38 BRANDEIS, J., concurring. afforded ample protection for the fundamental rights of the plaintiff in error, and the taking away of the right to have examined mere claims of honest error in the conduct of the proceeding by the Board did not invade any federal constitutional right." See also, United States v. Jones, 109 U. S. 513, 519; Backus v. Fort Street Union Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 569. (b) No taking of property by taxation is constitutional unless the exaction is laid according to value, income or other measure prescribed by law. But Congress has, with the sanction of this Court, broadly given finality to the determination by the Board of Tax Appeals of the facts concerning income. By its legislation the jurisdiction of courts is limited to deciding "whether the correct rule of law was applied to the facts found; and whether there was substantial evidence before the Board to support the findings made." Helvering v. Rankin, 295 U. S. 123, 131; Old Mission Portland Cement Co. v. Helvering, 293 U. S. 289, 294. Compare Cheatham v. United States, 92 U. S. 85, 88-89. No court may pass upon the correctness in fact of any finding of the Board. (c) The due process clause is not violated by giving in tariff acts finality to the valuations made by appraisers of imported merchandise belonging to American citizens. Hilton v. Merritt, 110 U. S. 97, 107. "It was certainly competent for Congress," said the Court in Passavant v. United States, 148 U. S. 214, 219, "to create this board of general appraisers, called 'legislative referees' in an early case in this court, (Rankin v. Hoyt, 4 How. 327, 335,) and not only invest them with authority to examine and decide upon the valuation of imported goods, when that question was properly submitted to them, but to declare that their decision 'shall be final and conclusive as to the dutiable value of such merchandise against all parties interested therein.'" BRANDEIS, J., concurring. 298 U.S. (d) The due process clause is not violated by legislation which requires a fire insurance policy to provide that the amount of the loss (and hence values) shall be determined by a board of appraisers; and that their decision, if not grossly excessive, or inadequate, or procured by fraud, shall be conclusive as to the amount of the loss. Hardware Dealers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Glidden Co., 284 U. S. 151. (e) The due process clause is not violated by giving finality to assessments of value made for the purpose of ad valorem taxation, although in those proceedings the opportunity for a hearing is far less ample than under the statute here in question. Compare State Railroad Tax Cases, 92 U. S. 575, 610; Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321; King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404, 429– 431. As we said in San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 446: "We do not sit as a general appellate board of revision for all rates and taxes in the United States"; and in Coulter v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 196 U. S. 599, 607: "Of course, no court would venture to intervene merely on the ground of a mistake of judgment on the part of the officer to whom the duty of assessment was entrusted by the law." Answering the suggestion of possible error in the final action of a board in valuing and assessing railroad property, the Court said in Kentucky Railroad Tax Cases, 115 U. S. 321, 335: "Such possibilities are but the necessary imperfections of all human institutions, and do not admit of remedy; at least no revisory power to prevent or redress them enters into the judicial system, for, by the supposition, its administration is itself subject to the same imperfections." In Crane v. Hahlo, 258 U. S. 142, 148, the Court intimating that even judges may err in their determinations of fact, held that legislators might, 38 BRANDEIS, J., concurring. in proceeding for the taking of property, act on "the policy that the greater good is sometimes served by making certain classes of decisions final and ending litigation, even though in a particular case the individual is prevented by review from correcting some error which has injured him." These cases show that in deciding when, and to what extent, finality may be given to an administrative finding of fact involving the taking of property, the Court has refused to be governed by a rigid rule. It has weighed the relative values of constitutional rights, the essentials of powers conferred, and the need of protecting both. It has noted the distinction between informal, summary administrative action based on ex parte casual inspection or unverified information, where no record is preserved of the evidence on which the official acted, and formal, deliberate quasi-judicial decisions of administrative tribunals based on findings of fact expressed in writing, and made after hearing evidence and argument under the sanctions and the safeguards attending judicial proceedings. It has considered the nature of the facts in issue, the character of the relevant evidence, the need in the business of government for prompt final decision. It has recognized that there is a limit to the capacity of judges; and that the magnitude of the task imposed upon them, if there be granted judicial review of the correctness of findings of such facts as value and income, may prevent prompt and faithful performance. It has borne in mind that even in judicial proceedings the finding of facts is left, by the Constitution, in large part to laymen. It has enquired into the character of the administrative tribunal provided. and the incidents of its procedure. Compare Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 628. And where that prescribed for the particular class of takings appeared "appropriate to the case, and just to the parties to be 65773°-366 BRANDEIS, J., concurring. 298 U.S. affected," and "adapted to the end to be attained," Hagar v. Reclamation District, 111 U. S. 701, 708, the Court has held it constitutional to make the findings of fact of the administrative tribunal conclusive. Thus, the Court has followed the rule of reason. Fourth. Congress concluded that to give finality to the findings of the Secretary of Agriculture of the facts as to value and income is essential to the effective administration of the Packers and Stockyards Act. The Ben Avon case, and the statements in Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. United States, and casual references in other cases, should not lead us to graft upon the rule discussed, and so widely applied to other takings, a disabling exception applicable to rate cases. In none of the rate cases relied upon was there any reason given for denying to Congress that power; nor was there mention of the many decisions in which the power to prescribe finality was upheld. In none was there noted the distinction between challenging the correctness of findings of fact on which rest the conclusion as to confiscation, and challenging the conclusion of law as to confiscation on facts found. Here, some reasons have been offered in support of making the exception; but no reason given seems to me sound. (a) It is urged that since Congress did not, and could not, delegate to the Secretary authority to prescribe a confiscatory rate, the facts in issue are jurisdictional and, hence, the Court must have power to review them. But, as was said in Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 U. S. 331, 336: "The challenge of a prescribed rate as being confiscatory raises a question not as to the scope of the Commission's authority but of the correctness of the exercise of its judgment." Therefore, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, has no application here. (b) It is said that, since regulating rates is legislation, courts must have the same power to review facts which they possess in passing on the constitutionality of 38 BRANDEIS, J., concurring. statutes otherwise the supremacy of law could be impaired by delegation to an administrative tribunal of a power to make final determinations that the legislature lacks. To that argument there are several answers. It fails to note that a rate order may be complained of as being confiscatory, not because of error in a finding of value or income, but because the regulating body has, in reaching its conclusions, ignored established principles or incontestable facts, or been guilty of dishonesty or of other irregularity in the proceeding. Whenever a legislative body regulates a subject within the scope of its power, a presumption of constitutionality prevails, in the absence of some factual foundation of record for overthrowing the regulation, O'Gorman & Young v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 282 U. S. 251, 257-258; and this rule extends to such action by an administrative body. Pacific States Box & Basket Co. v. White, 296 U. S. 176, 185–186. If there be in the record conflicting evidence as to the facts assumed, a court may not substitute its independent judgment for that of the legislative body. Mere denial of facts relied upon as conditioning the validity of legislation does not confer upon a court authority to decide what is called the truth; that is, the absolute existence in reality of facts alleged. "Where the constitutional validity of a statute depends upon the existence of facts, courts must be cautious. about reaching a conclusion respecting them contrary to that reached by the legislature; and if the question of what the facts establish be a fairly debatable one, it is not permissible for the judge to set up his opinion in respect of it against the opinion of the lawmaker." Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 294. Here, the Court's duty is to determine merely whether there was evidence upon which reasonable men could have found as the Secretary did, with regard to value and income. Obviously the case at bar is not one in which "it was |