It is to be remembered that the orders of the commission awarding reparation are not binding and final. It is argued that the power of the Federal trade commission to issue final orders may be sustained upon the authority of cases which have decided that Congress may delegate to an administrative official power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the enforcement of its enanetment depends. Thus. under the Chineseexclusion act it was held that the immigration officials had power to decide finally the fact that a person seeking admission was not a citizen of the United States. (United States v. Ju Toy. 198 U. S.. 253.) Where. however. the question of alienage or citizenship is dependent upon a matter of law and not a determination purely of fact. the matter will be reviewed by the courts. So in Gonzales v. Williams (192 U. S.. 1). the court overruled the determination of the inmigration officials and decided that a native of Porto Rico. who was an inhabitant of that island at the time of its cession to the United States. upon her arrival at a port in this country was entitled not to be treated ais an ilen immigrant within the meaning of the act of Congress of 1891. It would seem] clear that the determination of the question Whether a method of competition is unfair is not a determination purely of fact. but necessarily involves the determination of a question of law. The Federal trade commission will. it is true. have to pass upon many complicated issues of fact. but the ultimate question for decision will be whether the facts found constitute a violation of the law against unfair competition.
Keywords matched
immigration immigrant