1. President's Committee on Administrative Management, Report of the President's Committee: Administrative Management in the Government of the United States (Washington, D.C., 1937), 32Google Scholar. The literature on the changing American state and the rise of administrative capacities is extensive. Wiebe, Robert H., The Search for Order, 1877–1920 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Galambos, Louis, “The Emerging Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review 44 (1970): 279–390Google Scholar; McCraw, Thomas, “Regulation in America: A Review Article,” Business History Review 49 (1975): 159–183Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred, The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, Mass., 1977)Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., American Political History as Social Analysis (Knoxville, 1980)Google Scholar; Skowronek, Stephen, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (Cambridge, 1982)Google Scholar; McCraw, Thomas, Prophets of Regulation (Cambridge, Mass., 1984)Google Scholar; Skocpol, Theda, Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)Google Scholar; Milkis, Sidney M., The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System since the New Deal (New York, 1993)Google Scholar; Leuchtenburg, William E., The Supreme Court Reborn: The Constitutional Revolution in the Age of Roosevelt (New York, 1995)Google Scholar; Novak, William J., “The Legal Origins of the Modern American State,” in Sarat, Austin, Garth, Bryant, and Kagan, Robert A., eds., Looking Back at Law's Century (Ithaca, 2002), 249–283Google Scholar; Carpenter, Daniel P., The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928 (Princeton, 2001).Google Scholar

2. On executive reorganization efforts, see Karl, Barry D., Executive Reorganization and Reform in the New Deal: The Genesis of Administrative Management, 1900–1939 (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)Google Scholar; Polenberg, Richard, Reorganizing Roosevelt's Government: The Controversy over Executive Reorganization, 1936–1939 (Cambridge, Mass., 1966)Google Scholar; Karl, Barry D., “Constitution and Central Planning: The Third New Deal Revisited,” Supreme Court Review 1988 (1988): 163–201Google Scholar; Arnold, Peri E., Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning, 1905–1996, rev. ed. (Lawrence, Kans., 1998)Google Scholar. On administrative law, see Gellhorn, Walter, “The Administrative Procedure Act: The Beginnings,” Virginia Law Review 72, no. 2 (1986): 219–233Google Scholar; Gellhorn, Walter and Davis, Kenneth Culp, “Present at the Creation: Regulatory Reform Before 1946,” Administrative Law Review 38 (1986): 511–533Google Scholar; McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R., “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 3, no. 2 (1987): 243–277, at 246Google Scholar; Pops, Gerald M., “Administrative Law as Public Policy: The First Fifty Years,” Journal of Policy History 2, no. 1 (1990): 98–117Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960 (New York, 1992)Google Scholar; Eisner, Marc Allen, “Discovering Patterns in Regulatory Change: Continuity, Change, and Regulatory Regimes,” Journal of Policy History 6, no. 2 (1994): 157–187Google Scholar; Shamir, Ronen, Managing Legal Uncertainty: Elite Lawyers in the New Deal (Durham, N.C., 1995)Google Scholar; Shepherd, George B., “Fierce Compromise: The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics,” Northwestern University Law Review 90 (1996): 1557–1683Google Scholar; Brazier, James E., “An Anti-New Dealer Legacy: The Administrative Procedure Act,” Journal of Policy History 8, no. 2 (1996): 206–226Google Scholar; Zeppos, Nicholas S., “The Legal Profession and the Development of Administrative Law,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 72 (1997): 1119–1157Google Scholar; Rosenbloom, David H., “1946: Framing a Lasting Congressional Response to the Administrative State,” Administrative Law Review 50, no. 1 (1998): 173–197Google Scholar; McCubbins, Mathew D., Noll, Roger G., and Weingast, Barry R., “The Political Origins of the Administrative Procedure Act,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (1999): 180–217Google Scholar; Schiller, Reuel E., “Policy Ideals and Judicial Action: Expertise, Group Pluralism, and Participatory Democracy in Intellectual Thought and Legal Decision-Making, 1932–1970” (Ph.D. diss., University of Virginia, 1997)Google Scholar; Schiller, , “Enlarging the Administrative Polity: Administrative Law and the Changing Definition of Pluralism, 1945–1970,” Vanderbilt Law Review 53 (2000): 1389–1453.Google Scholar

3. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 8 June 1940, 4; folder– “Committee Meeting – June 6, 7, and 8”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; Records of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure (agcap); General Records of the Department of Justice, Record Group 60 (rg 60); National Archives at College Park (nacp).

4. For early work on administrative law, see Dicey, A. V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 8th ed. (London, 1915)Google Scholar; Wilson, Woodrow, “The Study of Administration,” Political Science Quarterly 2 (1887): 197–222Google Scholar; Freund, Ernst, “The Law of the Administration in America,” Political Science Quarterly 9 (1894): 403–425Google Scholar; Goodnow, Frank J., Politics and Administration (New York, 1900)Google Scholar; Goodnow, , The Principles of the Administrative Law of the United States (New York, 1905)Google Scholar; Powell, Thomas Reed, “Separation of Powers: Administrative Exercise of Legislative and Judicial Power (II),” Political Science Quarterly 28 (1913): 34–48Google Scholar; Pound, Roscoe, “Justice According to Law (II),” Columbia Law Review 14 (1914): 1–26Google Scholar; Pound, , “Justice According to Law (III),” Columbia Law Review 14 (1914): 103–121Google Scholar; Freund, Ernst, “The Substitution of Rule for Discretion in Public Law,” American Political Science Review 9 (1915): 666–676Google Scholar; Root, Elihu, “Public Service by the Bar,” Annual Report of the American Bar Association 41 (1916): 355–374Google Scholar; Berle, A. A. Jr., “The Expansion of American Administrative Law,” Harvard Law Review 30 (1917): 430–448Google Scholar; Green, Frederick, “Separation of Governmental Powers,” Yale Law Journal 29 (1920): 369–393Google Scholar; Dickinson, John, Administrative Justice and the Supremacy of Law in the United States (Cambridge, Mass., 1927)Google Scholar; Frankfurter, Felix, “The Task of Administrative Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 75 (1927): 614–621Google Scholar; Dickinson, John, “Judicial Control of Official Discretion,” American Political Science Review 22 (1928): 275–300Google Scholar; Rosenberry, Marvin B., “Administrative Law and the Constitution,” American Political Science Review 23 (1929): 32–46Google Scholar; McFarland, Carl, Judicial Control of the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1920–1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1933)Google Scholar. See also Rohr, To Run a Constitution; White, G. Edward, “The Emergence of Agency Government and the Creation of Administrative Law,” in The Constitution and the New Deal (Cambridge, Mass., 2000): 94–127.Google Scholar

5. Ohio Valley Water Co v. Ben Avon Borough, 253 U.S. 287 (1920); Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22 (1932); Freund, Ernst, “The Right to a Judicial Review in Rate Controversies,” West Virginia Law Quarterly 27 (1921): 207–212Google Scholar; Albertsworth, E. F., “Judicial Review of Administrative Action by the Federal Supreme Court,” Harvard Law Review 35 (1921): 127–153Google Scholar; Isaacs, Nathan, “Judicial Review of Administrative Findings,” Yale Law Journal 30 (1921): 781–797Google Scholar; Tollefson, A. Martin, “Administrative Finality,” Michigan Law Review 29 (1931): 839–849Google Scholar; Stumberg, George Wilfred, “Finality of Administrative Process under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act,” Texas Law Review 10 (1932): 438–444Google Scholar; St. Joseph Stockyards v. United States, 298 U.S. 38 (1936). See also Dickinson, John, “Crowell v. Benson: Judicial Review of Administrative Determinations of Questions of ‘Constitutional Fact,’” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 80 (1932): 1055–1082Google Scholar; Stason, E. Blythe, “‘Substantial Evidence’ in Administrative Law,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 89 (1941): 1026–1051, 1051Google Scholar; Stern, Robert L., “Review of Findings of Administrators, Judges, and Juries: A Comparative Analysis,” Harvard Law Review 58 (1944): 70–124.Google Scholar

6. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 17 (1938).

7. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 22, 18 (1938).

8. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 22 (1938).

9. Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 19 (1938).

10. “Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law,” Annual Report of the American Bar Association 63 (1938): 331–368, 343.Google Scholar

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid., 342.

13. McAllister, Breck P., “Administrative Adjudication and Judicial Review,” Illinois Law Review 34 (1940): 680–698, 691Google Scholar. See also Kaufman, Samuel, “Is the Administrative Process a Fifth Column?” John Marshall Law Quarterly 6 (1940): 1–17Google Scholar; Landis, James M., “Crucial Issues in Administrative Law: The Walter-Logan Bill,” Harvard Law Review 53 (1940): 1077–1102.Google Scholar

14. For more on the Walter-Logan bill, see Gellhorn, “Administrative Procedure Act”; Brazier, “An Anti-New Dealer Legacy”; Shepherd, “Fierce Compromise”; Horwitz, Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960.

15. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on S. 915: Providing for the More Expeditious Settlement of Disputes with the United States, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, S. Rept. 442, 10.

16. House Committee on the Judiciary, Providing for the More Expeditious Settlement of Disputes with the United States, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, H. Rept. 1149, 2.

17. Krock, Arthur, “Bi-Partisan Majority Checks the New Deal,” New York Times, 23 07 1939, E3Google Scholar. For more on the so-called conservative coalition, see Milkis, President and the Parties; Porter, David L., Congress and the Waning of the New Deal (Port Washington, N.Y., 1980)Google Scholar; Patterson, James T., Congressional Conservatism and the New Deal: The Growth of the Conservative Coalition in Congress, 1933–1939 (Lexington, Ky., 1967).Google Scholar

18. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on S. 915: Providing for the More Expeditious Settlement of Disputes with the United States, 76th Cong., 1st sess., 1939, S. Rept. 442, 5.

19. “Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law,” Annual Report of the American Bar Association 64 (1939): 575–620, at 585.Google Scholar

20. “Statement by Honorable Francis E. Walter, on the Logan-Walter Bill, Now Before Congress,” Mar. 3, 1940, (for release Mar. 4, 1940), 2; folder—“Legislation—Admin. Procedure Statements & Articles”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

21. Grafton, Samuel, “A Dull But Dangerous Bill,” New York Post, reprinted in the St. Louis Dispatch, 7 02 1940Google Scholar; folder —“Legislation — Admin. Procedure Statements & Articles”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

22. Riemer, Mortimer, Secretary, National Lawyers Guild, New York Times, 14 06 1939, 22.Google Scholar

23. One observer, noting that the excluded agencies or attorneys who practiced before them had asked the ABA to exempt their agencies from coverage, suggested that “direct or indirect contact with the actual functioning of particular agencies led to the conclusion not to interfere with existing practices.” Jaretzki, Alfred Jr., “The Administrative Law Bill: Unsound and Unworkable,” Louisiana Law Review 2 (1940): 294–329, at 299.Google Scholar

24. Landis, “Crucial Issues in Administrative Law,” 1080.

25. Ibid., 1102.

26. Dulles, John Foster, “Administrative Law” (Address at Langdell Hall, Cambridge, 14 01 1939), 5.Google Scholar

27. Thach, Charles C., “The Inadequacies of the Rule of Law,” in Essays on the Law and Practice of Governmental Administration, ed. Haines, Charles G. and Dimock, Marshall E. (Baltimore, 1935), 277.Google Scholar

28. See, for example, McFarland, Carl, Judicial Control of the Federal Trade Commission and the Interstate Commerce Commission, 1920–1930 (Cambridge, Mass., 1933)Google Scholar; Haines and Dimock, Essays on the Law and Practice of Governmental Administration; Blachly, Frederick F. and Oatman, Miriam E., Administrative Legislation and Adjudication (Washington D.C., 1934)Google Scholar. James Landis had criticized the existing form of judicial review. “It is clear that no one can defend today our variegated scheme for judicial review of administrative action, sometimes invoked by appeal directly to the circuit courts of appeals and by way of grace to the Supreme Court, sometimes by bills for injunction before a three-judge statutory court and then by way of right to the Supreme Court, again by a bill for an injunction before a single district judge, then to the circuit court of appeals, then by way of grace to the Supreme Court, or the variation of this latter scheme by writ of habeas corpus, by criminal indictment or mandamus.” Landis, “Crucial Issues in Administrative Law,” 1090.

29. Charles E. Wyzanski to Homer Cummings, 29 September 1938; Papers of Homer Stille Cummings; Accession No. 9973, box 169; Special Collections, University of Virginia Library.

30. Roosevelt to Frank Murphy, 16 February 1939, reprinted in Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, Final Report (Washington, D.C., 1941), Appendix A, 252Google ScholarPubMed. Cummings had been actively involved in the Justice Department's creation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In drafting uniform rules for civil cases in federal court, a committee of prominent lawyers and legal academics had been appointed to engage in research and issue recommendations; the resulting rules, Cummings found, had replaced “the diverse, cumbersome and obsolescent practice” in the federal courts with “a uniform system that apparently has met with nation-wide acclaim.” Cummings proposed that a similar group be organized to reform administrative practice. Cummings to President Roosevelt, 14 December 1938, 2; folder—“Committee, Materials re Formation of Press Releases, Orders, etc.”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

31. Morris recommended to the attorney general in January that the committee should include someone recommended by the ABA president, as long as “such member is of liberal and untrammeled view.” Morris to Murphy, 24 January 1939, 2; folder—“Committee, Materials re Formation of Press Releases, Orders, etc.”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. Hart was working with the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the committee's work. In October 1939, Bell resigned to become legal adviser to the High Commissioner to the Philippines, and Acheson replaced Morris as chairman when Morris was appointed to the federal bench. Attorney General Jackson would be replaced on the committee by his successor, Francis Biddle.

32. Gellhorn, “Informal Talk” to the Department of Justice Local, United Federal Workers of America, 9 August 1939, question and answer session, 2; folder—“Speeches and Articles by Committee Staff”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

33. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 21 October 1939, 15, 7; folder—“Committee Meeting October 21, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

34. At least one member publicly expressed his individual opinion; Ralph Fuchs in February 1940 indicated his opposition in a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Further, in late 1940, Dean Acheson, in his capacity as committee chairman, wrote to the New York Times to dispute an editorial suggesting that the Department of Justice was using the committee for its own political purposes. The committee members generally applauded his action. “Pro and Con on the Logan-Walter Bill,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 16 February 1940; folder—“Legislation—Admin. Procedure Statements & Articles”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. Acheson, to Editor, New York Times, 22 11 1940Google Scholar; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: General [3 of 4]”; box 2; Papers of Dean G. Acheson (Acheson Papers); Harry S. Truman Library (hstl).

35. Gellhorn to Ray A. Brown, 18 September 1939, folder—“Brown, Professor Ray A.”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

36. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 16 March 1939, 10:00 a.m., 22; folder—“Committee Meeting—March 16, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

37. Committee to Attorney General, 31 January 1940, reprinted in Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, Appendix A, 254.

38. Gellhorn, “Informal Talk” to the Department of Justice Local, United Federal Workers of America, 9 August 1939, 13; folder—“Speeches and Articles by Committee Staff”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

39. Acheson, Address to the American Bar Association Section of Judicial Administration, Philadelphia, 10 September 1940, 9; folder—“Acheson”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

40. Committee to Attorney General, 31 January 1940, reprinted in Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, Appendix A, 254.

41. Gellhorn suggested that most agencies saw the committee as “detached, but not hostile; they give us information freely, and apparently await with genuine interest the recommendations we may make.” The prospect of inviting critics to contribute to hearings led Gellhorn to question whether “some of the agencies not yet reached for study would grow terribly, terribly secretive if they felt that we were ‘putting them on trial’ at open hearings.” Gellhorn to Acheson, 18 October 1939, folder—“Dean Acheson”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

42. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 27 April 1940, 12; folder—“Committee Meeting—April 27”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. Others, however, pointed out the limits of the project. A representative of the Post Office complained that the monograph “reads just like a travelog of America written by an Englishman who has been in America for three weeks.” Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 24 February 1940, 34; folder—“Committee Meeting February 24th–25th”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. Another correspondent complained that the committee staff member researching the fcc had missed the fcc's rampant malfeasance. “I feel equally sure that your reporter either knew about them or put on green spectacles when he was being led through the Land of Oz.” Louis Caldwell to Acheson, 17 February 1940, 2; folder—“F.C.C. Correspondence re; Gellhorn-Golub-Acheson”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

43. These hearings, which the committee widely publicized, led many groups—including the Association of Interstate Commerce Commission Practitioners, the Federal Communications Bar Association, the Central Iron and Steel Company, the Underwear Institute, the American Institute of Accountants, the Hebrew Sheltering and Immigrant Aid Society, the National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation, and the mayor of Kansas City, Missouri—to contact the committee about testifying. However, while many such groups expressed their initial interest in testifying, most did not actually participate. folder—“Requests for Allotment of Time before the Committee—Hearings—June-July”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. The public hearings were also less contested than expected, as no one arrived to testify about the Wage-Hour Division of the Labor Department, the Labor Department's Division of Public Contracts, or the nlrb. Generally, written and oral testimony presented to the Committee tended to address either specific procedural issues before individual agencies, or, more generally, the importance of judicial review and the problem of combining prosecutorial and judicial functions.

44. Walter-Logan, bill veto message, in Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, vol. 1940, ed. Rosenman, Samuel I. (New York, 1941), 619.Google Scholar

45. Ibid.

46. The committee held its final scheduled meeting in December 1940; the three dissenting members (McFarland, Stason, and Vanderbilt) then submitted their supplementary statement. Carl McFarland suggested to one correspondent that this break between committee members could have been resolved had the committee had more time to complete its work. According to McFarland, “faced with a great deal of pressure to make an immediate report, it was impossible to deliberate further, discussion had to be terminated abruptly, and certain members felt that they ought to state views which they would have urged at further Committee sessions.” Shulman responded to these charges claiming that the majority had in fact rejected the dissenters' views, and “the more I study the code and your separate statement the less I like them.” Stason had initially suggested to Acheson that “our supplementary views were, for the most part, in addition to, rather than in conflict with, those expressed in the principal Committee report.” A few days after this missive, Stason sent a telegram to Acheson indicating that he had heard that Acheson perceived the statement “as in some way taking unfair advantage of the committee.” McFarland to Edgar Tolman, 1 February 1941, 1; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: Correspondence Subsequent to Release of Report, 1941–1948”; Shulman to McFarland, 5 February 1941, 1; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: General [4 of 4]”; Stason to Acheson, 14 January 1941, 1; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: General [4 of 4]”; Stason to Acheson, 17 January 1941, 1; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: General [4 of 4]” box 3; Acheson Papers; hstl.

47. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 22 October 1939, 8; folder “Committee Meeting October 21, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

48. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 25 November 1939, 20; folder—“Committee Meeting November 25–26, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

49. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 25.

50. Attorney General's Committee, The Veterans Administration, Monograph No. 2 (1939), 83.Google Scholar

51. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 22 October 1939, 6; folder—“Committee Meeting October 21, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

52. Ibid., 5.

53. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 26 November 1939, 26; folder—“Committee Meeting November 25–26”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

54. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 35.

55. Ibid., 38.

56. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 8 June 1940, 1–2; folder—“Committee Meeting—June 6, 7, and 8”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

57. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 21.

58. Ibid., 5.

59. icc examiners included “not only those who spend a substantial portion of their time presiding at hearings, but also those who write reports in cases where hearings are not held, those who review reports, and those who serve as assistants to Commissioners.” Attorney General's Committee, Interstate Commerce Commission, Monograph No. 24 (1940), 29.Google Scholar

60. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 26 November 1939, 22; folder—“Committee Meeting November 25–26”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

61. Attorney General's Committee, National Labor Relations Board, Monograph No. 18 (1940), 40.Google Scholar

62. Ibid., 39.

63. Attorney General's Committee, Interstate Commerce Commission, Monograph No. 24 (1940), 31.Google Scholar

64. Attorney General's Committee, War Department, Monograph No. 15 (1940), 26.Google Scholar

65. Attorney General's Committee, Federal Alcohol Administration, Monograph No. 5 (1940), 40.Google Scholar

66. Ibid.

67. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 7 June 1940, 56; folder—“Committee Meeting—June 6, 7, and 8”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

68. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 43.

69. Ibid.

70. Attorney General's Committee, Securities and Exchange Commission, Monograph No. 26 (1940), 232.Google Scholar

71. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 24 February 1940, 43; folder—“Committee Meeting February 24th–25th”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

72. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 46.

73. Garrison to Acheson, 29 July 1940, 2; folder—“Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, 1939–1940: General [3 of 4]”; Acheson Papers; hstl.

74. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 43–44.

75. Ibid., 51.

76. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 51. Judge Groner went further, and suggested that an agency's rejection of the examiner's fact finding be subject to de novo review.

77. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 61.

78. Final Report, 69.

79. Final Report, 68.

80. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 61.

81. Final Report, 55.

82. Attorney General's Committee, The Division of Public Contracts, Department of Labor, The Walsh-Healey Act, Monograph No. 1 (1939), 31.Google Scholar

83. Attorney General's Committee, The Division of Public Contracts, Department of Labor, The Walsh-Healey Act, Monograph No. 1 (1939), 31.Google Scholar

84. Final Report, 59.

85. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 208.

86. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 214.

87. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 209.

88. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 209.

89. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 77 (emphasis in original).

90. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 209.

91. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 209–10.

92. Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure, Final Report, 92.

93. Final Report, 210.

94. Final Report, 209.

95. Final Report, 211 (emphasis in original).

96. Attorney General's Committee, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, Monograph No. 10 (1940), 69.Google Scholar

97. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 22 October 1939, 61; folder—“Committee Meeting October 21, 1939”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp. The Federal Power Commission monograph found that that agency's choice to adopt formal, judicialized procedures “which even the most aggressive proponent of formalism would pronounce acceptable” in order to improve the agency's public relations had not led to improved rulemaking. Attorney General's Committee, Federal Power Commission, Monograph No. 25 (1940), 97.Google Scholar

98. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 102.

99. Conference of the Attorney General's Committee, 27 April 1940, 5–6; folder—“Committee Meeting—April 27”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

100. Ibid., 6.

101. Attorney General's Committee, Department of Commerce, Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, Monograph No. 10 (1940), 69.Google Scholar

102. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 5.

103. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 103.

104. Fuchs to Gellhorn, 20 January 1940, 2; folder—“Fuchs, Ralph F.”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

105. Committee to Attorney General, 31 January 1940, 6–7; folder—“Publicity (General)—Press Releases, Notices, Invitations, etc.”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

106. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 191.

107. The majority of the members did attach a legislative proposal to their report. However, this addendum was not comprehensive; it called on Congress to create hearing commissioners, to improve methods of rulemaking, to provide for declaratory rulings, and to create an Office of Federal Administrative Procedure that would continue to study the question of the administrative process.

108. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 215.

109. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 203.

110. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 214.

111. Frankfurter, Felix, “The Final Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure: Foreword,” Columbia Law Review 41 (1941): 585–588, 588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

112. Jaffe, Louis L., “The Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Administrative Procedure,” University of Chicago Law Review 8 (1941): 401–440, 405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

113. Attorney General's Committee, Final Report, 5.

114. Hart to Gellhorn, 23 June 1939, 2; folder—“Checklist Correspondence re”; A.G. Committee Correspondence; agcap; rg 60; nacp.

115. Feller, A. H., “Administrative Law Investigation Comes of Age,” Columbia Law Review 41 (1941): 589–616, 592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

116. Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 404, 60 Stat. 237 (June 11, 1946).

117. Proceedings in the Senate, March 12, 1946, 79th Cong., 2nd sess., reprinted in Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History, 298.

118. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on S.7, A Bill to Improve the Administration of Justice by Prescribing Fair Administrative Procedure, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 1945, S. Rept. 752, reprinted in Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History, 193.

119. Schwartz, Bernard, “Administrative Procedure and the A.P.A.,” New York University Law Quarterly Review 24 (1949): 514–534, 514.Google Scholar

120. Statement of Carl McFarland, 21 June 1945, to the House Committee on the Judiciary, Hearings on Federal Administrative Procedure, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 1945, reprinted in Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History, 72.

121. Administrative Procedure Act § 5(c).

122. U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act (Washington, D.C., 1947).Google Scholar

123. Proceedings like those challenged in Morgan were also prescribed; the apa called on agencies to give parties “a reasonable opportunity” to either submit their own proposed findings or to challenge the agency's specific proposed findings. apa § 8(b).

124. Administrative Procedure Act § 10(e).

125. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on S.7, A Bill to Improve the Administration of Justice by Prescribing Fair Administrative Procedure, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 1945, S. Rept. 752, reprinted in Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History, 216.

126. Attorney General's Manual, 110.

127. Within those categories, the act divided procedures into formal and informal proceedings, and prescribed procedures for formal rulemaking and formal adjudication. Minimal procedures were provided for informal rule making and informal adjudication.

128. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Report on S.7, A Bill to Improve the Administration of Justice by Prescribing Fair Administrative Procedure, 79th Cong., 1st sess., 1945, S. Rept. 752, reprinted in Administrative Procedure Act: Legislative History, 198.

129. Clark, Albert, “Bureaucratic Bible,” Wall Street Journal, 7 09 1946, 1Google Scholar. Less than two months after the apa became law, however, the scope of this requirement became clear. One columnist reported that “everyone from the President down is reported to be flabbergasted” at the costs of compliance. Kluttz, Jerry, “The Federal Diary,” Washington Post, 4 08 1946, M5Google Scholar. The Government Printing Office warned that it would have to choose between printing nothing but the Federal Register, and building an entirely new plant. Apparently “[e]ven the bureaucrats … had no idea how big government has become until they tried to comply with the recent McCarran-Walter Act.” “Lots of Government,” New York Times, 27 August 1946, 26.

130. Callahan, John P., “Industries Hail Curb on Agencies,” New York Times, 21 07 1946, F1.Google Scholar

131. “Control Boards Controlled,” Wall Street Journal, 9 September 1946, 4.

132. Letter to editor, Washington Post, 28 March 1946, 8.

133. Appleby to Latta, 7 June 1946, 3; folder—“Bill File—June 11, 1946 [S. 7]”; White House Bill File box 13; Papers of Harry S. Truman; hstl.

134. “Supplemental Report of the Special Committee on Administrative Law,” Annual Report of the American Bar Association 70 (1945): 272–275, 275.Google Scholar

135. Feller, “Administrative Law Investigation Comes of Age,” 589.