Laserfiche WebLink
X <br /> m <br /> v <br /> A <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 0 <br /> 16 0 <br /> proof, but on the contrary the party seeking a transfer <br /> has the burden of proof of non-injury. <br /> Marry, do you oars to comment? <br /> MR. MENDENHALL: No. <br /> m <br /> =AIRMAN ARAM: Would this be a compromise between <br /> the two extremes of having the Administration make a find- <br /> ing and determination which would be binding on the Courts, <br /> and to Which Roland has certain objections, as Mr. Tidal <br /> first pointed out; and the other extreme is making no <br /> reference to the interests of Lenses or the function of <br /> the Administration, and leaving that entirely blind. That <br /> compromise occurs to me. I do not know how practical it <br /> is, with all the language that has been suggested that <br /> there be a proviso in this article to the effect that <br /> such exchanges or transfers shall be made the subject of <br /> an advisory determination by the Administration. <br /> MR. TIDAL: Kr. Chairman, Mr. Ireland is not here, <br /> and I do not want to impose my views on Kr. Mendenhall, <br /> but since you started speaking a few moments ago about <br /> your compromise this thought occurs to me, and as far <br /> as I am concerned I see no objection to it. <br /> In our Administration Article we provide for notice <br /> to the Administration--I use the word "notice" in a very <br /> broad sense--of any proposed construction or works by <br />