I do believe that there are such things as principles of

jurisprudence in the United States: that they apply equally to the ad

ministrative as to the judicial process.

In this regard, as Judge Learned Hand put it:

I do not see that there is any difference betweeen
a tribunal and a court. Each is there to administer
a law impartially whatever the intent means, in the
case of an individual or group. What can the dif-
ference be whether it happens to be a judge or an
administrator? The poor wretch who loses is in an
equally bad case anyway. (Underscoring supplied.)

These "principles of jurisprudence" or the "ethic of adminis

tration" may be hard to define, but I think they exist. They are some thing that we should all be aware of because they derive from our Bill of Rights, the pronouncement of equality in our Declaration of Independence, our peoples' concern for due process under the protection of law, the faith of our great leaders in a democratic government of the people, and from the lawyer's abhorrence of proceeding upon the basis of questionable credibility, hearsay, or gossip of the calculating, divisive agent; they derive from a principle of civility, decency and the absence of arbitrariness that comes from making an "ethic" out of our democratic philosophy. If a statute is looked upon only as a series of words and sentences, then it has no greatness and it has no grace.

In our own case the "ethic of administration" has perhaps manifested itself by precautions to avoid taking any party by surprise in newly developing areas of the law's application even though the statute does not make provision for that kind of notice. It has manifested itself perhaps by the same high effort to see to it that when a charging party appeals from

a regional refusal to issue a complaint, that the problem is reviewed by a large staff of competent experts who have not passed on the matter before and whose joint advisory judgment is now obtained. And what is most important is that in the exercise of that judgment there is as much, if not more, independence of thought and freedom from pressure or coercion as there is in any kind of an administrative tribunal.

As I see and understand the problem of administration in the Office of the General Counsel, and I think it is the same elsewhere, the test of administrative courage, objectivity and detachment is whether in each situation in which a decision must be made, the decision is reached through loyalty to the principles of decision making that is to be expected from wise counsel and prudent administrators seeking honestly to understand and solve the problem at hand, even though the administrator knows at the time that he does not have any lasting protection, but is acting in a world where those who seek to prevail through exercise of influence can attempt to make their power felt.

*

There are a number of matters relating to the administrative work of the Office that deserve extended discussion. As pertinent and important as these matters are, to include them at this point in this statement would make it exceptionally long. Accordingly, with the permission of the Committee, I should like to append to this statement a number of supplemental testimonial statements, which for purposes of your consideration and for the record should, if you will permit, be considered as though they were an integral part of this statement itself.

These additional parts of this testimony are attached hereto and are

Appendix H

Regional Investigation of Unfair Labor Practice
Charges

Regional Determination on Issuance of Complaint

Summary Report - Operational Improvements and
Performance, Office of the General Counsel -
Fiscal years 1960 and 1961

Agency Statistical System

The principles and policies of administration which I have applied re

flect themselves in many practical administrative changes and improvements

in the work of the Office and the Field. The list that comes to mind is consider

ably long and includes such matters as reorganization of the Washington and · Field Offices, procedures designed to improve case handling, and the various management improvement programs instituted by the Office of the General Counsel. I consider these matters of great importance and it is only because of its considerable length that a discussion of these "practical administrative changes" are included as Appendix H, a supplementary statement, rather than a part of my main statement.

During the course of these hearings various allegations were made by witnesses who appeared before this Subcommittee reflecting adversely on the Office of the General Counsel or Regional Office operation. To conserve time in oral presentation, I have prepared and included as appendices to this statement comments on these allegations. These appendices, which should be considered as part of my statement, include:

Considerable interest was evidenced during the course of

these hearings concerning the problems arising under Section 8 (c) of the Act, that is the so-called "free speech" provision. As a possible aid to the Committee, I have included among the appended material a short memorandum on this subject, labeled Appendix S.