion of facts to the of the in- circumstances juries received, as well as their nature and consequences, subjected to the of admin- may appropriately scheme istration for provides. which Act
It an regarded impairment cannot be of the intended agency an that efficiency of administrative It confined its it be observed that proper sphere, but permit challenge application instances which of a of the statute, upon the we have grounds stated, appear few. Out of the many thousands of cases which b$ have brought been deputy before the commissioners throughout a review country, has been courts in only a small sought number,31 and an inconsiderable proportion of these have appear question involved the injury whether the occurred within the martime jurisdic- tion or the relation of employment whether existed.
We are the opinion the District Court not did err permitting trial on de novo the issue of employ- Upon ment. issue the witnesses who had testified before commissioner other were witnesses heard District by the Court. writ of certiorari was review granted particular facts but to pass upon question principle. respect With facts, are accord, two courts below and we find no reason to their decision. disturb
Decree affirmed. Brandéis, dissenting. Mr. Justice filed a claim against Knudsen Benson under 19 (a) and Harbor Longshoremen’s Workers’ Compen- 4, 1927, Act, March sation c. Stat. 1424. Benson’s denied,-among other things, that answer the relation of *36 employee existed employer and between him and the The evidence introduced claimant. deputy before the 31Supra, 10. note printed-rec pages occupies
commissioner, which conflicting. issue and was that largely directed ord, was inwas the’claimant found that commissioner deputy The an injury, and filed time of at employ Benson’s Benson (a).. brought § under compensation for order aside the order. The (b) to set § under . proceeding this side of admiralty the suit transferred judge district novo, refusing to consider de a trial held court the deputy before the case the record any aspect upon . in court, introduced he evidence On the commissioner. not employer employee did relation of that found setting compensation. aside a decree entered exist, and (2d) 306. The 38 F. Circuit (2d) 137; 33 F. orden (2d) the decree. 45 affirmed F. Appeals Court of . my 283 U. In certiorari granted Court This reversed, be because decree should opinion, a trial de novo. not authorize did for consideration is not whether question primary The validly provide, or could that deter- Congress provided, deputy commissioner should be of fact minations question court. The the district is: conclusive shall district court’s review of the record what Upon commissioner be based? The courts order respondent that the was entitled a trial de held below evidence introduced novo; all the before the deputy go naught; should and that respondent commissioner privilege presenting have the new, and even should different, evidence the district entirely court. Unless judgment was 'correct the holding below obviously affirmed.' cannot question initial is one
First. construction of Act. The Act does Longshoremen’s terms there be a trial de whether novo either as to declare the relation of employer the issue whether employee injury, at the or as to any existed time of the other issue, triable, before the deputy tried commissioner. It pro- vides, (a), “that deputy commissioner shall *37 all hear determine authority and have full and power ” that (a) claim; by a of respect § in questions commissioner by deputy made order compensation “ ” office, in filed his when effective become shall “ or aside setting suspension for the proceedings unless in subdivision as provided are instituted order of such .”; become final . . section, shall of this (b) “ a com- law, with If not .accordance (b) by § in whole aside, or set may suspended order pensation be. in- ... injunction proceedings through in part, or . . .” court. Federal district in the stituted (b) providing order phrase The § ” adopted with law was if not in accordance aside set Con- by enacted the same statutory provision, from Appeals Circuit Courts of of by the for review gress, Tax This Court has Appeals.1 Board of decisions as used the tax statute means phrase that the settled before Phil- record made the Board. upon the a review Commissioner, The Compen- 283 U. S. 600. lips consistently Long- has construed the Commission sation providing finality deputy Act as of shoremen’s all findings questions fact;2 on and care commissioners’ (a) 1926, 44 1003. Stat. 110: “Sec. The Circuit Act of 1 Revenue Appeals Appeals and the Court of District of Colum Courts jurisdiction to review the decisions of have exclusive shall bia Board. ...
“(b) power or, shall have Upon review, such such courts affirm modify law, Board is not in accordance with decision of the if the Board, remanding decision with or to reverse the without require.” rehearing, justice may a case for regulations expressed promulgated opinion was This Commission, authority (a), form under conferred in the deputy September dated 28, 1927; commissioners, instructions repeated report in the Commission’s at it was the close of year Report administration of its the Act. first United States Compensation Commission, year Employees’ ending for fiscal June id., id., 1928, p. 30, 1929, p. 77; 30, 1930, See also June June id., 63-64; June pp. 30, 1931, p. 71. The instructions has for formal hearings appropri taken to provide been States, Brown v. United Compare ate to that intention. Routzahn, Mason 113 U. S. 568, 571; 275 U. S. except bar, lower federal at courts, the case de have Act as trial uniformly denying construed the *38 novo any of determined by issue commis deputy sioner; issues, have held that, respect those the re afforded be upon view must the record made before the commissioner; deputy and commission findings accepted er’s must be if fact as conclusive by evidence, unless there was supported irregu some 3 proceeding before him. Nearly the state larity all commissioners, 1927, May 15, 1928, elaborated December re- 10, proceedings findings quired the record of prepared, fact be proceedings conducted, and the in consonance with view this the law. 3 judicial question passed review under the Act has been by Second, Third, First, Fourth and Ninth Courts Circuit Fifth; Appeals, as well as district court in the Sixth Circuit; Appeals Columbia, the Court District of May 17, 1928, 612, under the Act of c. 45 Stat. 600. Pocahontas Fuel missioner, 549, Co. v. 551, Monahan, [1929] 33 F. (2d) 41 A. M. C. 1598 F. 218, (2d) 48, 219 (D. 49 (D. Me.); (C. Me.); C. A. Jarka Joyce 1st), Corp. v. aff’g Deputy v. 34 Monahan, F. Com- (2d) (2d) (D. 283, Mass.); Monahan, Booth (2d) 48 F. 284 v. 56 F. 168 (D. Me.); Locke, (2d) (C. 50 81, & Inc. v. F. Wilson 82 C. A. Locke, (2d) F. 2d); (S. Y.) Travelers Insurance Co. v. 56 ; 443 D. N. (2d) (S. Y.); Locke, Calabrese v. 56 458 D. F. N. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining A. Independent 3d), aff’g Pier 34 & Molasses Co. F. Co. (2d) v. Norton 499, v. [1929] Norton, (C. A. C. A. 43 M. C. F. 3d), (2d) 1269 54 F. 505, (E. 506 (2d) D. (C. Pa.); C. Norton, (2d) Baltimore & S. Co. 271, (E. Carolina S. v. 40 F. 272 Pa.); Transp. Miners’ Norton, (2d) D. Merchants’ & Co. v. 32 F. (E. Corp. 513, Pa.); Norton, (E. D. (2d) 515 Jarka v. 56 F. 287 D. Pa.); (2d) Frank v. F. Norton, (E. Pa.); Marra Co. 56 246 D. Wheeling McManigal, Corrugating (2d) 593, 594, Co. v. 41 F. 595 Obrecht-Lynch (C. 4th); Corp. (2d) A. Clark, C. v. 30 144, F. 146 (D. (D. Md.); Clark, Stevedoring Keyway (2d) 43 Co. v. F. 983
69 compensa- construed the state courts have workmen’s limiting judicial 'of laws, tion review matters in other federal statutes, law.4 Provisions similar ';,tp (2d) (D. Md.); Kranski v. Atlantic 56 Shipping Co., F. 166 Coast (D. May Md.); Co. v. Clark decided Chesapeake Ship Ceiling Md.), opinion]; (2d) (D. Md.); 56 170 Clark, 1930 v. F. Goble 22, [oral (W. Mich.) ; (2d) 200 Michigan Brown, v. 56 F. Corp. Transit D. (C. (2d) 41 F. 29 C. Marshall, v. Stevedoring Northwestern Co. (2d) 9th); 41 153 Compensation A. Gunther v. F. Commission, (2d) (C. 9th); Grays A. 36 F. Marshall, C. Stevedore Co. v. Harbor Wash.); (W. Liability D. 815 Zurich Accident & General (W. Wash.); (2d) 1010, 42 F. 1011 D. Marshall, Ins. Co. v. (2d) (W. Dry Docks, Inc. v. 49 F. 623 D. Marshall, Todd Wash.); (2d) 814 Grays Marshall, Harbor Stevedore Co. v. 36 F. (W. Wash.); F. (2d) (W. v. 415 D. D. 56 Marshall, Rothschild & Co. (C. (2d) 9th); grounds, on 44 F. C. A. Wash.), reversed other (W. (2d) 860 D. Shipping Marshall, v. 56 F. Corp. Lea Mathew Wash.); (2d) Co. v. Sprague Stevedoring Marshall, F. & Griffiths (W. Wash.); (2d) Co. 56 F. Marshall, R. & D. W. Grace (W. (W. Wash.); (2d) Wash.); 56 F. D. Marshall, D. Nelson Wash.); (2d) (W. D. Marshall, Grant F. Zurich General *39 Wash.); (2d) (W. F. 652 D. Marshall, Co. v. 56 Liability & Accident (2d) (W. v. 56 F. 607 Corp. Solberg, D. Ocean Accident & Guarantee F. Wash.); compare v. 56 Washington Shipyards Brueggeman, Lake Wash.); Casualty Hoage, (2d) (W. 665 D. v. Amsterdam Co. New (2d) (Ct. C.); Hoage App. D. v. Murch Bros. 46 837 Const. F. following (Ct. C.). (2d) App. also the 983, F. See 50 984 D. Co., Crowell, Fifth Circuit: Showers by district courts v. decisions (2d) 480, (2d) (W. La.); Howard v. 31 Monahan, 46 361 D. F. F. Stevedoring 481, v. Tanner, 33 F. (2d) 44 F. v. Co. 220, (2d) 57 F. Sheppeard, 221 928 (S. (C. D. Tex.). Compare T. Moss Tie Co. C. A (2d) 259, 5th); Houston [1931] J. A. M. Ship Channel C. 1605 (S. Tex.). D. 4 arising the state case under been referred no The Court has recognizing right a to trial de novo compensation workmen’s laws findings of fact declare administrative decisions Numerous court. following all with controversies decisions dealt conclusive. employment. Acci concerning relation of v. Hillen existence 570; 250 Pac. Cal. 577, 580; York Trans Commission, 199 Junction dent 517, 521; 202 261 Commissioners, Cal. Storage Accident v. Co. & fer 70
those here in question, creating various administrative tribunals, have been treated likewise as not conferring trial de novo.5 right judicial to a 704; Corporation Pac. Index Mines v. Industrial Commission, 82 Colo. 275; 272, Pac. 1036; Corp. 259 Ocean Accident & Guarantee v. Wil son, App. 784; 246; Taylor 36 Ga. 138 S. E. v. Blackwell Lumber 721; Co., 707, 356; Cinofsky 37 Idaho 218 Pac. v. Industrial Com mission, 525; 521, 286; 125 290 Ill. N. E. Franklin Coal Co. In v. Commission, 334; dustrial 329, 811; 296 Ill. 129 N. E. A. E. Norris App. 423, 425; Jackson, 227; Murphy Coal v. 80 Ind. Co. 141 N. E. Shipley, ; 857, 497; v. 200 Iowa 859 205 W. Case, N. Churchill’s 265 117, 119; 68; Case, 493; Mass. 164 N. E. Hill’s 491, 268 Mass. 167 914; Brothers, E. Dale v. Saunders 59, 63; N. Matter 218 N. Y. Mining 571; Smelting 112 Thomas, N. E. Federal & Co. v. 99 Okla. Pipe 26; 225 967; Line Lindsey, Pac. Oklahoma Co. 24, v. 113 Okla. 298; 1092; Connor, Belmonte 470, 472; Pac. 296, 263 Pa. Atl. 787.
5 (a) 1910, Interstate Commerce Commission: Act of 18, 309, June c. 1, see Interstate Commerce 36 Stat. Comm. Louisville § Co., 88, 92; 227 U. S. United & Nashville R. States Louisville 314, 320, 321; R. U. S. & Nashville Louisville & Nashville 463, 466, States, v. United other'cases R. Co. collected “ The Commerce Sharfman, II,” pp. Interstate Commission L. in I. seq.; Act 18, 1910, 309, of June c. 384-393, 13, 539, 417 et Stat. § 701, Tagg 1, 1913, 92, c. 37 Stat. 555; Act of March See Bros. States, 420, 280 U. S. 444n. Moorhead v. United & n September 26, Act of (b) 1914, 311, Trade Commission: Federal c. 719-20; Federal Trade 717, see 5, Comm. v. Curtis Pub 38 Stat. § 579, Federal Trade lishing Co., 568, Comm. v. 260 U. S. Pacific 52, 63; Paper Assn., 273 U.S. Arkansas Trade Wholesale Gro States (2d) Comm., 866, 870, 871; Gregory 18 F. Federal Trade cers’ Assn. v. Federal Trade Hankin, “Conclusiveness Commission’s Find 233, 262-67; L. Rev. Facts,” Mich. Act of ings 15, October as to (applicable also appropriate 38 Stat. c. Commission and Commerce Federal to Interstate Reserve cases Publishing Curtis Co., supra; Trade Comm. v. Board); Federal see *40 Comm., 280 291, v. Federal U. S. Co. Trade 297. Shoe International 10, Act of June 1920, 285, c. 20, Power Commission: (c) Federal § 1063, 1074. 41 Stat. Shipping September Board: Act of 7, 1916, (d) States United c. 737, 738; see Isthmian 31, 728, Steamship 39 451, 29, Stat. Co. v. §§ safeguards Congress with which has surrounded deputy commissioner would proceedings before if meaning proceedings be without those were serve an to a contest thé merely inquiry preliminary Act Specific provisions Longshoremen’s courts.6 Congress expedite make clear it was aim.of delays With a view to obviating relief afforded. an judicial the Act substitutes proceedings incident court; and, tribunal besides pro administrative to be opportunity heard, for notice endows viding commissioner with the before proceedings judicial hearing. It prescribes of a customary incidents represented coun parties that the interest attendance of witnesses and the (d)-; sel, § (2d) 251; compare Naviga- (S. Y.), N. F. United D. States 474. Co., 284 S. S. U. v. Cunard S. tion Co. August 64, Agriculture: 15, 1921, Secretary 315, Act (e) c. §§ States, 168; Tagg Bros. Moorhead United 159, & v. 316, 42 see Stat. 512; 444; Wallace, 495, 258 U. Act 420, 443, 280 U. S. Stafford 159, 162; 10, 1921, 64, 204, 42 Stat. Act of June 15, c. August § 10, 11, 46 436, 531, Stat. 1930, c. §§ February 26, 27, Act of Appeals: 1926, Tax c. (f) Board Phillips Commissioner, 9, see 283 U. S. (a), 44 Stat. § 589, 600. September 1922, 21, 369, Act of Commission: c. Futures (g) Grain 998, 1002. (b), 42 Stat. 6§ Commission: Act of 22, Rent October Columbia (h) District 297, 301; 108, Hirsh, 41 Stat. see Block v. 1919, 80, Title II, c. § Zinkhan, Killgore 140, Fed. 135, 256 U. S. permit intended to the introduction in which In instances provided so district court it has in ex- evidence of additional February 18, 1922, 57, 2, e. See, g., Act Stat. press terms. e. § reparation for review of provision orders Compare the 388, 389. Commission, 1910, Act of June c. Commerce the Interstate payment money by of orders for the .of 539, 554, 313, 36 Stat. September 7, 1916, Act of c. 39 Stat. Board. Shipping 728, 737. Prop “Administrative Powers Over Persons and Freund, Compare erty,” p. 279.
'72 be
production compelled, § documents may (a); hearings that the shall be and that shall public, they be stenographically reported, (b); that there shall § “ hearings be a record the and other proceedings made “ deputy commissioners,” before the that (b); § the deputy commissioner shall have full and power authority ” questions to determine all in hear and of a respect claim, (a); and that his order shall become final after 30 § a is days, proceeding (b) unless filed under charging it “not in accordance with law.” Procedure that character, expediting instead of relief, this would entail delay if the expense useless proceedings before the commissioner were to in deputy repeated be court, and beginning, the tried from the at the case option either Congress The conclusion that did party. not so intend is by legislative reference to the confirmed history of the States, Caminetti United Compare Act.7 470, compensation providing longshoremen bills workmen’s
7 Two Congress were workers before the and harbor at the same time. 9498, reported favorably was first H. which to House, R. the declared “ 22, terms, deputy that the decision commissioner §§ questions except provided shall be final as all of fact as in sec questions tion 24 as to ail of law.” This bill was abandoned legislation House favor in order that some on the sub regarded ject, emergency, might under what was as passed an at D., Cong., Sess., 16, pt. 2, pp. H. 69th 1st ser. session. 139-141. Although differences between two bills minutely exam were hearings before ined in the the House Committee Judiciary, on the any change provisions no was made to reference for review of compensation orders; contrary on affirmatively but it was stated bill finality upon ques Senate likewise enacted that the administrative pt. 2, p. Id., tions of fact. 200. The same statement was made in hearings. Id., pt. 1, pp. reported the Senate 66. The bill was ” having as substantially the House been amended to conform reported, Rep., bill Cong., theretofore H. No. 69th 1st Sess. report in this and in the brief houses, Both debates in both the bill designed injustice was to prevent delay described incident construe-, warrants Nothing the.statute Second. has which trial de novo tion right of fact determined ás most issues concededly denied granted respect has commissioner been rela- employer-employee existence of the the issue *42 the to foreclose which is held tion. The sufficient language to all. forecloses it as to a trial on issues right such some of employ- fact the relation which the Whether peculiar the statute ment is to bear to the of asserted scheme authority passed, which it was under constitutional to a might conceivably provide have induced of that it is not special question, method review to For declared necessary inquire. Congress expressly review, of all the issues put, purposes its intention to by of on the same the basis, conferring upon deputy fact “ full power ques- commissioner to hear and determine all claim,” subject tions in of respect only such to the power “ if of court to set aside his order not in the accordance with law.” “ ” suggestion The that claim may such be construed only purview to mean a claim within the of Act seems sugges- to substance. Logically applied, me without commissioner powerless tion would leave any hear or determine issue of asserted under non-liability For non-existence of employer-employee Act. many of only grounds non-liability. relation is one of if was liability injury there is no occasioned Thus, of or the in- employee; if by intoxication solely due to the intention jury employee was wilful affording workers the remedies maritime same litigation, as compensation laws. See 67 provided in state workmen’s as those 5410-5414, Cong.' work Cong. 10614; 68 Rec. state Rec. have, universally, compensation almost construed men’s statutes been determination, questions fact, provide for final administrative employment. including an note the fact of the existence of See supra. 1i or kill
injure himself or or if another; it did not arise out of or employment course of if ”; or the em- not in' ployer engaged was maritime employment whole if or or the injured part; person, was the employee who has secured payment subcontractor of compensa- or if the tion; proceeding brought against the wrong if or person employer; disability or death is that of a master or a member the crew of if any vessel; or it is of a person engaged the master to load or unload or repair any eighteen vessel under tons small ifor it is that an officer or net; employee United States or or if it is that of an officer any agency thereof; State, or or employee any foreign government, any ifor thereof;, recovery subdivision for the dis- political ability through compensation or death workmen’s pro- validly law. ceedings provided state And ob- if liability there is no there was fact neither viously disability nor death'. It is reasonable to suppose *43 a fact-finding to set tribunal of Congress up intended a shorn of to find of the instance, power portion first any case; for decision of the or that in required facts from designed to withdraw enacting legislation litigation accidents, it of maritime a contemplated the bulk great facts must be twice whereby litigated the same procedure be assured the of could benefits longshoreman before compensation. 21 provided, (b), § that
The circumstance the in- by of orders of commissioner review of urged is as indicative an inten- junction proceedings complainant should proceedings in such have tion prove any facts plead showing full opportunity of the purview outside statute. But lay case that the questions other reasoning, again, many besides by this would be by open the Court referred retrial those different, evidence. The simple answer new, and upon of a equity to set aside orders federal that on bills is there no trial administrative board is de novo of issues of by fact tribunal. As determined stated in Tagg States, 420, Bros. & Moorhead v. United of of concerning Secretary Agriculture orders under Stockyards Act: the Packers 316 of the Packers and “A under Stock proceeding review, not a trial de novo. judicial Act is a yards like that Secretary, an of an order order validity Commission, must Interstate Commerce be deter of the him— record of the before proceedings upon mined of issues may exception there be an save presenting matter which need right, a of constitutional claims now.” or decided be considered quasi-judicial In of the decisions these the review in equity tribunals the serves administrative bill federal law, under the prac- which at common purpose of cer- writs many States, performed tice of record of reviewing court the It presents tiorari.9 tribunal before the/ proceedings administrative among other made, determination order that been prop- has authority whether the conferred things, in the fed- equity Neither bill exercised.10 erly provisions for review incorporated reference the Congress has authorizing Commerce Commission Interstate of the of orders Federal Power Commission orders of the certain judicial review Stockyards the Packers and Act. Board, as it did in Shipping and the 5, supra. note See Queens Gas Co. People McCall, York & ex rel. New In scope held that E. it was N. Y.N. the Public Commission was order of Service of an on certiorari review equity on bill in the orders of federal court as that same in Interstate Com as declared Commission Commerce the Interstate *44 452, Compare Illinois Central R. 215 U. 470. Comm. v. merce Proceedings,” 2, Attack on Judicial 3. Vanfleet, Collateral §§ 10 determining the action historic writ for whether is the Certiorari jurisdiction; has been taken within its it tribunal inferior of an only this determine been held that the writ lies sometimes has 76
eral courts nor writ of certiorari it the the States is practice to fresh re- permit evidence to be offered in the viewing court. There is no for suggestion foundation intended in the provide Long- otherwise shoremen’s Act.
Third. It
trial
provision
is said that
a
de novo
relation
employer-employee
existence
should
be read into the Act
order to avoid a serious constitu
tional
equally
doubt.
It is true that
is
where
statute
susceptible of two
it
constructions, under one of which
clearly
is
valid
may
and under the other of which it
unconstitutional,
adopt
the court will
the former con
Illinois,
struction.
116
269; Knights
Presser v.
U. S.
Jarman,
Templars’
187
Indemnity
197, 205;
Co. v.
U. S.
Carey
Dakota,
v.
250
122;
South
U. S.
Missouri
Boone,
R. Co.
270 U. S.
this
466, 471,
v.
But
Pacific
Act
not equally susceptible
is
to two constructions. The
court
order to
not,
holding
avoid
a statute uncon
stitutional, engraft upon,
exception
it an
or other provi
sion. Butts v.
& Miners Transportation Co.,
Merchants
230
126, 133;
U. S.
Employers’
Cases,
Liability
207
463, 500-502;
Cases,
Trade-Mark
100
99;
U. S. United
Fox,
States v.
Fourth. Trial de novo of the issue of the existence of employer-employee required relation not is the due That process ordinarily clause. clause does not even re- quire parties permitted that shall be to have a judicial tribunal pass upon weight evidence introduced body. before the administrative See Dahlstrom Metallic Board, Door Co. v. Industrial 284 U. S. findings commissioner, fact Court now de- cides, are conclusive most as' to if issues, supported by evidence. Yet issue of employment the Court only holds not that such findings may be declared final, but that it would create a serious constitutional doubt to construe the asAct committing the deputy commissioner the simple function collecting the evi- which the upon dence court will ultimately decide issue. suggested
It is this exception required is as to issues fact involving claims of constitutional right. I shall For reasons which later I discuss, cannot believe employment the issue of is one of constitutional But even right. assuming so, it to be the conclusion does the trial of not follow that the issue must therefore be a record made district court. That the func- collecting may evidence tion be committed to an ad- tribunal aby ministrative settled host of cases,11and supra. statutes and cases cited in note See Similar deci repeatedly made, have under sions been the Fourteenth Amendment, coming from the state cases courts. This Court recently has compensation may that a workmen’s validly provide decided state act justify which none of analogies, by persuasive
supported right a between issues constitutional distinction remedies .any others. administrative Resort hearing. North judicial a precedent condition made First Solum, U. Ry. ern Co. Pacific Commissioners, 264 U. S. County Bank v. National Co, v. S. S. Navigation States Cunard 454, 455; United *46 a though is so even Co., party 474. This 284 U. S. by the Federal rights of secured asserting deprivation Bank Com County First National v. Constitution. suits, In missioners, equity taking federal supra. open in court did not become issue any of on evidence Angeles 1913,12 Mfg. until Brush compare Los common upon only. of matters law Dahlstrom Metallic judicial review Board, 594. See also New York Cen Industrial 284 U. S. Door v.Co. 188, White, 207, 208. In Missouri ex rel. v. 243 U. S. tral R. Co. R. 42, it held a board of North, 40, v. 271 S. was that state Hurwitz U. specification might empowered,.upon reasonable of notice, be health heard, physician’s license, be to revoke a charges opportunity and Washington upon In subject only courts certiorari. review in the" Fairchild, 510, 224 Oregon Navigation v. U. S. Railroad & Co. ex rel. upheld of 527, the court review a statute was which confined a introduced before public order to the evidence service' commission’s Ry. Georgia, Wadley 235 also Southern v. See Co. commission. Queens New & 661; York ex rel. York Gas Co. v. 651, New S.U. Napa Valley 349; Co. 345, 348, Electric v. Railroad 245 McCall, U. S. Ry. Depart Commission, 366, Northern Co. v. 251 U. S. Pacific Long Works, 39, Sup In Island 268 U. Water ment Public S. 42. 695, findings 685, held that Brooklyn, S. it was ply v. 166 U. Co. damages proceed assessing condemnation commissioners in fact only leaving open question the court ings might final, made appraisal, or in the basis of otherwise. any was error whether there 142, 147; Mu Hahlo, Hardware Dealers 258 U. S. also Crane v. See Compare 151. 284 U. S. Insurance v. Glidden tual Fire Co. Lewis, 440, 452. 451, 241 U. S. Livestock Co. v. Pacific " Record in Federal Mitchell, The Narrative Griswold and See “ Lane, 488, 491; Year One Equity Appeals,” 42 Harv. L. Rev. Rules,” Harv. L. Equity Rev. Federal the New Under 1045-46, 1053-54, Chancery Practice,” Compare Daniell, ed., 2d seq. et James, admiralty U. S. it was Corp. v. until 1921.13 required by the Rules of this Court ap 122. On (2d) The P. R. No. F. Compare R. taken a comm admiralty, proof further is now peals tribunal concerning ission.14 As was a said similar Washington Oregon Navigation ex Co. v. Railroad & rel. Fairchild, 224 510, 527, the function chancery commissioner is like that of a who has master his required report been to take testimony findings Angeles Los Compare fact and conclusions law.. James, Arms, Corp. supra; Brush 129 U. Kimberly Co.,& 512, 524, 525; Armstrong Belding Bros. 297 Fed. holding the difference between the by the Act prescribed Longshoremen’s procedure hearing historic methods of transcends these evidence power when congressional applied limits issue of the existence of relation employment, as dis tinguished from of an injury circumstances relation of or the existence of a dependency, seems to me in reality. Certainly, without foundation there is no *47 to the litigant. difference
13 Admiralty
Subsequent
46,
Rule
254 U.
698.
to 1842,
S.
when the
subject
admiralty
promulgated
in
became
rules
procedure
by
this
1921, no
Court,
prior
specifically required
rule
that evidence
orally'
open court,
practice
taken
in
and the
in
some districts
proofs
appears
by
been to take
to have
a commission. Compare
Guy
Goss,
The
Admiralty
44, 46,
558;
C.
Rules
210 U.
826,
S.
53 Fed.
Wavelet,
733,
Sun,
The
See also The
Fed.
827;
25
734.
271 Fed.
953,
present
may
954.
rules the
court
still, upon
Under
district
circumstances,
proper
admiralty
refer causes in
commissioner,
to a
parties,
testimony
without
the consent of the
to hear
report
law. The
R. R.
fact and
P.
conclusions on issues of
No.
48
F.
Liverpool,
(2d) 122;
Brazil & River
Sorenson
Co.
Plate Steam
&
v.
City Washington,
Co.,
Nav.
(2d)
Compare
The
47 F.
332.
92
Angeles
Mfg.
James,
Brush
Corp.
Los
31, 39;
U. S.
v.
272 U.
701.
S.
findings of
The commissioner’s
fact are not
clearly
disturbed unless
Bourgogne,
La
781, 783, aff’d,
erroneous.
144 Fed.
210 U. S.
Anderson Alaska
(2d) 532,
S. S.
22 F.
Admiralty
See
Rule.
U. S. 607.
Rule
U.
question,
Court,
in
respect
by
Even
discussed
finality
to be accorded administrative findings involving
fact in a civil case
I
no
pecuniary liability,
see
making
reason for
special exception as
issues of con-
stitutional
it be that under certain
right, unless
circum-
stances,
there
arise
conclusions
difficulty
reaching
of law
of the evidence as
without consideration
well as the
findings of fact.
& Moorhead
Tagg
See
v. United
Bros.
States,
280 U. S.
Ohio
Water
Compare
Valley
Co. Ben
Borough,
adequacy
Avon
Fifth. employee required relation is not Judiciary Article of the Constitution. The mere fact that -the Act deals only injuries with on arising navigable waters, and that such independently legislation injuries can be redressed only admiralty,15 obviously preclude courts does not from a trial denying de novo. For the Court holds that it with the compatible grant power under III deny a trial de novo toas most of the facts Article Court, acquiesced decision of the District the Circuit The. Appeals Court, remedy and this (b) Court of under Longshoremen’s admiralty Act is in seems to me unfounded. The provision suspending setting or in that section compensa aside a by injunction clearly implies proceeding tion order bill Congress may authorize actions for maritime equity. torts to be brought courts, on the law side of the federal district Panama R. Co. courts, Engel 375, 385; Johnson, state in the v. Daven *48 port, Chelentis v. 37. See also Co., Luckenbach S. S. U. S. objection 372, 384. No constitutional can exist, therefore, U. remedy giving equity provided' to effect to in this Act. ,and a the amount claim which rest the allowance upon that the Constitution re holding Its of compensation. novo of the issue of the employer- a trial de quires on the relation which that relation is based employee scheme Con statutory propounded to the fact bears under which authority to constitutional gress, and argument The is that existence of the Act was passed. as a matter of employee is, employer the relation indispensable application law, substantive to Congress legis enact power because statute, existence; and that whenever the its upon lation turns upon an issue power depends question constitutional matter of be must, procedure, as a de issue fact freshly evidence intro upon independently terminable seems to me proposition a court.16 Neither well in' duced founded. Congress to provide compensa- power
Whether the navigable on waters is limited occurring injuries tion for relation employer-employee exists to in which the cases Court by this passed upon not heretofore been has I justification see no as- this case. argued was not so it is limited. suming, circumstances, under those suggests that, upon reasoning, similar opinion of Court 16 he navigable injury waters must like occurred on whether the issue independent redetermination, upon the facts as open well be wise question any peculiar whether law, in the district court. as the controversy, entitling it to significance attaches to such be twice power tried, us. has never been decided that is not before It injuries compensation for received in provide workmen injury depends upon having employment course of maritime “ Benedict, navigable The American waters. See Ad occurred Compare Soper v. Hammond Lumber miralty,” 5th ed., Corp., Industrial Nordenholt (2d) 872; State Commission F. Longshoremen’s only Act undertakes cover 263. The admiralty jurisdiction which within the decisions of this Court field of Stanley uniformity required. Morrison, held See have Work Compensation Law,” and the Maritime 38 Yale men’s L. J.
82 ” “ employee Long- was doubt the word used Without de- in the sense in which the common law Act shoremen’s not and no immutable; But that definition is fines it. of Constitution confines of application provision of fault to instances where the relation liability without defined, Compare exists.17 Louis Pisitz as so employment, Yeldell, 112, 274 U. S. 116. Whether Goods Co. v. Dry independent contractor, an employee or an individual is an often of upon ap- criteria subtle uncertain depends which have developed proc- criteria been plication,18 17 may recognized legislatures abolish law That defenses at common recognized beyond of action so question. new causes is and create not proper circumstances, provide under is the to for lia power, also So Compare Ry. & bility fault. St. San Francisco Co. v. without Louis Chicago, 1; Ry. 165 Rock Island & Co. v. Mathews, U. S. Pacific 582; Louis, Ry. Zernecke, Iron Mountain 183 St. & Southern Taylor, White, R. New York Central v. Co. v. Co. U. provide carrier for Congress that a shall be liable S. 188. U. occurring beyond damage goods its own Atlantic or to lines. loss Mills, 186, R. 219 U. S. 203. See also Line Co. Riverside Coast “ Glenn, 388, rule,” R. Co. v. 239 U. S. The Coast Line 393. Atlantic fights adapted shipper to secure the “is of the Court, said the unity transportation That securing unity responsibility.” with similarly might unity responsibility in secure for working upon persons enterprise, irrespective the same juries all existing or particular employment, of contract is not relation of the argument and in the absence of circumstances be assumed without logic upon compen The which question. workmen’s presenting require sustained does not have been insistence sation acts Compare relation. master and servant Ward & Gow v. technical “ Smith, also Sequel Jeremiah Krinsky, See to Work 259 U. S. Acts,” L. Rev. Compensation Harv. men’s many examples course, law, liability holds common hands of injury independent sustained an at con persons for third servant, g., Ellis e. 2 E. & his B. tractor Sheffield (n. s.) 470; Ribetti, B. Doll v. Smith, C. 203 Fed Pickard Douglas, O. analysis and criticism William Vicarious' See the Risk,” L. Yale J. Liability and Administration 594-604. Rev, “Agency,” 5 Harv. 14-16. Holmes, L. W. Compare O. inclusion, largely exclusion since judicial esses reference, Constitution19 with adoption to. ac- foreign considerations industrial part, the most It is not to be assumed Con- litigation. cident revise the maritime law, amend and gress, having power modifying from those and enlarging criteria prevented all this Act so as to embrace liability imposed by per- *50 themselves in the engage or work engaged sons who are another, designated independent now including of those Congress, Act Longshoremen’s itself, In contractors. in- the relation of master and servant declaring far from statute, in all to the application cases dispensable em- a contractor shall be liable to expressly that provided has to secure a who failed pay- of ployees subcontractor 4 com- (a). § State workmen’s of compensation. ment contain for provisions invariably laws almost pensation or to their em- to contractors liability independent either sometimes conditioned sometimes absolute ployees, these employer;20 pro- immediate by the upon default Liability,” passim; Sayre, Francis Bowes Baty, “Vicarious 19 See “ Another,” 689, 43 L. Rev. Acts of Harv. Responsibility for Criminal 345, 5 691-694; Holmes, “Agency,” L. Rev. id. 1. The Harv. W.O. “ Agency appear Paley, until 1812. The did not text-book on first Principal Agent.” of Law H; Ralph digests in L. V. Hill and of the statutes Wilkin, See Law”; Compensation and F. Robertson Jones, Statute “Workmen’s ed.). Compensation (10th provi Laws” The “Digest of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 56, is York illustra New Workmen’s sion in the subject is, contractor, whose or in “A of contract involves tive: any employment, part who subcontracts or a hazardous all of cludes pay compensation any for be liable and shall to contract shall such injured. recommending In 1927, . .” the exten employee . general include owners or lessées as well as provision to sion of this Industrial Commissioner contractors, said: “From the the State compensation making injured of workers, sure all point of view of obligations put existing upon general for the the reasons contractor part building who work, equally work sublets are piece of for a doing premises $n for same lessee cogent cas? own?r have uniformly upheld.21 visions been I appear can- doubt even the view of evidence that, taken Court, Congress have made might District Benson liable for to Knudsen he injury which sustained.
Sixth. Even if constitutional power provide compensation is cases which limited building part precisely way. prac- who lets work in the same The doing by experience it has tical need for been shown to be extensive owing large building being amount of now work done under the designed method noted and which this amendment above to cover. existing provision proven very has' beneficial in the case contractors, equally be type and it will useful in the case of owner-contractor, speak, who so must now dealt with solu- tion problem.” Report of the same Annual of the Industrial Com- 4, missioner pp. (1927), 21See, g., Co., e. Industrial Commission v. Investment Continental 398, 401, 402; 49; George 78 Colo. 242 Pac. Palumbo v. A. Fuller Co., 355, 358; 63; 99 Conn. Atl. Fisk v. Bonner Tie 304, 308; 569; Parker-Washington Idaho Pac. Co. v. Industrial Board, 504; 976; 274 Ill. 113 N. E. American Steel Foundries Board, 103; 902; Duer, Industrial Ill. 119 N. E. McDowell v. *51 App. Clay, Ky. 78 Ind. 133 N. E. Burt v. 207 278, 281; 322; Sedbury W. Arkansas S. v. Natural Gas 269 Corp., 204, 205; La. 199, 1; George 171 130 White So. v. B. H. Co., 195, 198; 239; Munising 244 Mass. 138 E. Burt N. v. Macomber Co., 699, 702, 703; 895; Lonjay 222 Mich. 193 N. W. De Woodenware Indemnity & Co., (2d) v. Accident 35 S. W. 912 Hartford (Mo.); Sherlock, ; 645; 112 Sherlock v. Neb. 799 201 N. W. Pendlebury, 245, 247; 494; O’Banner v. 107 N. J. L. 153 Atl. v. Clark Engineering Co., 107, 110; 436; Monarch 248 N. Y. 161 N. E. State, 513, 522-525; 551; De Witt Ohio St. 141 E. v. N. v. Green Commission, Industrial 212; 933; Qualp Okla. 249 Pac. 502; 780; Murray Pa. James Stewart 109 Atl. v. Wasatch Grading Co., 430, 436, ; 940; 439 Pac. Utah Threshermen’s Commission, 303, 306; Ins. Nat. Co. v. Industrial 201 Wis. 230 N. W. Wisinger Corp., (2d) 101, compare Oil White 24 F. 102. But Flickenger Commission, 425, 432, 433; v. Accident 181 Cal. 184 Pac. Liability pay compensation England to obtains in under circum stances in which employment Mulrooney no relation of exists. See (1909), (1909), Todd K. B. Marks v. Carne 2 K. B. 516. I relation see no basis for a exists, employer-employee right the denial of a de novo the to trial contention in any the issue is manner sub- upon employment of judicial the federal independence power. versive of of the of any prior decision Nothing Constitution, the or sup- Court to lends called, this which attention has been judicial a fact finding any to the doctrine that port of enforce a proceeding pecuniary involved civil to any be- may made evidence liability upon not be introduced or tribunal, constituted administrative properly fore an not be deemed that a determination so made re- judicial Congress has determination. independent authority upon the tribunals peatedly exercised to confer courts administrative bodies creates, which it be they evidence limited to receive jurisdiction, power federal which the exercise of concerning upon facts must whether power predicated, determine power provide facts exist. those sub- under circumstances legislation liability certain determination of power provide for the sumes not depend It does existence those circumstances. fact. reality any the absolute existence concerned, proof It is true far as Knudsen is that, so is relation employer-employee of the existence the' defini- under Act. But under recovery essential to Co., 147 Logging River laid down in Noble v. Union tion It jurisdictional. U. that fact is 173, 174, em- of a relation The existence quasi-jurisdictional. applicability is a question going ployment tribunal. law, jurisdiction not to the substantive adjudicate between power is the Jurisdiction Rey- subject-matter. Compare concerning parties Obviously, *52 268. 254, 140 U. S. Stockton, v. nolds but only power not commissioner had 'deputy rela- employer-employee to determine whether duty juris- has tribunal duly constituted existed. When tion subject-matter, of the of the parties diction jurisdiction not impaired by érrors, grave, however Payne, Dennison v. applying substantive law. Rock Compare Chicago, Island & Pacific 333, Fed. Schendel, 270 U. S. Marin Ry. Auge Co. v. 611, 617; v. Exchange, dahl, Pathé 149; Binderup 142, 247 U. S. v. true of 291, spe 263 U. 305-307. This is of tribunals of It is true general jurisdiction. cial as well as of those If judicial of as well as of tribunals. administrative, errors of law not be made application of an adminis basis of collateral attack decision no final, once that decision has become tribunal, trative “ ” re compel independent defect jurisdictional can. review, direct of the facts court, upon examination affecting applicability. such “ ” III Article of the Constitution judicial power any the federal and not of government, is the power in that Article which nothing There is inferior tribunal. in- controversy to be determined as of first any requires jurisdiction district courts. The in the federal stance Congress.22 the control of subject Mat- courts is those America, North Bank United States v. 8, 10; 4 Dall. Turner v. Goodwin, Sill, 32, 33; 441, & Shelden v. 8 How. 7 Cranch Hudson Murray, 280; Dunn, Insurance Co. v. 274, 9 Wall. Justices 449; Fain, Kline Burke Stevenson 165, 214, Wall. It 226, 260 U. S. was until the Act Construction Congress juris extended the 18 Stat. March c. “ arising courts to cases under the of the circuit laws diction range to be permitting exercised “the vast States,” thus United in .the Constitution since 1789.” had lain dormant power which Landis, James M. “The Business Frankfurter See Felix 65-68; Warren, Charles Court,” pp. “Federal Criminal Supreme Large Courts,” areas of 38 Harv. L. Rev. 545. the State Laws and jurisdiction of lower federal courts are now occu- potential -legislative courts, As to see Wilber Griffith tribunals. by other pied Courts,” Legislative Harv. L. Rev. 894. Katz, Federal exclude from the federal courts power exercised repeatedly has jurisdictional' aris- requisite amount. Cases involving the cases not *53 their jurisdiction may within may placed which ters be courts. If committed state there be instead be judicial power to which the extends that controversy any the subjected be conclusive determination not may courts, or federal it legislative administrative bodies of prohibition against of the diminution any not because is federal district of the courts as jurisdiction such, under certain the because, constitu- circumstances, but a requirement of due process judi- is of requirement tional of precedents, An accumulation re- already process. cial in has established that civil in- to,23 proceedings ferred Liability Employers’ Federal Act are triable either ing under Employers’ courts. the federal district See Second courts or the state York, Douglass 1, 56, 57-59; Liability Cases, 223 U. S. v. New New R. S. 377. So also U. cases under Haven & § Hartford by Act, amended Act as Merchant Marine Seamen’s Davenport, Engel Panama R. Co. v. 557, 562. Vasquez, 271 U. S. 5, supra. and statutes collected in note See decisions far as So presented, question here it is immaterial concerns the whether the wholly private parties is controversy is between between the Gov litigation Longshore The that a fact under the ernment and citizen. (even substance, private parties though between is, men’s Act only (b) necessary party commissioner under 21§ the inference respondent) does not warrant the administrative present question a not of the Act decided. features heretofore The supra, with scope note deal matters outside tribunals listed in recently parte Ex Corporation, examined in Bakelite .the doctrine opinion in that case referred to 438. While the “various 279 U. S. government others” arising appropriate between the matters legislative courts, the reference cognizance of was restricted for the judicial do not require from their nature matters which determina it,” susceptible determining mode of yet which tion and are Ibid, congressional sug control.” at completely “is within judicial process require any does gestion process due con party is a government would troversy to which the involve a revi conceptions judicial sys nature the federal sion of historic arising questions .administration of all in the the Inter tem. That Act,' example, taxpayer or between a state Commerce could be committed government under the tax laws, volving property rights determination of facts consti- tutionally made otherwise than judicially; and neces- sarily that evidence as to facts may such be taken outside I do court. not conceive that III Article has properly any bearing upon question presented this case.
Seventh. The cases cited Court support *54 its conclusion that the statute would be invalid if con- strued to deny a trial de of affecting novo issues of fact the of existence the employer-employee seem to relation me irrelevant. of those Most decisions dealt tri- with bunals functions exercising generically different from the function which Congress assigned has to deputy the Longshoremen’s commissioners under the and no Act, question analogous arose now presented.
By Longshoremen’s the Act, Congress fact- created and finding fact-gathering tribunals, the supplementing courts and entrusted with power make initial determi- within, nations in matters and outside, ordinary judi- cial The of purview. purpose these bodies administrative courts, ,the is to withdraw from the subject to of power judicial review, a of controversies class which experience has effectively shown can expeditiously be more and a special instance and by the first tri- expert in handled of the are proceedings The commissioners bunal. substantial safeguard of a every judicial with endowed as a are, conclusions mattef of right, open Their hearing. on all questions law; the courts of to reexamination of purposes for the this may discussion, assume be and, we questions weight on all the of evidence. open even bodies ádministrative cases referred to The contrary, on the no fact-gathering are sense Court, officers, respect of exclusively executive issues law as well supposed. Thus there fact, never been is no indication in the of has Corporation parte Bakelite in Ex opinion Court Commerce although legislative instances of such court, was the creation of considered detail. “Fed Katz, See Wilber Griffith courts were Legislative Courts,” Rev. eral Harv. L. of instance. are fact-finding They tribunals first tribu- scope authority. final within of their
nals of resort ordinarily judi- Their is with matters outside of concern deportation aliens, of enforce- competence, cial —the discipline, of land military granting patents, ment mails, use of which are and within —matters to commit to conclusive executive de- power Corp, Ex Bakelite 279 U. Compare parte termination. 438,451. summary Their procedure frequently courts respect them, is.24 With the function of the but func- not one review of control —the essentially keeping statutory authority.25 tion within them their Horton, Compare Miller Mass. E.N. Zehr, These 29 N. E. cited Pearson v. Ill. Court. action, complaining summary administrative and the involved cases given opportunity ques had no to be heard been on the individuals subject was in property whether their fact to the destruction tion finality degree appropriate action in administrative ordered. depend hearing always upon the must character the administrative Compare Dickinson, “Administrative Su provided. Justice 260-261; Albertsworth, Law,” pp. E. Re premacy F. “Judicial *55 by Supreme Court,” Action Federal 35 of Administrative the view States, tendency appears In 127, 152, Rev. 153. most the Harv. L. deny against an right, in a tort action to be to the administrative justifying act, of a question the' existence the fact his if to officer, injunction if a suit been hearing provided or for could have was Powers Over brought. Freund, “Administrative Persons and See Health, 372, 383; 83 248-252; Kirk v. Board (cid:127)Property,” pp. S. C. of Storage Chicago, Compare American Cold North Co. v. 65 387. S. E. arising 306, In cases under the Workmen’s Com 316, 317. 211 U. S. hearing available, Laws, the Massachusetts where formal pensation many others, courts, common with have held the ad and Illinois finding employment of the fact of conclusive. Churchill’s ministrative 68; Case, 491; 268 117; N. E. Hill’s 167 Case, Mass. 164 Mass. 265 Commission, 521; 290 Cinofsky Ill. 125 N. 914; v. Industrial E. N. E. Commission, Industrial Ill. 286; Franklin Coal Co. v. E. 811. N. “ Davison, on Administrative Compare Cases Frankfurter “ Levitt, The o Preface, p. Albert Judicial Review Law,” viii. See seq. authority 588, Rev. 595 et This Acts,” L. 23 Mich. Executive f judicial action method review of the administrative
No- of Congress cited; been of the cases provided by any had question power and the of the to confine review not In each accordingly record did administrative arise. case, the held if the administrative officer had Court a authority, acted outside his unwritten law supplied remedy, according relief could be to had, case, equity corpus.26 nature of the on or habeas bill questions fact, embrace well the determination of of as of law as judicial upon given authority depending construction to of the Grimley, Morrissey, In In re re Noble Union tribunal. v. Thus in Logging Hitchcock, River Smith and Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, infra, recognized note 26, all cited in Court conclusive question. many by of of decisions law tribunals Tribunals ness empowered, of this are of under ordinary character course circum g., stances, Passa conclusive determinations fact. e. make of See States, 214, 219; Medbury States, vant v. United v. United 148 U. S. 497, 498; States, Silberschein v. United 492, U. 221, S. S.U. Quon Quon Poy Johnson, 352, 273 U. S. 358. 26 (a) Ng Fung White, Ho 276, In 259 U. S. author statute deportation only aliens, provision judicial ized the of without for re February 5, 1917, 19, 29, view the executive order. Act c. § Upon application by 874, corpus, for a Stat. writ habeas person citizen, claimed be a arrested who it was held that he was judicial entitled to a determination of that No question claim. arose have, validly might provided whether for review ex clusively upon department; the record made in the'executive nor as might scope permissible of review which have been such record. Grimley, In
(b) Morrissey, re and In re 137 U. 137 U. S. military deal Military with the action of tribunals. tribunals system separate form a from the courts civil courts and created power independent grant virtue an I, Constitution. Art. They authority finally have any determine case cl. jurisdiction; they proceedings which over have their . . . are open except purpose the civil tribunals, to review jurisdiction ascertaining military per- whether the had court *56 subject-matter, whether, though having jurisdic- and son and such pronounced.” tion, powers it its in'the sentence Carter had exceeded States, Roberts, v. United 496, 498; v. 333, 177 S. 206 U. U. S. Grafton
91 in was Congress each case question decided absence of specific provision, not be taken, should the subject the individual to the uncon have intended to See public of a administrative officer. trolled action McAnnulty, Magnetic Healing v. American School of 94, .presented 187 U. 110. No issue comparable S. here. necessary placed,
Reliance is illustrative of as also judicial of federal de- independence power, upon Water Co. Ben 253 Valley Borough, cision Ohio v. Avon case, That however, only ques- U. S. 287.27 involved Congress provide any "by 347. As did not method for review military questions tribunals, courts of the decision of all concern- law military ing jurisdiction open independent are determinaton in the courts; Grimley re Morrissey, civil and the cases of In and In re Congress nothing findings decide “ more. Whether could make the ” jurisdictional military facts tribunals conclusive civil appears question, courts is a which never to have been raised. (c) Logging Co., In Noble v. Union River 165, 174, 147 S.U. relief stay granted equity illegal
was bill in action unauthorized Secretary respect Interior public lands, there being judicial prescribed no method of review Compare statute. Smelting Kemp, 636, v. Co. S. U. (d) Hitchcock, 53, In U. S. Smith Bates & Guild Payne, U. Mag Co. American School of Healing McAnnulty, netic 94, 109, equity Co. bills in entertained to review acts of were alleged Postmaster General provided having any unauthorized, method of judicial question In review. each case the involved was stated to be one of law. Valley The decision in Ohio Water Company Case has evoked See, extensive and varied g., comment. Curtis, e. Judicial Review Regulation Rate Valley 34 Harv. L. Commission Case,” Ohio —The 862; Albertsworth, Rev. “Judicial Review Administrative Action (cid:127)by Supreme Court,” 35 Harv. L. Rev. the Federal 127; C. Pound, W. L. Power,” “The Judicial Brown, Harv. “The Functions of Utility Courts and Commissions Public Rate Regulations,” 38 L. Harv. Rev. 141; Wiel, L. “Administrative Finality,” 38 Harv. Rev. 447; Buchanan, Valley “The Ohio Water Company Case Val Railroads,” uation of L. Beutel, Harv. Rev. “Valuation as a *57 tion of scope review, upon administrative in record, reviewing confiscation cases. It held that court must have power weigh upon to the evidence which administrative tribunal entered the It order.' decided to a trial de in nothing concerning right novo court; and opinion made no reference to trial. It such a could not have anything decided as to the effect of Article III of the Constitution. For the case came here from the highest court arose State, under the Fourteenth jurisdiction did not relate to .the Amendment, lower federal Moreover, courts. in no event can the issues in presented the review of rate orders alleged be confiscatory, questions which involve difficult of mixed fact, law and parallel deemed to those presented the review of compensation workmen’s awards.28 Com- Ohio Valley Water Co. v. Ben Avon pare the issues Borough, supra, with that in Dahlstrom Metallic Door Board, Co. Industrial U. S. 594. be the of a propriety Whatever rule permitting “ in a trial
special reexamination court of juris- so-called Requirement Cases,” Process of Law in Due Rate 43 Harv. L. Valley Green, Case, The Ohio Q. 55; Water Rev. Ill. L. “ Right Freund, The a Judicial Controversies,” Review Rate “ Q. 207; Hardman, Requirement Judicial L. Review as W. Va. a “ Regulation,” in Rate Isaacs, Due Process Yale L. J. Judicial Findings,” Review of Administrative 30 Yale L. J. 781. No com appears however, to have mentator, recog understood the decision as any right nizing in manner a to trial de novo court confisca tion issues. 28“ n regret determining It is cause for that the Court in this contro obiter, versy declared, public should have matters of State regulation involving utility special administrative action of a charac ter, raising questions under a provision, different constitutional contrary procedure required universally to that almost mode (see Lilienthal, law David established under E. State The Federal Regulation Utilities,” of Public Courts State Harv. L. Rev. seriously 412, 413), operation and calculated to embarrass the the administrative method in field. (fictional passed upon by facts” administrative bodies having final jurisdiction otherwise over matters properly I find them, committed to no warrant for extending the doctrine to other and different administrative tribunals very whose function is hear and make evidence initial determinations concerning those matters which it is sought reexamine. Such a doctrine has never been applied *58 properly analogous tribunals to the deputy commission ers, Commission, such- as the Interstate Commerce the Commission, Secretary Federal Trade the of Agriculture acting Stockyards Act, under the Packers and and the Logically seriously like.29 applied' impair it would the process.30 entire administrative Eighth. good suggested No reason is all why the evi- dence which presented Benson to the district court in this cause could not presented been before the deputy have nor he commissioner; why been permitted should have provisionally his try case before the administrative tribunal and then in retry it the upon district court additional evidence theretofore permit withheld. To him to do so violates the salutary principle that administra- tive remedies must first be exhausted before resorting the imposes court, unnecessary and burdensome expense upon party the other the cripples effective adminis- tration of the Under Act. the prevailing practice, by judicial which the review has been questions confined to proceedings of law, the before the deputy commissioners Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nash 29 But see R. S. 92. The by U. statement Mr. Justice Lamar ville however, went no further there, than to indicate in some cir the courts on review of orders cumstances of the Interstate Commerce might pass independent judgment an Commission the evidence Commission. also adduced before See Interstate Commerce Com the Ry. Co., mission Northern 538, 544; Pacific Manufac States, Ry. v. United turers Co. 246 U. 488-490. See Dickinson,“Administrative Justice and the Supremacy p. Law,” non-controversial;31 most part proved have To courts.32 permit have reached few cases relatively tried, of an de court issue in the district novo a contest fear, will, I commissioner deputy or before triable, of the Act. administration the effective gravely hamper necessarily will commissioner deputy of the prestige The facts relitigating opportunity be lessened cases be number of controverted The the courts. will en- controversy Persistence increased. largely advantage prolonged litiga- And since couraged. heavy expenses, able to bear party lies with tion part will defeated.33 the Act .purpose be. disposed during cases 30,383 non-fatal the fiscal Out hearings commissioners held ending year June according information furnished only 729, United States Compensation payments Commission. Compensation Employees’ cent, per 11,776 cases, or 38.8 the total. In completed were injured cent., employee cases, per failed to receive 17,328 lost, days, or less than because time was seven on no compensation 1,279 injury. cases, balance of amounting 4.2 account *59 whole, they dismissed because did the were not come per cent.' of Among 18,607 sipope law. the non-compensated the’ within employee only 1,025 the in were filed cases, formartlaims instances. Compensation Commission, 1930, also, Repdrt pp. the See, 68-70. ending year June 101 new cases fiscal were For the filed 30,489 courts, disposed out a total of cases district of. in the Employee’s Compensation States Report Commission, of the United years preceding three the pp. 69, For the 71. number cases filed 61, 58, respectively, was, and 15. Report, 1930, p. courts -62; 1928, p. id. decision of id. 1929, p. the Circuit Court declaring right bar in the case at a trial de novo Appeals opinion first November was rendered District May 27, 1929. on Court consequences question will be serious these is a of specula How they aggravated that plain is will be tion; it but thepnherent scope uncertainty in the doctrine announced. The determina “jurisdictional” are what facts or "fundamental” tion calcu disputes. a multitude of provoke That lated there is a difference example, thgt kind, between the defense injured claimant employee, and he was acting an an employee is not when judgment of the Circuit my opinion Court of .In and'the case be reversed remanded to Appeals should sitting as a court of Court, equity, District for con- the record made and decision before the sideration commissioner. join Stone and Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Roberts this opinion. v. KINCAID. OF
HURLEY, WAR, SECRETARY Argued January 4, 5, February 23, No. 457. 1932. Decided a difference between that there is the latter injured, defense he was disability, any, from if which he defense suffers all, employment from at only part, or not which he resulted propositions it, employers which are will suffered have claims *60 they have submitted them until accept decision of unlikely to legislation this will The effectiveness lessened courts. controversy procedural over rights barren opportunity this opes. determinatipn substantive thwarted by delayed