Skip to main content

Full text of "Work materials ..."

See other formats



liiilllllillilllllllilliil <^ 

3 9999 06542 009 1 




FEBRUARY 8, 1934 to JUNE 16, 1935 


' » . "^ ^■» 

> > > > • >, 

Administrative Section 
December, 1935 



" • V « 


• • . - • • 

• •» • V • • • 

* • • • • • • 




There is here presented the histor;^^ of the Review? Division of the 
National Recoverj^ Administration prior to June 16, 1935; and in order that 
it will not he confused with the Division of Review created "by the Presi- 
dent of the United States on June 16, 1935, it is well to "briefly explain 
the functions of the old Review Division. 

On Fehruary 8, 1934, the Administrator for Industrial Recovery hy 
Office Order Ho, 68 constituted the Revier? Division to have responsibility 

(a) The review of codes and orders submitted for the action of the 
Administrator for the purpose of (l) verifying compliance with 
established policies (S) preparing a brief summary and memorandum 
for the information of the Administrator. 

(b) The review of all rulings made pursuant to approved codes for the 
purpose of disclosing (l) inconsistencies with established policy 
and {?.) inconsistencies between such rulings. 

(c) The study of all problems of doubtful (industry) classifications. 

(d) The review of approved codes for the purpose of suggesting amend- 
ments to bring then into accord with established policy. 

(e) Such other functions in the nature of review and coordination as 
were assigned by the Administrator from time to time. 

Obviously, the Administrator, in addition to a multitude of duties 
involving the heaviest of res-nonsibilities, had neither the time to read 
all the docrnents submitted for his avvrovel nor to adjust the conflicting 
views both rithin and without the Ad-ministration. Such a safeguard as the 
Review Division xie.s necessary so thnt when a document reached the office 
of the Administra,tor it would have been reviewed to ascertain whether its 
provisions were conroatible with the Act and whether divergencies of 
interest had been reconciled to the greatest possible degree, and to pro- 
vide a brief simopsis of pertinent provisions in tabulated form so that 
the Administrator at a glance could perceive the unreconciled conflicts of 
interest and provisions of an unusual character which called for his 

Since the Re-rie-.v Di\lsion strove to insure consistency with established 
policy, the history of that Division will be useful to those engaged in 
the preparation of studies in the various fields. 

L. C. Marshall 
Director, Division of Review 


* H< * 

of the 
of the 

of the 



* * * 

9306 -i- 






1 . Passage of the Act 1 

2. Early NUi Organization 1 

3. Necessity of the Piinction of Review 1 

4. Threefold Aspect of Fiinction of Review 1 

5. Executive Officer Pirst to Exercise Function 2 

6. Early Policy Formulation 2 

7. Mr. Alvin Brown Appointed Executive Officer 2 



8. Uncodified Condition of Early Administrative 

Policy 3 

9. Pirst Compilation of Administrative Policy 3 

10, Review of Codes in Early Period Constituted Bulk 

of Work 3 

11, Uniformity of Documents Submitted for Review t. 3 

12, Evolution of the Review Summary. 4 

13, Establishment of the Function of Review as a 

Separate Division 4 

14, Ever Increasing Volume of Codes and Orders 

Necessitated Increased Personnel 5 

15, Type of Personnel Selected 5 

16, Organization Development of the Review Division 5 

17, Stenographic Corps , 7 

18, Files ". 7 

19, Method of Handling Incoming and Outgoing Documents... 8 

20, The 24-hour "Deadline" 8 

21, Early Informal Contact v/ith Deputies, Contrasted 

with Subsequent Procedure 9 

22, Procedure by Which Documents Were Reviewed 9 

23, Review Officer's Conferences as a Method of Policy, 

Clarification and Organization Coordination. 10 



24, Scope of Activities Determined by Duties Established 

in Various Office Orders and Office Manual 11 

25, Formal Constitution of the Review Division 11 

26, Activities of the Review Division as Revealed by 

Various Office Orders and Office Manual 12 

9306 -ii- 

13 My 35 g 


27. Acts of Code Authority, Subject to Disapproval "by 

MA 16 

28. Budgets and Bases of Contribution 16 

29. Transmission of Orders for Si.^^nature of Adminis- 

trative Officer 16 

30. Terminations of Exemptions Under Administrative 

Order X-36 17 

31. Sources of Administrative Policy Upon Which the 

Function of Review was Based 17 

32. Review Officer's Expression of Function of Review.... 18 

33. Function of Review as Reflected "by Review Division 

Summary and Memorandum 19 

34. Outline of Summary Memorandum 20 

35. President ' s Reemployment Agreement 21 



36. Administrative Problems in the Review Division 22 

37. Establishment of Consistent Policy Procedure 22 

38. Compilation of Established Policy by Review 

Officer as of June 1935 22 

39. Appointment of Code Assistants in Divisions 22 

40. Safe-Guarding the Approving Officer 23 

41. Cooperative Results 23 



42. Documentary Statistical Record of the Review 

Division 24 

43. Period of Time Taken by the Review Division to 

Review Documents 24 

44. Test Survey of Documents Submitted for Review, 

as to Morning or Afternoon Arrival 25 

45. Test Survey of Documents Submitted for Review, 

as to Morning or Afternoon Release 25 

46. Cumulative ]Percentage Data, a,s to Period of Time 

for Review 25 

47. Total Number of Documents Approved by Administra- 

tion from Passage of Act until May 27, 1935 25 

48. Percentage of Documents Submitted for Reviev^ Con- 

taining Provisions Contrary to Established 

Policy 26 

49. Executive Personnel of the Review Division 26 

50. Personnel and Cost Data in Administration of the 

Review Division 27 

51. Review Division - Space Assignments - After 

Formal Constitution 27 

52. Cost of Operation of Review Division 27 

53. Conclusion. 27 

9306 -iii- 

July 15, 1935. 

To: E, M. Jeffrey, Chief, Review Division 

From: H. A. O'Connell, Asst. Chief, Review Division 


There is hereivith transmitted for your approval the 
history of the Review Division 

The history is incorporated in three volumes: 

Volume I - Contains the history proper, 

Volumes II and III, - Contain the Exhibits 
referred to in Volume I 

The history as submitted conforms to the model outline 
for non-industry division and hoard histories, and in accordance 
with the requirements of the model outline an original and five 
copies have heen made of each' of the three volumes. 

The submitted volumes, in my opinion, adequately por- 
tray the history of the Review Division 

I have been associated with the exercise of the func- 
tion of review since August 5, 1935. 

Yours very truly, 
/S/ H. A. 0»Connell 


Chief, Review Division 

9306 -iv- 


PART I - ORiailT 

Passage of the Act : 

The po.ssage of the National Industrial Recovery Act on June 16, 1933 
(Exhibit I-a) found, a small skeleton organization of officers and clerical 
personnel present in the U. S. Department Commerce Building, Washington, 
D. C. , in preparation for the adjiiinistration of the National Industrial 
Recovery Act. 

Early NRA Organization; 

The early organization of the Administration consisted of the 
Administrator, the Executive Officer, the Assistant Administrator for 
Industry, the Assistant Administrator for Lahor, the Deputy Administrators, 
the Industrial, Lahor and Consumers' Advisory Boards, the Research and 
Planning Division, the Legal Division, Control Division, Code Analysis 
Division, the Chief Clerk's office, and attendant personnel. 

Necessity of the Function of Review : 

The function of the review of documents forvrarded for ad-mini st rat ive 
approval originated in the Executive Office of the National Recovery 
Administration* Tlie prohlen immediately arose if a document presented to 
the Administrator for his recommendation of ap-orov8.1 to the President was, 
in fact, a document whose provisions were within the boiuidaries of the. Act, 
and whose provisions would effectuate the policies of the Act after giving 
due regard to the divergent interests of industry, labor, and consumer. 

Obviousl]'' the Administrator, in addition to a multitude of duties 
involving the heaviest of resDonsibilities, had neither the time to read 
all the documents submitted for his apr)roval or adjust the conflicting 
views both vdthin and without the Administration, particularly when the 
volume of such documents increased daily. 

It was soon ao-oarent that a final safe.gua.rd was necessary so that 
when a document reached the office of the Administrator it would have been 
reviewed to ascertain if its Torovisions were compatible with the Act, and 
divergencies of interest reconciled to the greatest possible degree, and 
a brief synopsis of pertinent provisions prepared so that in tabloid form 
the Administrator at a glance could perceive the unreconciled conflicts of 
interest and provisions of an unusual character which called for his 
consideration as within or without the rapidly originating policy of 

Threefold As-oect of Function of Review: 

The function of the review of documents -oresented to the Administra- 
tion a threefold aspect. The first consideration was that the 
Administrator be safeguarded from making reconmendations for a^iproval of 
documents not within the Act and not within the policy of the administrar- 
tion as based upon administrative action taken in prior instances. The 
second aspect already mentioned was the time element in respect to the 
approving authority. The third aspect, of an educational natur-e, was • 



the dissenination of administrative -oolicy an established "by the Administra- 
tion for the "benefit and aid of the Denuty Administrators engaged in the 
formulation of documents submitted for administrative approval. 

Executive Officer First to Exercise Function : 

The Executive Officer to first undertake such a task was Mr. John M, 
Hancock, assisted by Mr, Edward Ea"op. Since the Executive Office had a 
multitude of duties in addition to the review of codes the review was of a 
most elementary nature. In the early days of July, August, and September, 
1933 each action established a -orecedent rather than followed one. The 
field of action was so large and the combinations of conditions so great 
that for a considerable time the action taken on the early documents, for 
the great part codes, set guide posts for subsequent action rather than to 
retread the trodden path. (Ejdii'bit I-b) 

Early Policy Eornulation ; 

The situation then confronted was somewhat similar to a man building 
a structure and living in it at the time. A blue print was non- 
existent. The blue print and the structure developed sirmiltaneously, and 
in some instances the blue print w;"^.s the record of the structural develop- 
ment rather than the guiding origin. 

The structure of administrative policy had to be moulded to take 
into account the sharp, and sometimes bitter, winds of the conflicting 
interests of industry, labor, and consumer within the permitted boundaries 
of the Act, and Administrative policy already established. 

While the term 'winds' in this connection might be called trade winds, 
in many cases they did not blow from the same unvarying direction as trade 
winds, but shifted continuously as apT)roved codes increased in number, and 
industrial air-pockets not previously considered were discovered, as the 
direct and indirect effects of code provisions permeated the industrial 

Vigorous shifts in adrainis tractive tdoIIc^'" necessitated a constant re- 
vamping of permissible provisions. Lilce the folk lore of the ancients the 
enunciations of policy were transmitted, for the most part, orally and 
based on the sometime cryptic recommendations of the Administrator. 
Illustrations of the manner in which the Administrator formulated early 
administrative policy by notations on code summary memorandums may be 
found in Ej±Libits I-c-d-e-f . 

The entire i^j^ocedure, if it mie^;ht be dignified by such name, was 
extremely informal. The desire of the code sponsors for speedy approval 
of codes, coupled with the necessity of rapid code coverage for the 
entire industrial United States, injected an element of tension in the 
work that made for informality of action rather than the cleaving to a 
strict procedural routine. (Exliibit I-g) 

Mr. Alvin Brov/n A-p-p oi nted Executive Offi cer: 

Mr. Hancock and Mr, Kapr), v/hose services had been loaned by the 
investment banking house of Lekman Brothers, Kev/ York, were recalled, and 
Mr. Alvin Bro^.TU was appointed Executive Officer on September 2, 1933. 


FAR? II - DE\rSLOPl . ffiIIT 

Uncodified Condition of Early Adiainistrative Policy : 

The "oeriod fron the niddle of June until OctolDer 1933 iras a sufficient 
■neriod to crectte many of the principal policies of the Administration, "but 
much of such policy had never "been reduced to the written word. The 
"boundaries of o.n established too! ic:^'' in res-oect to a code provision had never 
"been surveyed. Many different interpretations were rife as to the intent 
and meaning of the policy; unusual conditions under which deviation from 
policy v/as proper, liad never beGn enunciated. There was no clear cut written 
compilation of established policj^-. 

First Com-pilation of Administrative Policy : 

Soon thereafter Mr. Alvin Brown, as Executive Officer, commenced the 
task of hewing into shane the estaoDished polic:'' of the Adjiini strati on. 
This task involved first what was, and was not, estaolished policy; second, 
the wording of the principle of the policy in concise accurate language; 
and third, the sco'oe of the -oarticular policy and the exceptions that could 
pronerly he made. The conf identia"^ memorandum of Octoher 25, 1933 vras an 
example of this work, (Ei-diihit Il-a), This memorandum covered many 
important suhjects hut in addition to the importance of the principles of 
policy enunciated was so concisely and accurately worded that it well served 
for many months s.s the first hihle of MRA policy, with a minimum of 
confusion as to meaning and a-oiolication. 

Review of Codes in Early Period Constitute d i'^^ulk of Work : 

It is pertinent to mention that during this interval of time, i.e., 
from the passage of the Act to llovemher, 19^^.3, as well as for an extended, 
period to ahoxit March, 1934, h^'^ far the great hiilk of documents submitted 
for review were codes, (Exhihit Il-h). Amendments to codes, classifica- 
tion problems, exe^rotions, interorctations and other orders of a like 
nature, occasionally were forwarded hut not until 1934; until industry had 
"been covered "by codes, did the necessit3'- for such orders assume substantial 
proportion. As the volume of siich orders increased the volume of codes 
submitted for aiiproval decreased. 

Uniformity of Doc-uunents Submi tted for P.eview' l 

Until November of 1933 documents were submitted for B-nnroveJ. without 
any particular regard as to uniformity in res-oect to the required number of 
volumes, number of copies, their -olf^ce in the submitted code, and the 
required contents of the volumes. The executive officer systematized the 
manner of presentation of such dociiments in a short memorandum which later 
in amplified form became Office Order #43, of November 21, 1933, entitled 
"Procedure for cor.Tpiling a record of original doc-'.imentary matter for codes 
of fair competition", which did much to expedite the work of review, and 
to clarify and. eiTohasize the required presentation both as to the nature 
of subject matter and the form in which siibmitted. 



Evolution of the Review STJJnmar y; 

Mr, Alvin Brown, the then Executive Officer, devised the review si:um.iary 
during Noven"ber 193o, (Exhibit II-c). The object of the sunmary was many fold. 
Its benefits, both direct and indirect, were numerous. Its primary object v/as 
to provide the Administrator uith a condensed summary of the code provisions 
with txie divergent views of the Advisory Boarcs under the criticised code pro- 
visions. This device, at a .glance, brought to light the controversial pro- 
visions and in many instances code provisions not objected to, which in their 
nature were objectionable, and also afforded a method of sifting the material 
from the immaterial; gave opportunity to exercise decision upon the fundamen- 
tals of the code without becoming befogged with detail matter, and saved much 
time for the Administrator, 

One advantage of the sumi:ary was that it was in written form. Prior to 
the origin of the summary in many instances the report to the Administrator 
was verbal. Such a method v/as faulty, since in the effort to conserve the 
Administrator's time vital provisions were in danger of being slurred over, 
or because of the ineptness of the explanatoiy verbal description of the con- 
troversial code provision the Administrator formed an opinion that the pro- 
vision meant one thing, while the actual language of the code clearly meant 
a different thing. 

The written summary served another purpose in being available for easy 
comparison with subsequent codes for industries allied, or of a comparable 
nature, with the prior approved code for which the summary was ?/ritten. 

Many instances occurred where a comparison with the summaries of prior 
codes brought to light the fact that the provisions of the code being sub^- 
mitted for approval should be ma.terially altered, either in justice to the 
sponsors of the code under consideration, or in justice to the industries 
already under ap"oroved codes, in order to preserve a common level of code 
provisions among allied industries, or competitive industries operating 
under like or similar conditions. Such suggested revision included pro- 
posed provisions to be revised or deleted and the insertion of pertinent 
provisions ommitted. 

During the early stages of the function of review the summary was of 
a somewhat primitive nature. Later when the complexities of review in- 
creased due to the ever increasing niimber of facets of consideration essen- 
tial to weld the proposed subject matter into an equitable whole, and as 
the number of ap^oroved codes laionchod upon the industrial waters of the 
United States collided or shipped water badly upon industrial shoals not 
taken into consideration 'oy the sponsoring navigators, the summary was re- 
fined and made more complete to adjust itself to the changing conditions, 

Mr, Earl M, Jeffrey and Mr, H, A. O'Connell were in a large measure 
responsible for the development of the review method in its early stages and 
for the standardization of the forms of documents used in writing up re- 

Establishment of the Ei-inction of Review as a Senarate Division ; 

On February 8, 1934 xmder Office Order ^8 (Exhibit Ill-a) the Review 
Division was formally created. The order set forth the duties and responsi« 
bilities of the Review Division, These duties and resx)onsibilities are set 


forth in Part III as a basis of the activities of the Review Division, 

Ever Increasinj^: Voliime of Codes and Orders : 

The ever increasin,^ voliime of codes and orders, plus the increased duties 
of the Reviev/- Division necessitated increased personnel, and "by the end of 
1933 the review of docuinents in the executive office had reached such propor- 
tions that the staff of three men, assi^ied to such work, - although working 
■until raidnight five nights a week - could not give each code and its accom- 
panjang documents the deliberate scrutiny it deserved and still place on the 
Administrator's desk the reviewed code with s-ummary and recommendations with- 
in 24 hours after receipt by the Executive Officer. 

This nucleous of three men moved from the executive office #4:8<--0-38 to 
quarters in #4826-24 about January 17, 1934 and additional personnel added as 
apnlicants presented themselves with the required qualifications to perform 
the duties of reviewing codes and orders, 

Trpe of personnel Selected ; 

After consideration of all angles of the duties to be performed it vras 
felt tliat since the work involved a substantial legal aspect, coupled with an 
eq-urlly important economic aspect, the personnel should consist of men capable 
of analyticr"^ thinking vrith a legal and economic training. It developed that 
the applican'o who were attorneys by profession had for the most part in their 
pre-law \/ork included the study of at least the basic principles of economics, 
and hence the personnel of the Review Division aside from the stenographic 
corps was composed, for the most part, of attorneys. The question presented 
itself as to the desirable length of active practice the attorney applicant 
should have had in order that a necessary practicality of decision and matur- 
ity of judgment be brought to bear upon the problems presented for review. 
For the most part the attorneys appointed had from five to ten years active 
practice of law. The aptitude of the legally trained personnel to weigh 
the different aspects of a problem, with a reasonably accurate forecast of 
the probable outcome or effect of different lines of policy procedure, stood 
the Review Division in good stead. The inquiring t^fpe of mind of the attorney 
that leads him to accent reluctantly uncorroborated conclusions was of sub- 
st£intial benefit. In most cases the attorneys, as a result of a number of 
years of active practice, were familiar with the operations of different in- 
dustries, and coming as they did from all sections of the countrj^ their per- 
sonal experience as attorneys for various industries was available. The re- 
sult was an extremely high type of work, conscientiousl3/- and thoroughJ.y per- 
fonned; and due to the high type of personnel a minim-um of harassing personnel 
irritation wa.s encountered. 

Organization Development of the Review Division ; 

TJhile the fimction of review was exercised in the executive office, as a 
part of the duties of the Enecutive Officer, no formal organization was 
necesss.ry due to the fact that but three men were so engaged, ^ith the in- 
crease in personnel more formal organization was required. The first organiza- 
tion method invoked was the separation of the loersonnel into three sections, 
(Exhibit II-,".); (l) a Code Section for the review of codes and amenojnents, in 
charge of Mr, K. A. O'Connell up to May, 1934, and since that time in charge 
of Mr, Robert C. Ayers, imder whom, the difficu].t work of reviewing the later 
and more complicated codes was done; (2) an Interpretation Section for the 


reviev7 of interpretations, the Classification Section for the review of 
clr.ssif icrtion problens, including exeinptions authorized therewith. The 
Classificption Section, shortly thereafter, wrs consolidated with the 
Interpretation Section, and the consolidated section was designated as the 
Biliiigs Section of the Review Division, 

This division of work, and the division of the organization in two 
sections, continued until Llarch 1935, when the tv/o sections were increased 
to three "b^ the estaljlishraent of a Policy Section, 

The dut.l-!s of the Policy Section included the coordination of polic:/ 
within the ri.;v.;.e'.7 Division, the promulgation of precedents as to established 
policy, Ejid a Training School, 

The policy precedent was for the internal use of the Review Division 
only, snd v-as for the purpose of covering policy not covered in the Office 
Manual, or revision of the policy stated in the Manual when subsequent 
administr.-tive action changed the policy stated in the Kanual. (Exhibit Il-e), 
These precedents were compiled day by day by Ur, E, A, O'Connell from the 
records of current actions of the adrninistr.^rtion. 

The Review Division had a broader view of all the work of the ITEA than 
any other division. This was natural because all of the "fork of the NBA 
flowed eventually into codes, amendments, orders, and documents of one kind 
or another; and all of these passed under the scrutiny of the Review Divi- 

Because of this fact, the Review Division was the best place to train 
men for \70rk in the IIRA and particularly to train men as code assistants 
in the industry divisions. 

Having this in mind the Review Officer suggested to the Control Officer 
in Februa.ry 1935 that he be authorized to carry five or six men in excess 
of his requirement for the purpose of training njid for eventual transfer to 
other divisions. This was approved by the Control Officer and the plan was 
put into effect. The training school was organized and conducted by Mr» 
Horace C, Thurber, 

A nev;ly appointed member of the professional group would be enrolled 
in the schocl and trained in all subjects pertaining to the work of the 
Division, Also older members, not having experience in all branches of the 
Division's work, would be trained in the branches lacking. 

From the last of January 1935 until the latter part of May 1935 the 
progress of the training school was as follows: 

Total number of men in training , ... 18 

JVien transferred to industry division after 

Training 2 

Len transferred temporarily from other 
Divisions for complete course ..*». 



llen xvithin Review Division trained for 
Industry divisions , 

Nev: entrants - trained for Review Division 
or Industr''^ Division \7ork 

The result of this course prepared the men for administrative procedure 
and established policy within the industry divisions, and they were ready 
for their eventual transfer to such divisions. 

The sections thus estalDlished later were sub-divided into various units, 
each in char":3 of a unit chief, with generally about four men. Such a unit 
handled a Sf ■ cialized work, - as the Budget Unit which reviewed code admin- 
istration "bu.d,;;ets, submitted b^'- the industries and trades for the approval 
of the Administration; the Exemptions Unit reviewed orders granting or deny- 
ing industry members a;o;olication for e'lemption from certain codes or code 
provisions. In some cases the particalar class of document reviewed did not 
necessitate a separate unit and such classes of documents were combined in 
one unit. The unit chiefs during the greater part of the life of the Review 
Division were Mr, Clifford P, Grant, Mr, Daniel S.- Ring, lir, L, L, Krentzlin 
and lir. T, T. Marye, At various times llr. John B, Beach, Mr. T. V, Griffith 
and Mr, John Dunxiing were acting unit chiefs, 

Mr, J, N, Freeman and Mr^ L, Q,. C. Lamar were assistants to the Section 
Chiefs of the Code and Rulings Sections, respectively. 

In June 1935 the following sections and units were present in the Review 


Code Unit O rders Unit 


Interpretation Uni t Exemption Unit 


Policy Precedents Training School 

To Mr, M- rl M, Jeffrey must be accorded a large share of the credit 
for setting up the organization of the Division and carrying through the 
work of selecting this personnel, and in general for the administration of 
the Division from its creation down to the present time, 

Steno^-raphic Cor-ps : 

Eor ap'oroximately a year stenographers were a.ssigned to each unit. The 
stenographic work was done within the unit. Later, in January 1935 a 
stenographic oool was established in v;hich all stenographic work was done. 

Files ; 

In the early stages of the Review Division section and unit files 



were liept* Al^out the sane time as the stenographic pool was established 
a general fi'ing system was inaugurated. The methods of filing were care- 
fully consid.:red "before "being put in ojoeration, and today it is "believed 
the files and records of the Review Division contain material of great 
importance, w"nich is promptly availa"ble when any question or pro"blem of 
code development or trends arises. Luring the later months of the history 
of the Review Division LIr, John 3« Dunning, as the executive assistant, 
performed efficient work in supervising the general work of the office out- 
side of the actual work of review* 

Method of Handlin^'^ Incomin.p: and Outgoing documents ; 

From the time the function of review was inaugurated until June 1935 
all documents su'bmitted for review were recorded as to name, number of doc- 
"uraents, serial num"ber, date of receipt and date of forwarding. Of the thous- 
ands of documents, and copies, handled "by the Review Division none were lost» 

This niet'nod of tabulation, (Exhibit Il-g) , was of great benefit in 
innumerable instances when a misconception existed in the deputy's mind that 
the Review Division was holding documents overly long; when, as a matter of 
fact, the documents had not been submitted as yet; or had been reviewed and 

The Rulings Section, because oT the larger volume of documents handled, 
established a "score board" whereby it was possible at a glance to detei^nine 
the progress of documents, (by the use of variously colored buttons), from 
the time of receipt to the time of forwarding, and the time element involved* 
By this a.nd other means Mr, Reilly succeeded in organizing the work of the 
section in such a manner that it was able to handle the volume passing through 
as promptly -s the figures hereafter cited show to have been the case. 

Under Stc.tistics, Part V, the -period of time taken by the Review Divi- 
sion to review documents, is shown the comparative periods in which docu- 
ments were reviewed. 

The entire personnel cooperated to the Nth degree, and often almost 
beyond the limits of physical and mental endurance, to perfect the prompt 
review of documents. This necessitated much night \7ork, holiday work, Sun- 
day work, throug'nout the months. In addition to those persons already re- 
ferred to, mention should be made of Mr, John P, Kelso, Mr, Robert H. 
Cavanaugh, Lir, ilorraan T, Rajnnond and Mr, Russell L» leaver for their valuable 
contributions to particular phases of the Review Division work, 

24-Hour Dead Line- ; 

.'jn important factor in the review of documents was the element of time, 
■The docmient was purportedly in shape for administrative approval, hence 
promptness in the review consistent with the responsibilities of the Review 
Division vm-.s a necessity, 

A mythical 24-hour "deadline" was established as a mark to "shoot at", 
since some documents, particularly the codes of some industries, were elabor- 
ate, complex and technical. Other circumstances sometimes delayed the for- 
warding of documents. After receipt of the document it would be discovered 



that an essential part had not "been submitted by the deputy, (as the trans- 
cript of hearing), and at the request of the deputy the document was kopt 
in the Review Division until the deputy had forwarded the lacking portion. 

Early Informal Contact with Deputies , 

Contrasted with Subsequent Procedure ; 

In the early stages of the functions of review, when the organization 
was small, when a question arose as to the permissibility of a code provi- 
sion (when but few documents other than codes v/ere reviewed), or other 
matter of policy, the reviewer sought out the deputy and in a short informal 
discussion of the problem quickly settled the moot points. As the NRA 
organization became larger and different parts quartered in various parts of 
Washington such procedure became undesirable, so that by June 1935 personal 
contact between the Review Division and the various other Divisions was com- 
paratively non-existent. 

When the NRA organization had expanded considerably and personal con-^ 
ference with the various de-outies, because of the press of work upon the 
reviev;er, consumed valuable time in going to and from the deputies' offices, 
and bec8.use deputies on account of the increased number of public hearings 
were so often absent from their offices, the next step of adjustment of 
differences of opinion as to established policy was to return the document 
to the deputy with a written summary pointing out inconsistencies in policy. 
In the press of work in the deputy's office often all adjustments were not 
made, and a second return of the document ws necessary for corrections be- 
fore the Review Division could forward the documents for approval* 

This constant return of documents to the deputies to make omitted changes 
finally led to a change of procedure under which the submitted document, 
after review, was not resubmitted after changes to the Review Division; but, 
after review, was forwarded to the approving officer if without substantial 
defects; or, if in the opinion of the Review Division so defective as to 
preclude approval, returned to thp deputy or Division submitting the document, 

Pr<»cedure by ^ich Documents Were Reviewed : 

Method of [Formulating Review Division Reports : 

Incoming documents, after recorded in the Document Record work, were 
forwarded to the unit handling that type of work, A member of the unit, other 
than the unit chief, reviewed the document. If the reviewer was not confi- 
dent that he could express the opinion of the Review Division on any particu- 
lar subject he consulted with the unit chief; v/ho in turn, if doubt existed 
in his mind, consulted with the section chief who supervised the work of the 
iinit in question. In these cases v/here the section chief v/as in doubt the 
Review Officer was consulted. This method of procedure resulted in a minimum 
change in the written reports of the Review Division. 

After completion the written report was in turn scintinized by the unit 
chief, the section chief, and in certain cases the office of the Review Of- 
ficer, The primary responsibility for expressing the opinion of th«* Review 
Division rested upon the reviewer. If changes were made by the unit chief 



or section chief the primary resDonsitility shifted, in respect to such 
changes, upon the officer making the changes. The general responsihility of 
the work, of course, rested upon the Review Officer. The shifting of respon- 
sibility is to he regarded as a device of organization within ihe Division, 

Review Office r' s Conferences as a Method of Policy , 

Cl arification and Organization Coordination ; 

The Review Officer held morning conferences five days a week, at which 
on Monday the immediate staff of the Review Officer, section chiefs, and unit 
chiefs attended. The length of the conferences varied according to the cur- 
rent policy situation of the Administration from a quarter of an hour to, in 
unusual cases, one hour or more. This Monday conference provided the Review 
Officer with the opportunity of effectively correcting faulty expressions of 
policy, and also further refinements of procedural organization as the need 
demanded. Here, too, new expressions of administrative -policy could he 
dissected in the light of practical application of its trend to the documents 
suhmitted for review. 

On the succeeding days each unit had a conference day, attended hy the 
immediate staff of the Review Officer, the section chief under which the unit 
operated, the unit chief, and such members of the unit as had difficult proh- 
lems of policy to discuss. 





Scope of Activities De te rmined, "by Piit ies EstaTplished in 'yario\is 
Office Orde rs, a ^id the Office Manual, T ogether With 
Sources of Ad;..-iinistrative Policy uipon which the function of Review 
Was Based : 

A histor"' of the activities of the Review Division seems logically 
"based upon the duties and responsihilities as set forth in various office 
orders under vrhich the Division functioned, and the sources of administra- 
tive policy upon which the function of review was "based, 

Formal Constitution of the Review D i vision ? 

The Review Division was formally constituted on Fe"brua.rv 8, 1934, 
under authorit^^ of , Off ice Order #68, (Exliibit Ill-a), although the function 
of review had "been inforraall'"' exercised since the passage of the Act. The 
order made the Review Division responsible for the - 

(a) Review of codes and orders submitted for the action of the 
Administrator for the purpose of (l) verifying compliance ^-dth es- 
tablished policies and (2) preparing a brief summar3r for the information 
of the Adr.iinistrator; 

(b) Review of all rulings made pursuant to approved codes for 

the purpose of disclosing (l) inconsistencies with established policies 
and (2) inconsistencies between such inlings; 

(c) Stu.d:^ of all problems of doubtful classification; 

(d) Review of approved codes for the purpose of suggesting amend^Jicnts 
to bring then into accord with established policy; 

(e) Such other functions in the nature of review and coordination 
as may be ar-igned by the Administrator from time to time. 

The order further provid<5d that each Advisory Board, the Legal Divi- 
sion, and the Research and Planning Division assign an Adviser to the 
Review Division, 

The order in addition lorovided that there be referred to the 
Review Division! 

(a) Copies of rulings of Division Administrators; 

(b) Findings and recommendations of Code Authorities on classifica- 
tion problems involving more than one industry division; 

(c) All correspondence from members of industry requesting decision 
on matters of classification where such classification was in doubt, 
(Exhibit IlX-b). 



Activities of the Review Division as Revealed "by Various Office Orders , 
and the Office I.Ian-gal : 

Procedure for Compiling' Documentary Record for Code s? 

Office Order #43, dated Ilovem'ber 21, 1933, previously mentioned, 
(Exhibit III~c), entitled "Procedure for Compiling a Record of Original 
Documentary Matter for Codes of 'FeAr Competition", was formulated ty Mr, 
Alvin Brovrn, Sxecij.tive Officer, in the first comprehensive effort to 
create an adeoj^^.te record of documentary'' matter of codes submitted for 
administrative recommendation of approval. The effect of this order re- 
sulted in not only the creation of an adequate record in support of 
administrative action "but also standardized the form of documentary 


Office Order #53, dated December 29, 1933, (Exhibit Ill-d), on 
interpretations \7as likerise the first comorehensive exposition on the 
pro"blem of the efficient handling of interpretation pro"blems« 

G-eneral Interpretations: 

"In the case of a general inter^-retation, the Review Officer will 
append a report on the inconsistency or consistency with approved 
policies of the loroposed interpretation and any proposed modification 
thereof," (Part" III - 3134.1)' 

Ordinary Interpretations: 

"If he finds the interpretation is not inconsistent with approved 
policies, the Review Officer will so indicate.,,,". If he finds the 
interpreta.tion is inconsistent with spproved policies the Review Officer 
will indicate nodification which "ould result in consistency and return 
to the Division Administrator, , .When finally found not inconsistent the 
Review Officer v.dll return it to the Division Administrator for signature 
and release.". (Part III - 3134,2) 

Classification Pro"blemst 

Office Order #59, dated January 15, 1934, (Exhibit Ill-e), on 
classification "oroblems in turn established a comprehensive procedure and 
method of solution for this problem. 

Office Order #60, dated January 16, 1934, (Exhibit Ill-f) , entitled 
"Procedure ^o be Followed by All Divisions in Ruling on Interpretations,, 
exceptions and exemptions or modifications to approved codes", further 
clarified and standardized the procedure in resrject to the above subject. 

Coordination of Code Provisions: 

Office Order #65, dated January 31, 1934, (Exhibit Ill-g) , entitled 
"Coordination of Code Provisions" established a method of procedure for_ 
the coordination of policy througho^lt the NRA to lessen the number of codes 
submitted for review, which materially de-oarted from established policy, 


■■■ i.: I 


Code Administration Fro"blems: 

Office Order #75, dated March 26, 1934, (Exhibit Ill-h) entitled 
"Procedure to l3e followed "by All Divisions in Haling on Code Administra- 
tive Problems" provided in pa.rt as reGr)ected the Reviei'; Divisions 

"5 - Revieu Division . 

a. In order to coordinate the final rulings of all Division 
Administrators end. the decisions of Policy Boards, coiDies of all such 
rulings and decisions will he suhmitted to the Review Division. 

h. If after study an.d review "b*" the Review Division the Chief 
thereof decided that a final ruling of a Division Administrator or a 
decision of a. Policy Board is inconsistent he will propose a change in 
such ruling or decision to the Division Administrator or Policy Board 
concerned. U-oon agreement action will he taken accordingly. In case of 
disagreement the will he presented to the Administrator for his decision. 
However, the fins2 ruling of the Division Administrator or the decision of 
the Policj'- Board stands until disan-oroved hy the Administrator.'' 

Policy Decisions Coverning Code-Malringi 

Office Order #76, dated March 26, 1934, (Exhihit Ill-i), entitled 
"Procedure to he ITollowed hy All Divisions in Obtaining Policy Decisions 
Governing Code Making", in respect to the Review Division providedl 

"4. a. In order to coordinate the final rulings of all Division 
Administrators and the decisions of Policy Boards, copies of all such rul- 
ings and 6-ecisions will "be submitted to the Review Division. 

h. If after study and review "h^^ the Review Division the Chief 
thereof decided that a final ruling of a Division Administrator or a 
decision of a Policy Bo8,rd is inconsistent he will propose a change in 
such ruling or decision to the Division Administrator or Policy Board 
concerned. Upon agreement action will he talcen accordingly. In case of 
disagreement, the case will he presented to the Administrator for his 
decision. However, the final ruling of the Division Administrator or 
the decision of the Policy Board stands until disap"oroved hj'' the 

Ar/oointnent of Review Officer: 

Office Order #83, dated April 9, 1934, (Exhibit IH-j), entitled 
"Creation of a Staff", ap-oointed Mr. Alvin Brovm Review Officer, and 
Assistant Administrator. The order provided, in pa.rt, that — 

"The Review Officer will review all documents for the action of the 
Administrator end. all final decisions of Division heads. and staff members 
for consistency with a-o"orove6. i^olicy, and will forward them with his com- 
ments to the ao-oro-oriate staff member or Division hea.d". 


Procedure for detaining: Adninistrator^ s Approval^ 

Office Order #87, dated Maj^ 14, 1934, (Ezhitit Ill-k), entitled 
"Procedure to "be Followed ty All Divisions in Obtaining Administrator's 
Approval of Documents Requiring Such Approval", did not estalilish a new 
procedure iDut vjas in explanation and ar,Tolif ication of Office Orders #75, 
#76, and #83. It provided in part that: 

"If there v/as any doubt in the mind of a Division head as to the 
existing policy affecting a decision requiring his approval he should 
present the case to the Review Officer "before any commitment was made to 

Service Trade si 

Office Order #97, dated June 28, 1934, (Exliibit III-l), entitled 
"Service Trades" provided in part that: 

"3. - "When local codes of fair trade practices for localities are 
submitted with proper agreement from the members of the trade for any 
locality under said Order, such local codes may be approved by the 
Administrator, if deemed by him to tend to effectuate the purposes of the 
Act, and without reference to any advisory Board when found "by the Review 
Division to be in conformity with existing NEA policy; and otherwise shall 
go through normal procedure," 

Office Manual: 

The Office Ilanual amplified and extended the activities of the Review 
Division, in many instances beyond the scope of previous office orders. 

Administrative FroDOsals for Code Amendments: 

The Office Ilanual provided in respect to Administration proposals 
for amendments to codes that: 

"The Review Division will com-oile, study and file all Administration 
proposals as received. Whether a Code Authority proposal is referred to 
it, or at ojiy tine upon the request of the deputy, the Review Division 
will submit a report and recommendation to the Deputy upon all such pro-* 
posals from the standpoint of consistency with approved policy and the 
elimination of conflicts." (Part II ~ 5233.2) 

"Within 72 hours of receipt of a* proposed amendment the Review 

Division will submit a report." (Part II - 5251. l) 

Notice of Public Hearing: 

"If the decision is to publish a notice of opportunity to be heard 
the will be as follows? 

If the Division Administrator is in doubt as to whether or not there 
is an established policy which should govern the content of the proposed 
amendment he will consult the Review Division, v/hich will inform him of 
the governing policy, if there be such, within 24 hours. (Part II - 5270) 



The Review Iiivision will check the Notice and Order for consistency 
and ap-proved policy. If found to "be inconsistent with policy, the Review 
Division will point out the inconsistency and return the document to the 
Division Administrator for correction, (Part II - 5270.3) 

Ihen cleared "by the Review Division or the Administrative Officer, 
(if a deviation from policy is involved), the Notice will "be signed and 
released by the Division Administrator and the Order will "be held until 
the expiration of the waiting period." (Part II - 5270.5) 

Intenjretation File ! 

"An interpretation file will "be estahlished in the Review Division 
and in the Legal Division, which will contain copies of all approved inter- 
pretations, including general interpretations, and of important explana- 
tions...." (Part III - 3121.2) 


"When the Division Administrator has made his decision, hut prior to 
his signature thereto, he will forward the entire file to the Review 
Officer, The Review Officer will check the ruling for consistency with 
approved policy. If found inconsistent with policy the Review Officer will 
point out the divergencies and retp.rn the documents within 24 hours for 
correction " (Part III - 3235.41) 


"In the case of stays for the Administrator's signature, the Review 
Officer will append a report on the inconsistency or consistency with 
approved, policies of the proposed stay and any proposed modification 
thereof " (Part III - 3235.42) 

* Exceptions Under Executive Order #6646; 

"The Review Officer will, if satisfied that the exception is in 
proper form and consistent ^dth policy, transmit it to the Administrative 
officer for actual approval, or for revievr "by him prior to approval "by 
the Compliance and Enforcement Director". (Part III - 4624) 

Plans for Lahor Complaints Committee: 

"The Review Officer will review the docrjnents for consistency with 
required form and apioroved policy, and will return them within 48 hours 
to the Division Administrator, pointing out any inconsistencies". 

Review of Ou-tp:oine: Mail: 

"The Control Section,,. in order to he assured. ,. that outgoing 
mail,,, is in conformance with IIRA procedure. , .and po].icy. , .may, , . ,refer 
correspondence to the Review Division " (Part IV - 3453.2) 



Revier of F'roToosed Codes Before Date of Pii"blic Hearing; * 

"The Revieu Division will sulDinit a re-oort to the Deputy Administrator 
to point out inconsistencies with pjp-ovoved iDOlicy in the "oroposed code," 
(Part II ~ 2305) 

Revieu of Trade Practice Complaints Connitteest 

"The Review Officer will review the documents for consistency with 
required form and approved policy, and will return them within 48 hours to 
the Division Administrator, -nointing out any inconsistencies "before 
signature," (Part III - 1423.52) 

Review of 3y-^Laws of Code Authoritie s: 

"The Review Officer will review the documents for consistency with 
required form and aioproved -oolicy, and will return them within 48" hours to 
the Division Administrator, pointing out any inconsistencies "before 
signature." (Part III - 1224.2) 

Recognition of Code Authorities* 

"The Review Officer will review the documents for consistency with 
required form and aiDproved policy, and will return them within 24 hours to 
the Division Administrator, pointing out any inconsistencies "before 
signature," (Part III - 1124.2) 

Acts of Code Authority. Su"b.iect to Disa-p-proval "by IIRA: 

Office Ilemorandum #336, dated Pe"bruary 13, 1935, (Exhibit Ill-m), 
-entitled, "Determinations Respecting Acts of Code Authorities and Their 
Agencies which are Subject to Disapproval "by NRA" , provided that the 
rulings on the propriety of such actions "be su"bmitted for review. 

Budgets and Sases of Contri"bution; 

Office Memorandum #358, dated Hay 15, 1935, (Exhibit Ill-^n), 
entitled "Procedure for Handling Budgets and Bases pf Contribution and 
Financial Reports of Code Authorities", Drovided in part that all such 
documents shall be submitted to the Review Division, 

Transmission of Orders for Sjgna.ture of Administrative Officer? 

Office Ilemorandum #330, dated January 25, 1935, (Exhibit III-o), 
entitled "Transmission of Orders for Signature of Administrative Officer 
Through Review Division", provided that the resubmittal of documents to 
which the Review Division had made exceptions or comment be made through 
the Review Division, and not a.s formerly'' direct to the Adjninistrative 
Officer, The purpose of the change was to enable the Review Division to 
modify its review in the light of any changes made b^'" the submitting 
authority, and thus simplify the consideration which must be given to it 
by the Administrative Officer, 



Terminations of Sxe'Totions Under Adininistrr'tive Order X-36' 

Office Order #94, dated June 19, 1934, (Exhi'bit III-p), entitled 
"Termination of Exemptions Granted in Administrative Order X-36", provided 
in part that the determinations of Division Acljninistrators upon such appli- 
cations would iDe final rulings, sulDJect to the disapproval of the Adminis- 
trator, and copies filed with the Heview Division for review in the regular 

Sources of Administrative Fo licy Unon "^ich the 
Function of Pteview T^Fas Based! 

It is interesting at this point to relate the various sources of 
administrative policy u-oon which the function of review was cased, 

(a) Title I of the National Ind.ustripl Recovery Act naturally 
established the "broad houndarics of administrative policy, (Exhihit I-a), 

(t) The Executive Orders issued hjr the President in respect to 
Title I of the Act, (Exliihit Ill-q). 

(c) The decla-rations of policy "by the Administrator, which were 
expressed in notations unon the summary of the document submitted for 
approval, (E^iiiljit I-c) • 

(d) Aojninistrative Orders, (E^diihit Ill-r) , Office Orders and 
Office Memorandwns, constituted an imr)ortant source of policy, 

(e) The confidential Policy Memorandum of October 25, 1933, 
(Exhibit II~a) , was an esiDeciplly important, clear cut, exposition of 
fundamental principles of policj'', and was of great and lasting oenefit 
not only in the function of review hut a.s a clarifying medium on policy 
for the entire Administration, 

(f) The Model Code, (Exhihit Il-h), <?-s its name indicates, spon- 
sored "by the Legal Division containing approved wording end. construction 
of standard code provisions, 

(g) The expressions of the va.rious Advisory Boards, ^-^hen approved 
"by the Administrator, 

(h) After the estahlishment of the National Industrial Recovery 
Board, as the directing s.gency of the Adjiinistration, in lieu of the 
office of Administrator, the expressions of tha.t Board, the Executive 
Secretary, and the Administrative Officer constituted determinations of 
policy, (ErJiihit III-s). 

(i) EjDpressions of the Advisory Council in the ahsence of approval 
of one of the authorities referred to in (h) were not regarded as de- 
terminations of policy, hut on douhtful points of policy were strongly 
persuasive, (Exliihit Ill-t), 

(j) Decisions of the Industrial Board were regarded as 
authoritative expressions of policj'- when aroDroved hv the National Indus- 
trial Recovery Board, (Exhihit III-u). 



(k) E:qpressions of policy'' contained in reviews set a precedent for 
future reviers, except as they mif^ht "be nodified in the light of any 
subsequent deterriinations of policy, 

From the alDOve sources ■colic^'' deterninations were gathered, cor- 
related, interoreted as to the result-s sought to "be a,chieved, and the 
practical ap-olication of the policy to the su'bject matter under review. 

Review Officer^ s E:^:oression of Function of Review' 

' " " " ' ' ■! II ■■ ^ ■ — —.—.-■——■■ a. ■ , —I .^» — ■ — ■■..,.111^. ■..I J ...I.., — ^ I - .. I ■■ .. I — .1 

It seems "biit aTD-oropriate that the definition of the function of 
review as ezxressed "by Hr, Alvin Bronn, Review Officer, on December 8, 
1934, in a tpJJc before the Training School for NRA Executives, (Exhi"bit 
III-v) , should esta"blish the "basis for the exposition of the nature of 
the function, llr, Bro'-m said, in part: 

"The Review Division is the last port of call for each formal 
action "before it goes "before the official who must assume the responsi- 
"bility for approving it. 

"Its function is, "by advice and suggestion, to promote consistency 
of action throughout the organization. By "action" is meant those formal 
acts "by which the Administration expresses its will. By "consistency" is 
meant a uni'^o'-iit^r of execution of esta"blished policy, uniformitj'- of 
application of adjiinistrative discretion, and correctness of applica.tion 
of code provisions, 

"Policy is a determination of administrative discretion ap-olied 
usually in ad.vance to a general set of facts, so that when it has "been 
applied it determines future action, whenever that same set of facts 

"Administrative discretion must "be applied to new situations unguid- 
ed largely by policy. Administrative discretion then is an application 
of judgment to a particular, special set of facts - a determination which 
rests principally on sound judgment, 

"In adjiinistrative action, "based on the apiDlication of code pro- 
visions - here policy is non-existent practically "because policy,,,,, 

"So that this is its function; striving to promote uniformity of 
action throughout the organization. The Review Division tries to insure 
consistency with esta"blished policy and that is important chiefly in the 
consideration of codes and amendments, because those are the things which 
become the embodiment of policy. It strives further to insure uniformity 
in the exercise of administrative discretion and, of course, a typical 
examnle of such an action is an exemption. There is no policy - little 
policy, at least, governing an exeraotion. It is like an act of judicial 
or executive clemency. It rests on sound judgment as to the equities in 
the case. We also strive to insure consistency^ with code provisions and 
that is iimoortriit particularly in sumolemental orders, orders pursuant to 
a code. Up:-- codes of course, leave certain steps open to future decision, 
involving s^ ./i discretion, perhaps some policj'-, but primarily an insurance 
that the step which is taken is consistent ^^ith the provisions of the 



code itselfj r.nd, of course, the necessity for insuring consistency with 
code Drovisions is particularly important in the case of interpretations* 

"Now you may ask why is this necessary, this function of review for 
these purposes, ^hy the vie\7point, the information which is hrought to 
the function of review, cannot properly he exercised hy the person who 
has the initial responsihility. It cannot generally in the nature of 
things, because of the size of the -orohlems we deal with and complexity 
of all its aspects. 'We have something ap"Droaching 600 codes, and together 
with supplemental codes somewhere "betwr;en 700 and 800, We have a large 
number of deputies and assistant deputies, with their staffs. They are 
organized in a dozen divisions. They are specialists in each of their 
codes. We try to he specialists in those particular things with which we 
are charged, in other words, consistency of action. We try to supply the 
want which one deputy may have* in not knowing what some other deputy way 
over there nay he doing. The man over there may have worked out a very 
good solution in a particular case. This man over here has no means of 
knowing what it is. The Review Division is the only division which is 
able to sup;oly that lack, and of course the reason why it is able to supply 
the lack is not due to any particular qualifications of its personnel, 
but is due to the position in v/hich it is located, in that all formal acts 
flow through the Eeviev/ Division and are there examined. We have special- 
ists, not on particular codes, but we have specialists on interpretations, 
on exemptions, on cla.ssif ications and so on. Thus by bringing the 
specialist's viewooint on -oolic;;- and uniformity of action into conjunction 
with the specialistc-s viewpoint on the particular industry, I like to 
think we get the best sort of action. 

"What we render is advice and suggestion. It is not mandatory. We 
are not, for exa::Tple, a court of ap-oeals which has the right to deny any- 
thing. The official v-ho takes the resr)onsibility for signing does not 
have to follow our suggestions. Our fimction ends with advice." 

^^\mction of "Revlexr as Reflected by Heview Division Summary and Memorandum? 

Summary ; 

The Review Division Siimmary has been heretofore briefly mentioned, 
(Exhibit II-c) . A more detailed explanation of the summary is believed 
pertinent. The summary was a tabloid condensation of the provisions of a 
document submitted for review, with the objections of the various advisers 
inserted under the criticised subject matter. 

The Review Division (this designation is used to include the function 
of review prior to formal establishment of the Review Division on February 
8, 1934), raised queries as to the objectionable nature of the subject 
matter, in respect to established policy, concurring or disagreeing with 
the recommendations of the various advisers, A later development in the 
form and content of the summary?- was the divorcement of the opinion of the 
Review Division from the summa„ry and the establishment of a Review Division 
Memorandum, Under this procedure the Review summary contained in greatly 
condensed form the provisions of the submitted document, with any objections 
raised by the various advisers. (Exhibit Ill-y), 



Memo ran dru n* 

The Review Division Menora.nclun contained the OTDinion of the Review 
Division, in the lif:ht of established -^nolicy, as to the suitability of the 
doc"Uinent rs reviewed to receive administrative ap;oroval, The memorandiim 
stated whether the document was Relieved to he in accord with established 
policy. If the dociiment vtras "believed to contain suhject matter precluding 
administrative ap"Drova] the document ^-'as "excepted" to. An "exception" 
was an ohjection on the -nart of the Review Division of such a suhstantial 
nature, "based upon tho attempted wide divergence from established policy, 
precluding recoininendation for administrative a-nriroval. A "Comment", on 
the other hand, pointed out minor discreToancies in -oolicy or -orocedure, 
which would "benefit the document if revised in accord with the recomnendar- 
tions stated in the "comment", hut which were not of such suhstantial 
nature as to precl^ide administrative apToroval. As an incident to the 
function of review the examination of the dociments Drought to light errors 
of form, errors of ftoelling, and word construction, and inaccuracies of 
statement. Such errors were iDointed oiit under the caption "Suggestions as 
to Form", on the theory/ that such documents became "ouhlic records and as 
such should he carefully formula.ted as to felicity of language and accuracy'' 
of statement. 

Outline of Summary M emorandum? 

The suin:ira-y mejiorandiim, in re-^.-nect to codes, contained a condensed 
version of: 

(1) The definition of industrj^; 

(2) Ea-sic Maximum Hours and Minimum "t^age Drovisions, with classes of 
employees, if a.n;'', excepted fron the ha.sic provisions, and the hours and 
wage rates -orovided for such class; 

(3) Code Authority nations; 

(a) ITi^mher and quad if ica.t ions of members, 

(h) Meth-od of election, including right to vote, 

(c) Po-'ers of the Code Authority to administer the code; 

(4) Practices; 

(5) Constitution and By-Laws of SToonsoring Association or Associations! 

(a) Adjnission to merahership, 

1 - Automavtic admission of member 

uoon code coverage 

2 - Anount of initiation fees, 

3 - Amount anniial dues, 

(b) Causes for sus^iension of expulsion; 

(s) Assent of industry to code, and mea.sure of authority sponsors were 
delegated by industry to submitted code and revised code, 

(7) Objections of Advisory Soards - Industrial, Labor, and Consumers^; 
objections of Legal Division and Research and Planning Division, if an^r, 
and the depr.ty^s answer to such objections, 



Frosident ' s P^eemnlo^.m ie nt Agreement i 

IntcrToretations of Sec. 4(a) - National InduGtripI Recovery Act; 

During tho raonths of July and August 1923 TnimeograTDhed releases inter- 
preting the President's Peemplojmient Agreement, Section 4(a) of the ITIRA, 
w^re distributed, as the agreement nas \?ritten in language intended to "be 
flexible to meet man^-'- varieties of conditions and a.s a result interpreta- 
tions were reouired from tim?* to time a.s uncertainties in the a.-oplication 
of the agreement developed. (Sxhihit III-^,?), 

NRA Bulletin Ho. 6 - Substituted Waf^es and Hours: 

Under date of October 14, 1935, IIEA Bulletin Ho. 6 - "Substituted 
Wages and Hours - Provisions of the President's Reemolo^ment Agreement" - 
became the substantive guide for such -orovisions. As a result, the Review 
Division Summary contained in the summary heading a. notation whether or not 
the industry whose code xvas under consideration for approval had, or had 
not, substituted wages and hour provisions of the PRA, pending formal 
approval of the industry's code of competition, (Sxhibit III-x). 



PAHT IV - H1 03LS1.IS 

Administrative Proljlems in tha Review Division ; 

The Review Di\'-ision was sing^ilarly free fron many of the problems that 
some other -portions of the W.A or^yanization seemed to encoiinter. The prohlem 
of the competent type of personnel was early solved. The problem of lagging 
organization changes was not encoujitered. The organization structure was ex- 
tremely flexible. Its principle divisions of f-onctions were capable of an 
extre:iely large range of sub-division without alteration of the fundamental 
conce-otion. The changing trends of ITRA administration procedure or adminis- 
trative -oolicy vfere closely watched; in many cases anticipated, and organiza- 
tion rjlant dravm capable of being put into immediate operation when procedure 
or policy changes were put into effect, 

Establisl'iment of Consistent Policy Procedure : 

A problem of major importance ^:iresented itself in the accurate concise 
compilation of policy upon the hundreds of subjects on which the Administra- 
tion had established a policy. It V7as as important to differentiate between 
nrovisions upon which no policy iis.d been established as to known established 
policy, in order that an intelligent recommendation to the approving officer, 
after consideration of all facets of principles and trends, had been made. 

The Administrator for many months was the fountain head of policy, his 
action in approving, conditionally ap'oroving, or disapproving the subject 
matter of i^rovisions submitted for approval established precedents for policy 
procedure in future actions. Later the Board, the Administrative Office, 
the Advisory Council, when its recommendations were affirmed by the Board, 
became the originating ground for policy. 

In order that there might be consistency of action within the Review 
Division a policy manual was made, for use only within the Review Division, 
in which the subject matter of provisions submitted for review was classified 
and if policy had been e stablished as to a particular subject matter the es- 
tablished policy was stated, ^.'ith the source of precedent which e stablished 
the policy. If no policy had been established the fact was so noted. This 
manual, v^hich was compiled by Mr, H. A. O'Conriell, was written in JrHy 1934 
and approved by Mr, Blackwell Smith, Assistant General Counsel of WA, It 
is interesting to note that the principles of policy set forth in the Review 
Division MaJi"ual (Exhibit IT-a), was incorporated practically verbatim in the 
official NRA Manijal , iscued later. 

Com-pilation of Established Policy by RevievT Officer as of June 193 


The Review Officer, Mr. Alvin Brown, on June 12, 1935, made a compila-- 
tion of established jjolicy, with revised arrangement and form, which contains 
the latest exposition of the principles of established policy of the National 
Recovery Administration, (Exhibit IV-b), 

ApDointment of Code Assistants in Divisions : 

With the Review Division Policy Manual as a basis of consistent policy 
procedure within the Division the next problem to solve was the method of 
maintaining like consistency of action in the offices of the deputies. At 



this time the Industry Divisions had been e stablished, and in an attempt to 
solve this problem recommendations were made that the office of Code Assistant 
be created in each Division, as a liaison of policy procedure bet\7een the He- 
view Division and the various industry divisions. Code Assistants were 
appointed and very substantially helped the deputies in formulating codes and 
other documents conforming to established policy, v/hile such documents uere 
in the -orocess of formulation. The Review Division kept the Code Assistants 
advised and informed of current policy changes, and the result was that a 
great amount of objectionable subject matter was removed at the source, and 
in a comparatively short time a much higher grade of document, in respect to 
absence of objectionable provisions, was submitted for administrative approval, 
(Exhibit IV~c). 

Safe-Guarding the Approving Officer : 

Another outstanding problem was the somewhat delicate position of the 
Review Officer in the exercise of its duties, in safe-guarding the a,pproving 
officer. The delicacy of its position resulted from the natural desire of 
the de;outies to have the documents in their charge approved at the earliest 
possible moment. The sponsors of the code, (after protrac^ted periods of 
negotiations), or other documents were also ajixious for their immediate ap- 
proval. These factors created a resistance to suggested version of the 
document submitted for review. The duties of the Review Division were plain- 
ly stated - the review of documents for inconsistencies with established 
policy, and procedure; and it is believed that the records will verify the 
statement that the Review Division performed its task with all promptness 
consistent with its responsibilities. 

Cooperative Results : 

As the different members of the industry divisions became better acquaint- 
ed with the work of the Review Division a fine spirit of cooperation developed, 
and this particular problem was solved, although constantly changing personnel 
and additional personnel; with the increase of the number of industry divi- 
sions, constantly provided a minor problem in policy education and procedure, 
(Exhibit IV-d), 



Documentary Statistical Eecord of the Reviev; Division : 
ypxiber and N ature of Dociaments Revie'.7ed : 

ShOx'tly after the formal constitution of the ::ievie\Y Division on ITelDruary 
8, 19o4, a formal method of recording the nujiiter and nature of the documents 
reviev/ed nas inaufjurated. 

The records show that during the period from February 12, 1S34, to and 
includin^^ June 22, 1335, the Review Division received and completed a review 
of 14,186 documents. The use of the word "documents" is to "be taken in the 
sam- sense of a unit of v.-ork reviewed. For example, a review of a code, with 
Volioraes I, II and III, containin?; a score or more of attached documents, vras 
recorded as the review of one document. 

This total was composes of the following calssifications: 















Code Amendments 

Proposed Amendments 

Basic Codes and Consolidations 

Administrative Orders and Stays 


Ap"jroval of Exemptions 

Denials of Exemptions 

Exceptions to Executive Order #5646 



Recognition, election and selection of 

Code Authority Members 

Appointment of Code Administration Members 

Code Authority 3:i.^-Laws 

Plans for handling labor complaints 

Plans for Handling Trade Practice Complaints 

Regional Agreements 

Cost- Accounting Systems and Cost Formulae 

Preview of Notices of Hearing 

Appointments of Special Committees 

Miscellaneous Division Orders 

Miscellaneous Cases 
























Period of Ti^ie Taken by the Review Division to Review Documents ; 

An examination of the Review Division records, for the period of January,'- 
28, 1935 to May 27, 1935, inclusive, as to the period of time between the re- 
ceipt of the doc-uraent by the Review Division and the forwarding of the docu- 
ment to the approving authority or return to the submitting authority, reveals 
of the 5,914 documents reviewed during this period the following comparative 



Numher of 






sa,me calendar 



iCTjment rec'd. 




first » 


after receipt 




second " 







third " 







foiarth " 







fifth " 







sixth " 







seventh " 








Test Siirvey of Documents Subrai 


for Review, 


to MorninfS; 


Afternoon Arrival: 

Dociijnents checked into the Division, for example at 4:45 o'clock P. H. 
were considered as bein/^- in one day. Docivaents checked out of the Hevievr 
Division, for example at 9:15 o^clock, A. M. , were considered as heing in the 
Division for tl'iat day. A test siirvey of the records indicates that 62-2/10 
per cent of the documents submitted for review were received "by the Review 
Division before one o'clock P. M. , and 37-8/10 per cent were received after 
that hour. 

Test Survey of Documents Submitted for Review as to Morning or 

Afternoon Release ; 

A test survey of the records indicates that 37-7/10 per cent of the 
documents reviewed were checked out of the Review Division before one o* clock 
P.M. and 62-3/10 per cent were checked out after one o'clock P.M. 

Cumulative Percentage Data, as to Period of Time for Review ; 

The above tabulation show that of the 5,914 documents reviev/ed from 
January 26, 1935 to May 27, 1935, inclusive, the review of 30,8 per cent of 
the documents was completed and checked out the same calendar day; 75,31 per 
cent of the documents were completed and checked out the following day; 94,51 
per cent by the second calendar day after receipt; and 98.24 per cent by the 
third calendar day. 

The records thus indicate that over such five month period the Review 
Division held only 5.49 per cent of documents over two calendar days after 
receipt, of which 3,75 per cent were checked out the following day. 

Total N'umber of Documents AyyvoYed . by Administration from passage of 

the Act until May 27, 195 5; 

Code Record reports a total of 17,866 documents approved by the Adminis- 
tration from the passage of the Act on June 16, 1933 to May 27, 1935, Of this 
number 811 were approved between Jvocie 16, 1933 and February 12, 1934, This 
number of approved documents added to the total of 14,186 gives 14,997 docu- 
ments reviewed by the Review Division out of the grand total of 17,866 approv- 
ed doc-uments filed in Code Record Section. The difference of 2,869 documents, 
not sent to the Review Division for review represents in part Executive Or- 
ders, Administrative X-orders, and the remaining balance documents 



approved by Division Administrator, "before review - \7hich shoiild have "been 
sent to the Review Division for review after approval, but which were erron- 
eously sent directly to Code Record Section for permanent filing. 

Percentage of Documents Submitted for Review Containing Provisions 

Contrary to Established Policy ; CODES; 

A test survey for the months of May and August, 1934, of the Review 
Division, (Exhibit V-a) , sho-.7S that of the 137 codes reviewed exceptions were 
taken b^r the Review Division to 106 of the 137 documents or 77 per cent of the 
number submitted for review. An "exception", as previously pointed out, wa,s 
an objection so substantially based upon divergence from the channels of es- 
tablished policy as in the opinion of the Review Division precluded Adjninis- 
trative approval. One exception was taken to 39 codes, or 28 per cent of 
those submit tad; two exceptions were taken to 34 codes, or 25 per cent of 
those submitted; three to twelve exceptions were taken to the remaining 33 
codes, or 24 per cent of those submitted. 

A report on exceptions taken on reviewed codes for March 1935, (also 
included in Exhibit V-a), shows 132 codes reviewed with 239 exceptions talcen.- 
One exceution was taken to 68 codes, or 28 per cent; tv/o exceptions were taken 
to 42 codes, or 18 per cent; three to twelve exceptions taken to the remaining 
129 codes, or 54 per cent. 

Amendments ; 

The records show that in respect to amendments reviewed during May and 
August 1934, (Exliibit V-b), that of the 60 anendments submitted, exception was 
taken to 22, or 36 per cent of those submitted for review. 

Combining the number of codes and amendments, of the 197 submitted for 
review exception was talcen to 128 or 65 per cent. 

Other Orders (Exclusive of Codes and Ainendments ); 

A test survey from February 12, 1934 to July 28, 1934 of other orders, 

exclusive of codes end amendments, totaling 2585, show that 496 were foimd 

defective and exception taken. The 496 documents constituted 19 per cent 
of those received during this period. 

Executive Personnel of the Review Division ; 

Office Memorand-am, dated April 9, 1934, (Exhibit V-c) , listed under the 
Administrative Staff Mr, Alvin Brown appointed as Review Officer for the Re- 
view Division. 

Office memorandum, ITc. 197, dated May 4, 1934 (Exhibit V-d) appointed 
Mr. E. M, Jeffrey as Chief of the Review Division; Mr, M, Creditor and Mr, 
A. Heath Onthank as Assistant Review Officers; Mro H. A, O'Connell and Mr, 
Frank A. Reilly as Assistants to the Chief of the Review Division, The latter 
part of May 1934 Mr. Robert C. Ayers was appointed Assistant to the Chief of 
the Review Division, 



P e r s n nel and Cost Dat a in Administration of the Review Divisio n : 

The r.eview Division in FelDriaary 1934 had a total -oersonnel of 34 persons, 
23 in the professional gi'ouiJ and 11 in the stenographic and clerical group. 
The steadily increasing volume of v-ork and the dispatch demanded in the re- 
vier; of docuiaents necessitated increased personnel. In January, 1935, per- 
sonnel totaled 63; 36 in the professional group and 27 in the stenographic 
and clerical group. On June 16, 1935 (Exhibit V-e) a total of 60 -jere em-, 
ployed; 39 in the professional group and 21 in the stenograi^hic and clerical 
group, A chart as of May 19, 1935, is also shown as Exhibit V-f nhich dis- 
plays the sections and units of the lieview Division as of that date, 

Reviev.r Division Space Assia:nments After Formal Constitution : 

The review Division was always maintained in the U. S. Department of 
Com!.:erce , Washington, D, C. , and as previously mentioned review was first 
be Ton as a definite function in the Executive Offices #^-840-38, but activi- 
ties of the function soon raa,de it necessary to have la,rger quarters for 
operations and the successive moves are sho^m in Exhibit V-g, after the 
formal constitution of the Review Division. 

Cost of Operation of Review Division : 

The cost of operation of the Review Division, without inclusion of 
such cost items as heat, light, telephone service and cleaning, from Eebm- 
ary 8, 1934 to June 15, 1935 vras $218,997.24, which may be broken do\7n as 

f 0ll0\7S: 

Salaries (per annuia basis) 

Salaries (per diem basis) 


Printing and Binding 

Furniture and Equipment 

Telephone (L.D. ) and telegraph 

Office Su23plies 










Conclusion ; 

The history of the Review Division has been written without attempting 
to delve in minutia, but rather to portray the fundamental characteristic 
features of the Division so that a reader without previous knowledge of the 
work of the Division may obtain an intelligent picture of the part it played 
in the trans-constitutional flight of the Blue Eagle. 

- L' envoi - 
And of the Review Division, let it be said 
"De I.Iortius Nil Nisi Bonum" 


I, 11 D E X 


Act, National Industrial Recovery 1 


as revealed "by various Office Orders 12 

scope of determined 11 

Acts of Code Authority subject to disapproval "by N.R.A 16 

Administrator, creation of office of 1 

Aojninistrative Method, character of 1 

Administrative Officer, 

procedure for obtaining approval of 14 

transmission of orders for signature of 16 

Administrative Order X-SS, termination of exemptions under 17 

Administrative Policy, sources governing review functions 17 

Administrative Problems in the Review Division 22 

Administrative Proposals for Code Amendments 15 

Administration from passage of Act until May 27, 1935 25 

A6.visory Council, as source of policy 22 

Approving Officer , safeguarding of 23 

Assistant Administrator for Industry, creation of office 1 

Assistant Administrator for Labor, creation of office 1 

Attorneys, em-oloyment of 5 

Ayers, Robt., appointment as Ass' t. to Chief of Rev. Div 26 

Brown, ALvin 

appointed Executive Officer 2 

appointed Review Officer 13 

first compilation of policy by. 3 

Boards, creation of Advisory 1 

Budgets and bases of contribution 16 

Budget Unit 6 


Chief Clerk' s Office 1 

Chief of Review Division, appointment of 26 

Chiefs of Units V. 6,9 

Classifications Section, 

creation of 6 

devel opment of 6 

Code Analysis Division, creation of 1 

Code Assistants, appointment of 22 

Code Authority, acts of subject to disapproval by 16 

Codes , 

buLh of early work 3 

coordination of provisions 12 

lack of uniformity in early t 3 

Office Order #43 in re -oresentation of ♦ 3 


- •: ;J..- :.'■ 

. ■! 

f '■■"''--•■, rr 

I • .-■ •- .■ . 

.■>■ !;r>'" 



( Continued) 

Code Section, 

continuation of 5 

creation of 5 

documents handled "by 5 

Compilation of Established Policy Procedure as of June, 1933.... 22 

Conclusion 27 

Conf ererences of Review Officer in re policy clarification 9 

Consistent Policy Procedure, establishment of 22 

Constitution of Review Division 11 

Consumers Advisory Board, creation of 1 

Control Division, creation of 1 

Cooperative Results 23 

Cost of Operation 27 

Creditor, M. , appointment as Ass't. Review Officer 26 

Cumulative percentage data re: time required review documents.. 25 


Deadline , 24 hr 8 

Denials of Exemptions, documents classified as 5 

Deputy Administrators, 

creation of 1 

early informat contact with 8 

Disapproval of acts of Code Authority 16 


appointment of Code Assistants for 22 

crer.tlon of 1 

Research and Planning 1 

Docimentary statistical record 24 


classification of 5 

cumulative percentage data as to time required for 

review of 25 

method of handling 8,9 

morning or afternoon release of 25 

number approved by Administrator 25 


Early N. R. A, Organization. 1 

Ei-'ceptions, discretionary powers of Review Officer as to 15 

Ej'iecutive Officer, 

appointment of John M. Hancock as 2 

appointment of Alvin Brown as . 2 

creation of 1 

original duties of 1 

Executive Personnel of Review Division 26 


documents classified as 5 

explanation of nature of 18 

procedure in handling , 15 

terminations under Administrative Order Xt-36 17 




0*Connell, H. A., apDointment as Ass't. to Chief of Review 

Division 26 

Office Manual, amplification of 14,15,16 

Orc'.ers, transmission of Adn. Officer for signatiire 16 

Organization, N. R. A., 

early 1 

develo-'3inent of , 5 

Origin of IT. R. A 1 

Outline of Summary Memorandum 20 


Pas sage of the Act 1 

Periods required to review documents 24 


early 1 

later 4,27 


Admi.iistrative, governing review functions 17 

compilation of established procedure of 22 

decisions governing code mailing 13 

early formulation of 2,3 

establishment of consistent procedure of * 22 

first compilation of 2,3 

review of documents containing provisions contrary to 26 

Policy Section of Review Division '^ 

President ' s Reemployment Agreement 21 


hj/' which documents viere reviewed Q 

for ohtaining Administrator ' s approval 14 

Puhlic Hearings 14 


Release of documents reviewed 25 

Research and Planning Division, creation of 1 

Results, Cooperative 23 

Review Division, 

activities as revealed "by office orders and manual 12 

administrative prolDlems of 22 

appointment of S, M. Jeffrey as Chief of 26 

appointment of H. A. O'Connell as Ass't. to Chief of 26 

appointment of Rohert C. Ayers as Ass't. to Chief of 26 

appointment of J\ A. Reilly as Ass't. to Chief of 26 

appointment of A, Heath Onthank as Ass't. Review Officer... 26 

appointment of M. Creditor as Ass't. Review Officer 26 

cost of operation 27 

development of organization 5 

documentary statistical record of 25 

formal constitution of 11 

memorandums and summaries as reflecting review function.... 19 




Review Division, (Cont'd) 

ori> i 11 of 4 

periods of time talcen to review documents....... 25 

personnel 5 ,26,27 

space assignments after constitution 27 

Review Functions, 

as expressed "by Review Officer IS 

educational features 1 

necessity for 1 

safeguards 1 

sources of administrative policy as to * 17 

threefold aspects of 1 

Review of Documents, 

Codes 16 

duties as to exemptions, classifications, etc 15,16 

period of time required for ■ 24 

pro cedur e for 9 

review as to morning or afternoon releases 25 

test survey of 25 

Review Officer, 

compilation of established policy "by ... 22 

conferences as a method of Policy clarification...- 10 

erprpssions of functions of review "by 18 

see Alvin Brown 

Review Summary, 

contents of , 4 

evolution of 4 

Rilej'", F. A,, appointment as Ass't. to Chief of Rev. Div 26 

Ralings Section of Review Division 7 


Scope of Activities, determination of 11 

Score "board, use "by Rulings Section. ■ 8 

Service Trades 14 

Smith, 31ac]cwell , approval of manual "by 22 

Sources of Administrative Policy governing review functions 17 

Space assignments for Review Division 24 

Stays, procedure in handling 15 

Sijjr.mary Memorandum, 

evolution of ' 4 

outline of , 20 

Stenographic Corps 7 


Termination of Exemptions under Adm. Order X~36 17 

Test Survey of documents sulDmitted for review 25 

Time for re\''iew of documents data 25 

Total numter of documents ap'oroved "by Administrator 25 

Training School, creation and purpose of ......... .■♦ 6 

Transmission of Orders for signature of Administrative Officer.. 16 

Twenty-'f our hour deadline 8 


■•r- <• — t- -r/ ■, 

.' -.- ■.- V. V •. •«■ 


Unif ormity of documents submitted for review 3 

Units, see Review Division Organization 

Wages and ..ours Bulletin No. 6 21 

X— 36, Administrative Order, termination of exemptions under 17 

930 6#