Speech #870003529

The Supreme Court decision was 5 to 4. with a brilliant dissenting opinion written by Mr. Justice Douglas and concurred in by three of his colleagues. During the last session of Congress I presented that dissenting opinion for inclusion in the RECORD when I introduced the bill seeking to stay the deportation of these two persons. and I shall refer to it later in this speech. when I call attention to the last paragraph of the dissenting opinion. Of course. we need to remember that when we deal with deportation cases. we deal with administrative law procedure. We deal with a procedure which does not allow a jury trial. We need to keep in mind that these deportations were consummated without the deportees having the privilege of being judged by their peers in an American jury box. Therefore. the court review is always on the basis of the administrative act of an administrator of the Immigration Service. These cases also involve a particular field of the law in which broad discretion is allowed an administrative officer. There has to be a showing that there was an abuse of discretion. or a capricious and arbitrary act on the part of the administrative officer. in order to get a court to reverse the finding of the administrative officer. I think these two cases may help call the attention of the Congress of the United States to the desirability of changing our code in respect to cases such as come before the Immigration Service. to provide for a procedure that would entitle the "defendant"-and I put the word "defendant" in quotation marks. because. in effect. that is what these deportees areto a jury trial for the passing of judgment in connection with the problem of finding facts. When we deal with cases such as these. there has to be a weighing of veracity. There has to be a consideration of the very subjective question.