Evening star., 1933-10-09
The Humphrey Removal.


ham E. Humphrey from membership in
the Federal Trade Commission without
preferring charges of incompetence,
neglect Of duty or malfeasance in oflce,
has raised two questions. The first is
the power Of the President to remove an
on1cial without regard to the terms Of
the act of Congress providing for his
appointment and removal. The second
Is the wisdom Of an attack upon the
independence Of commission set up
by Congress to act in a judicial Ca
having such judicial commission
"packed" with members who believe as
does the President and presumably will
take orders from him.
The Federal Trade Commission was
created by law at the urgent recon-
mendation Of the late President Wood
row Wilson. It was hailed as the in
strument which would henceforth make
impossible unfair practices in business
and industry. 1t was set up, as far as
possible. as a non-partisan and inde-
pendent and judicial commission, pro-
vision being made that not more than
three Of its five members should belong
to the same political party. In the law
creating the commission it was specified
that removal from Office should be for
one or more Of three causes-incom-
petence, neglect Of duty or malfeasance
In office. Presumably since Congress
had fixed these causes. removal was to
be limited to them. President Roosevelt
has not charged Mr. Humphrey with
incompetence, neglect Of duty or NAL
feasance in office. Indeed, when he
first requested the resignation of Mr.
Humphrey the President wrote q fiat
tering letter.
Had the President. instead Of COM
plimenting Mr.. Humphrey on his long
service, merely written him that he was
removed because of incompetence, he
would have been entirely within the law
from any point Of view Apparently
the President has foreclosed his right
10 make charges against Humphrey by
his early letter to him, unless he should
now advance the suggestion that later
information has shown that Humphrey
was incompetent or neglectful of duty
But such a course would invite public
criticism.
The question at law which apparently
presents itself Is whether the Congress
had the right, in passing the Federal
drade Commission act, to curtail in
any manner the power Of removal from
ONCE belonging to the President The
constitutionality Of that part OF the
Trade Commission act relating to re-
novals for cause might be called into
question The Constitution. while 1t
gives the President power to appoint
officers of the United States Govern
ment, makes no specific mention of re-
moval from office. In practice and in
court decisions, however, the power of
removal has been held to be the proper
corollary Of the appointing power Since
have been constantly recurring disputes
between the President and the Senate
over the power Of removal from ofice,
when appointments were made by the
President and confirmed by the Senate
One Of the most famous battles of the
kind was over the removal from Office
Of the then Secretary Of War Stanton
BY President Andrew johnson, leading
to impeachment proceedings against
johnson.
The attack upon the independence of
the Trade Commission by the Chief
Executive in the removal OF Mr.. Hum
phrey is a serious matter. If the de-
cisions of the commission in important
matters relating to the conduct of busi-
ness, placed in the hands of the COM
mission by law, are to be dictated from
the White House, there may be trouble
ahead. Such an attack will be regarded
In much the same light as an attack
upon the judiciary by the Executive.
Federal Judges hold their appointments
during good behavior" under the terms
Of the Constitution. It has been held
they are only removable after impeach-
ment and trial by the Senate. The
President and all civil officers of the
Government also may be removed after
impeachment proceedings, as a matter
of fact. But the Congress, In passing
its laws setting up various Government
agencies, has recognized the right Of
the President to remove civil officers
outside Of the judiciary--for cause