The sun., 1919-01-11
CABLE CO.'S SEIZURE
SUITS DISCUSSED
Judge Hand Holds President
Was Justified in Taking
Over Systems.
CONGRESS GAVE POWER
Attorneys Claim Victory in
Decisions Affecting the
Land Lines.

The bills of complaint in the suits OF
the Commercial Cable Company and the
Commercial Pacific Gable Company. both
Mackay enterprises, against Postmaster
General Burleson and Newcomb Carlton,
directors of the merged cable lines I'M
der Government control were dismissed
yesterday in the United states District
Court by Judge Learned Hand.
The court held that President Wilson
In procla!ming the seizure OF submarine
cables controlled by companies operat-
ing under the laws OF this country was
acting within the powers conferred upon
him by Joint resolution of Congress.
He asserted that the joint resolution
made provision for adequate compensa-
ton for the seizure. and found that the
judgment OF the President as TO the
necessity for the seizure was not subject
to review.
Commenting upon the desision. Will
lam ]. Deesan, secretary of the Mackay
Companies, slid that, while II was a
disappointment rs It affects the cables,
officials OF the Mackay Companies and
their counsel, Charles +. Hughes and
William w. Cook. believe 1t supports
their contention that compensation was
illegally fixed for the seizure OF the land
wires Of the Postal Telegraph Company.
REJECTS Both Gases.
Judge Hand disposed of the cases as
| one, the complaints being Similar. In re-
iation to the joint resolution. the pow
srs OF the President and the right OF
appeal to the court to intervene the
opinion said
"The Joint resolution authorized the
| President TO seize any cables when he
deemed II necessary for the national
security and defence and the bills IN
sist that the issue Is 5ust!eiable in this
court whether there was any such neces-
| sty. The plaintiffs assume the grant
| given by the resolution of Congress Is
in effect limited by It's right to delegate
general legislative power. II so, they
say, II can be extended only so far as
to depute to an official. whether or not
! he se President, the duty OF ascertain
ing fact or some facts which Congress
has made a condition upon the incl
dence OF the legislative act. Moreover
since the incidence is dependent upon ar
| actual exercise OF some Ineligible de-
! cision upon the fact confided to the pub
! lie Official. his decision is renewable &c
| this extent. that there must be a tenablt
| basis in the evidence from which n rea
sonable man could have reached tht
same conclusion. Thus II became jus
ticiable. though to limited degree"
Judge Hand found that the joint reso
luton did not create situation ana
Joyous to cases cited by the plaintiff!
in advancing this contention. Analyzint
the resolution, he said
1T was not a rule for the future con
duct of individuals, like most legisla
ton II was the sovereign act of con
demning the temporary possession O
private property for public use. rathe
| administrative than legislative In its ma
ture as those terms are generally used
| though II must OF course proceed from
| Congress. AS such the Question &
whether the use TO which the propert,
was condemned was public use With,
the accepted rules and how that us
should DE defined
For Public BENEFIT.
Judge Hand found that the conferrin,
of power by the resolution upon tn
President gave to the seizure the char
acter Of taking for public use. IL
said:
The President Is vested by the Con
stituton with certain duties In who's
discharge he is exempt from inquiry b,
lrhe courts. His discharge of these dutie
as the Constitution imposed them is II
the highest sense a public use and tn
committal to him Of means 10 dlscharG
them falls into the same category.
The question is, therefore rather O
the power OF Congress to condemn prop
"rty for the Presidents use within hi
limited powers than OF his exercise O