The Administrative Court Idea Before Congress

HE UNIQUENESS of courts lies in their special jurisdiction over civil controversies involving the government. At present there are no courts of general jurisdiction in the United States; that is, there are none which take all or even a variety of such cases. Nor are there any courts of limited jurisdiction going under the label administrative court, although the U.S. Court of Claims, the U.S. Customs Court, the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the U.S. Tax Court are in truth courts of limited jurisdiction. So also in some ways perhaps is the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. This dearth of special courts to handle civil cases involving the government is in contrast with the wide use of such courts elsewhere in the world, and also in contrast with the large and rapidly increasing volume of such controversies. Steadily increasing business regulation and welfare programs, especially since the New Deal, have brought citizens ever more frequently into contact and into controversy with government. Since the 1930's certain segments of the bar have called for special courts possessing special skill to settle fairly civil controversies between citizen and government. Eighteen bills have been introduced into Congress since 1929 to create an court. They, and certain developments relating to them, are analyzed in this article. As lawyers very well know, most civil controversies between citizen and government involve differences of opinion between administrators and people subject to their rules and decisions. Most are presently adjudicated by the administrators themselves. If, for example, the Federal Trade Commission thinks a tobacco company is being deceptive when it advertises there's not a in a carload the Commission (after issuing a complaint) will hold a hearing (trial) and then issue a cease and desist order if the record of the hearing shows there is deception. Ultimately, of course, the tobacco company may appeal to a regular court if there is some question of legality it wishes to press (perhaps fairness of the hearing or the authority of the agency, et cetera). Thus, in the United States controversies involving the government are likely to land in the regular courts if they reach any court at all. However, most cases never reach a court because the amount involved isn't worth the expense of litigation. Furthermore, the courts will not enter unless there is a legal question. Courts also generally accept as final the administrators' finding of fact. Whether there is a cough in a carload might be viewed as a question of fact, not of law. Our way of settling such controversies is very like that of the British, although it is quite different from that prevailing over most of the rest of civilization. Continental Europe tends to follow the French pattern which gives to