Charles Evans Hughes

Name: Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468) — Opinion of the Court
Author: Charles Evans Hughes

Summary

“Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468) — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Charles Evans Hughes. It explores elements such as hearing, findings and the Department of Agriculture.

Quotes from Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468… (Charles Evans Hughes)

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ It is no answer to say that the question for the court is whether the evidence supports the findings and the findings support the order. For the weight ascribed by the law to the findings-their conclusiveness when made within the sphere of the authority conferred-rests upon the assumption that the officer who makes the findings has addressed himself to the evidence, and upon that evidence has conscientiously reached the conclusions which he deems it to justify. That duty cannot be performed by one who has not considered evidence or argument. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ Hence it is frequently described as a proceeding of a quasi judicial character. The requirement of a 'full hearing' has obvious reference to the tradition of judicial proceedings in which evidence is received and weighed by the trier of the facts. The 'hearing' is designed to afford the safeguard that the one who decides shall be bound in good conscience to consider the evidence, to be guided by that alone, and to reach his conclusion uninfluenced by extraneous considerations which in other fields might have play in determining purely executive action. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ There must be a full hearing. There must be evidence adequate to support pertinent and necessary findings of fact. Nothing can be treated as evidence which is not introduced as such. United States v. Abilene & Southern Railway Co., supra. Facts and circumstances which ought to be considered must not be excluded. Facts and circumstances must not be considered which should not legally influence the conclusion. Findings based on the evidence must embrace the basic facts which are needed to sustain the order. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ The Government answers that, while the Secretary is not authorized expressly to prescribe or limit the number of firms that may engage in the market agency business, he is under a duty to take cognizance of evidence tending to show that, under present competitive conditions, certain costs actually incurred are unreasonable ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ Thus it cannot be said that the failure to hear the respondents separately was an abuse of discretion. Again, while it would have been good practice to have the examiner prepare a report and submit it to the Secretary and the parties, and to permit exceptions and arguments addressed to the points thus presented-a practice found to be of great value in proceedings before the Interstate Commerce Commission-we cannot say that that particular type of procedure was essential to the validity of the hearing. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ Congress has required the Secretary to determine, as a condition of his action, that the existing rates are or will be 'unjust, unreasonable, or discriminatory.' If and when he so finds, he may 'determine and prescribe' what shall be the just and reasonable rate, or the maximum or minimum rate, thereafter to be charged. That duty is widely different from ordinary executive action. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ On motion of the government, the District Court struck out all the allegations in paragraph IV of the bill of complaint, and the plaintiffs were thus denied opportunity to require an answer to these allegations or to prove the facts alleged.
Certain facts appear of record. The testimony was taken before an examiner. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Charles Evans Hughes, Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468…

“ United States, supra. But, in determining whether in conducting an administrative proceeding of this sort the Secretary has complied with the statutory prerequisites, the recitals of his procedure cannot be regarded as conclusive. Otherwise the statutory conditions could be set at naught by mere assertion. If upon the facts alleged the 'full hearing' required by the statute was not given, plaintiffs were entitled to prove the facts and have the Secretary's order set aside. ”

Charles Evans Hughes

Summary

Quotes from Morgan v. United States (298 U.S. 468… (Charles Evans Hughes)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature