The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-04-03
Supreme Court to Decide on the
Parsons Case.
CAN PRESIDENT OPPOSE ?
PARSONS REMOVED FROM TIE.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY SHIP.
LOST IN ria LOWER CouR +
And +e Now Appeals TO the 'tighes'
Tribunal. important Points Inv H.
ed.-A Former Dectsi@" is in
parSons' EaNnr.
washington FoStD
Persons ave-

In the Supreme court of the United
States. probably ON Monday next, the
case of Lewis T.. Parsons, jr.. appellant
VS.. the United States. VIII be argued, on
appeal from the decision of the Court OF
Claims. The important point involved IN
this case is whether the. President of the
United States has, under the Constltu-
ton the implied power to remove an Of
fetal appointed, with the consent of the
Senate. for a term fixed by law, which
law gives him no power to remove. IN
other words, whether the President has
such an implied power under the Con-
stitut:on that Congress- cannot create an
Office and give it a fixed term, SO that the
officer cannot be removed at the pleasure
of the President without cause or hear
ing.
Lewis +. Parsons was. on February +.
1890. appointed by President Harrison
and confirmed by the Senate. as United
States District Attorney for the North
ern and Middle Districts of Alabama.
The law fixes the term of office at four
wears. and Parsons commission so read.
On May 2G. 1895. President Cleveland
summarily removed Parsons, appoint
ing Emmett O'Neal as his successor on
the same date Parsons notified the At
torney General of the United States and
also Mr.. O'Neal that he declined to yield
possession of his office. On June 70,
1893, O'Neal applied TO the Circuit Court
Of the United States for the Southern
Division of the Northern District Of
Alabama for an order requiring Parsons
to surrender to him all the books, papers,
and other property appertaining to the
office. The order was granted, and Par
sons promptly complied with it. lie
brought suit for his fees up to the end
of his term Of office,
STRONG ARGUMENT PRESENTED
Parsons has engaged as his attorneys
Messrs. j. III. Parsons, Jr., d. ID. Shelby,
W. w. Dudley, L. L. Kitchener, and r.
P. Mcmahon. In their brief they review
the statutes at great length, and claim
that from 1920 to 1876, the President had
the right to remove at pleasure, and
from 1876 to 1887, he had the right TO
remove with the advice and consent OF
the Senate, and since then he has not
had the statutory rights of removal.
Since 1920, the legislative branch has
claimed and exercised the right to de-
fine and restrict the Presidents right of
removal, and the courts have not dis
puted the power of Congress to do so.
As to the question whether power to
remove is conferred upon the President
by the Constitution appellants counsel
hold that if the President had the consti-
tutiona4 power to remove. it could only
be limited by the Constitution. and yet
Congress has often regulated the removal
IF officers and fixed their terms.
Reference is also made to the case of
Marbury VS.. Madison. Congress passed
In act creating justices of the board for
he District of Columbia, to be appointed
~ the President, by and with the advice
Ind consent of the Senate, and gave them |
term of five vars. Marbury was, by |
President Jefferson, nominated for JUS |
ice of the Peace and confirmed by the
Senate, and his commission as such |
signed and in the hands of the Secretary |
# State Mr.. Madison. President Jeffer- |
ION undertook to recall and revoke it.
A FORMER DECISION.
The Supreme court in passing on that |
,ase, Chief Justice Marshall delivering |
he opinion, said: 'Mr. Marbury, then, |
,ince his commission was signed by the |
President and sealed by the Secretary Of |
State. was appointed; and as the law Gre
tting the office gave the officer right to |
lold for five years, independent of the ex- |
,cutiye, the appointment was not revoca-
,le. but vested in the officer legal rights, |
which are protected by the laws OF his