McBride, M. L.

North Dakota State Bar Association

English

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)

North Dakota Law Review Volume 17 Number 3 Article 1 1940 Freedom - Limited North Dakota State Bar Association M. L. McBride Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr  Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation North Dakota State Bar Association and McBride, M. L. (1940) "Freedom - Limited," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 17 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol17/iss3/1 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact und.commons@library.und.edu. BAR BRIEFSPUBLISHED MONTHLY AT DICKINSON-BY-STATE BAR ASSOCIATIONOF NORTH DAKOTAM. L. McBride, EditorEntered as Second Class Matter, Dec. 9, 1936, at the Postoffice atDickinson, North Dakota, Under the Act of August 24, 1912.VOL. 17. FEBRUARY, 1941. NO. 3.FREEDOM-LIMITEDThe International Harvester company has informedemployees in its plants that their bargaining arrange-ments are dissolved by order of the national laborboard. It was the company's contention that theunions in its plants represented the desires of the em-ployes and that the management had not interferedin or attempted to dominate the organization. Thefinding of the labor board examiners was otherwiseand the company was ordered to desist from deal-ing with the existing unions.The management, ahnouncing that it was comply-ing with the order, said that an appeal would havebeen useless because the law makes the finding of factas set forth by the board conclusive and final. Theexaminer heard the testimony, the board made itsconclusions, and under our new administrative law theright of appeal to the courts has been virtually an-nulled.Congress undertook to remedy this, but Mr. Roose-velt vetoed the act, the Walter-Logan bill, which wouldhave restored the right of judicial review. The vetocouldn't be overcome and, consequently, the courts areclosed to citizens who may feel that the administra-tive law has been unjustly applied to them.As has been pointed out before, this is governmentby edict, which, whether it is fair and just or unfair(Continued on Next Page)BAR BRIEFS(Continued Frome First Page)and unjust, is government by men and not government by law.It is Roman administrative law. When a legislative body has setup such a system it finds it difficult to undo what it has done, be-cause the chief executive has the power of veto.Mr. Roosevelt takes the view of the other social planners thatyou can't conduct administrative government affecting all the af-fairs of the people if you permit the people to carry their appealsinto a court for a review of the facts and of the rulings based uponthem. Government business has become the biggest business inthe country and affects all other business, determining conductand the relations of one person to another. Executive authoritydemands freedom from the restraints which the courts of law putupon it.That is another way of saying that such a government is adictatorship and must work as one. If administrative law is inthe hands of fair minded men its operation may be as fair as cir-cumstances will permit, but whether it is fair or unfair its wordis final and if it does an injustice the injury is without a legalremedy. This theory is contrary to all previous thinking of theAmerican people who, until they were taken in hand by the NewDeal, had been careful to preserve for each man his day in court.The new system of administrative law and the old system ofprotected liberties can't live together. It's quite apparent nowwhich one is getting the worse of it.SEC.INVITATIONThe members of the Association are invited to attend a con-ference of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals to be heldat the United States Court House in St. Louis, Mo., on March 7th,1941. An open session will be held, at which time Justice BolithaJ. Laws, of the District Court of the District of Columbia, will de-liver an address on Pretrial Procedure and Henry P. Chandler,director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts,will also deliver an address.CASE NOTES-CONTRACTS TO ADOPTIn the United States adoption exists only by statute, and ap-parently the general rule is that the statute must be strictly con-strued and followed. In re Session's Estate, 70 Mich. 297, 38N. W. 249 (1888) ; In re Estate of Williamson, 205 Iowa 772, 218N. W. 469 (1928). However, because of the hardships which mayarise from such a rule, courts have in many instances liberalized,if not, substantially .altered its effect. Rockford v. Bailey, 322Mo. 1155, 17 S. W. (2d) 941 (1929). In some jurisdictions sub-stantial compliance is held to be sufficient.It is said that adoption, being recognized by statute is nolonger contrary to public policy as at common law, and that if anexpress promise of inheritance is enforceable, it necessarily re-

Freedom - Limited

https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3951&amp;context=ndlr

Freedom - Limited

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)