Evening star., 1935-04-10
: !: :"'4:D|CTATOR" ISSUE
UP TO HIGH COURT
Presidents Right to Remove
). Officials Involves I'm.
portant Principle.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

of personnel and policies in the ex-
ecutive agencies and the so-called in
= dependent executive commissions OF
the Government, irrespective OF the
wishes of Congress that such commits
sions remain bipartisan and inde-
pendent?
The issue is raised before the Su-
spreme Court of the United States In
what promises to be a momentous de-
rcision in the evolution of the Amer
'ican system of Government.
The case centers on the power OF
removal by the President, Can Con-
sgress limit his power by specifying
fhe causes on which an officer may
be removed? Can the President re-
move an official even II Congress
limits the power of removal to speciflc
causes uamed in the law? In other
words. has the President the unlimited
power of removal of any officer in the
Government who has originally been
appointed by previous PRESIDENT OF
by himself?
These questions are to be found IN
studying the brief submitted by Will
liam J. Donovan, former Assistant
Attopev General. who Is this week
arguing the so-called Humphreys case
before the Supreme Court
Trade Board Removal.
Mr., Humphreys was a member OF
the Federal Trade Commission. He
had been reappointed by President
Hoover and he had been confirmed by
the Senate and had five years TO
serve when President Roosevelt re-
ouested his resignation in OCTOBER
1893.
Mr.. Roosevelt in his letter frankly
said in effect that he had not found
Mr.. Humphreys service to be at varl-
ance with the requirements OF the law
hut that he did not believe Mr..
Humphreys could carry out the aims
and purposes of the present admin
istration.
Mr.. Humphreys contested his re-
tmoval by appealing TO the Court OF
Claims to pay him his salary. After
.the death of Mr.. Humphreys the ex-
eeoutors of Mr.. Humphreys estate nave
carried on the case.
The defense of President Roose-
velt's action is that, under two deci-
.sions of the Supreme Court OF the
UNITED States, the power OF removal
by President. irrespective of whether
he named a cause for removal, had
been upheld.
Mr.. Donovan examines these prece-
dents with exhaustive care and points
~out that neither instance Is on all
.fours with the issues presented by the
removal of Mr.. Humphreys.
PostmaSter's Case.
Thus the so-called Myers case in
VOWED the removal of a postmaster.
1T was contended that the Senate had
right to a voice in removal because
Mr. Myers was confirmed with the
advice and consent of the Senate. The
Supreme Court said In its opinion de-
Gliding this case that. once the Sen
ate had acted. it no longer had any
rights to removal.
In. another instance-the Shurtleff
casa Federal appraiser in New
York City was removed notwithstand-
ing the fact that Congress had by
statute specifically enumerated the
only causes for which an appraiser
could be removed.
Mr.. Donovan comments here. too,
that this is not the same issue as in
the Humphreys incident because the
law which provided for the appoint
ment of appraisers did not have in 1t
any specific term of service. Hence,
he said. the Supreme Court was right
tva haf ~ Hoh
even if man satisfied the require
ments of the law, that he could not
be removed. For If this were not so,
an appraiser could serve for life and
It was not the intention of Congress
to deprive the President of the oppor-
tunity to get efficiency by removing
executive officers in the Government
service
Again Mr.. Donovan answers that
in the case of Mr.. Humphreys the law
passed by Congress did fix definite
tenure for the Office of Federal Trade
commissioner. so that the idea of un-
limited tenure which was present in
the case of the Federal appraiser did
not exist with respect to Federal
Trade commissioners.
Also Judicial Offices.
There is still another point stressed
by Mr.. Donovan which distinguishes
the Humphreys issue from all other
cases decided by the Supreme Court.
Members of the Federal Trade Com
mission are both executive and Judi
cial officers. In their latter capacity,
they are supposed to be independent
Of judgment and free from outside
influence.
Congress was so anxious to preserve
the bipartisan character of the Fed
eral Trade Commission that it wrote
into the law requirement that mem
bers must come from both political
parties and that commissioners could
not be removed except for specific
wrong doing Of moral character.
If Mr.. Roosevelt's philosophy is
upheld, it would mean that he could
remove anybody from an independent
commission or tribunal created by
Congress, even of a quasi judicial
character II the public official in
question refused to decide cases in ac-
cordance with presidential desire.
The value of independent commits
sions will disappear If the Supreme
Court should sustain Mr.. Roosevelt's
position. Also it would not be sur
prising If some day Congress should
insist on creating commissions wholly
Independent of the executive branch
of the Government to carry on fact
finding researches. 1t might lead, too.
to the creation of administrative
courts with judges wholly independent
of the President.
Limitations Of Power.
There is a feeling here among we'll
informed lawyers that the Humphreys
case presents q strong statement Of
the limitations on the power of re-
moval by a President and that the
precedent created by the decision will
have far-reaching importance on the
character of Independent commits
sions