Though, as the foregoing cases show, the courts will not consent to exercise jurisdiction where their decisions are reviewable by administrative officials, they have not refused themselves Id review decisions rendered in the first instance by executive organs. In all cases they will, of course, examine, by certiorari or otherwise, whether a given administrative act has been legal in character, that is, whether the agent performing it has had the necessary official power, or whether " due process of law" has been provided.31 In addition they have been willing, where specific legislative authority has been granted them, to review administrative determinations of fact, when such determinations have required the exercise of functions essentially judicial in character.

An excellent illustration of this is the case of United States v. Butterworth32 in which was sustained the right of appeal to the courts from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents. The court review the patent legislation of Congress and point out that property rights are involved, that the determination of claims for patents involves the adjudication of disputed questions of fact upon scientific or legal principles, the process being essentially judicial in character, and that the court though interposed as an aid to the patent office is not subject to it, its judgments being binding upon the parties, and conclusive upon the patent office itself. " The commissioner cannot question it. He is bound to record and obey it. His failure to refuse to execute by appropriate action would undoubtedly be corrected and supplied by suitable judicial process." 33

31 See Chapter LXIV (Conclusiveness Of Administrative Determinations. 754. Due Process Of Law Does Not Deman'D Determination Of Rights In Courts Of Law).

32 112 U. S. 50; 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25; 28 L. ed. 656.

33 In United States v. Duell (172 U. S. 576; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 286; 43 L. ed. 559), decided in 1899, this case was approved and the judicial right of revision stated, if anything, more strongly, the court saying: " We perceive no ground for overruling that case or dissenting from the reasoning of the opinion; and as the proceeding in the court of appeals is an appeal in an interference controversy presents all the features of a civil case, - a plaintiff, a defendant, and a judge, - and deals with a question judicial in its nature, in respect of which the judgment of the court is final, so far as the particular action of the patent office is concerned, such judgment is none the less a judgment ' because its effect may he to aid an administrative or executive body in the performance of duties legally imposed upon it by Congress in execution of a power granted by the Constitution.'" The last clause is quoted from Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447; 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1125; 38 L. ed. 1047.

In Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson,34 in which was contested the constitutionality of that section of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 which authorized and required the circuit courts of the United States to use their processes in aid of inquiries before the Commission, the general doctrines regarding the circumstances under which aid may be given by the courts to administrative agencies are considered at length.