Evening star., 1935-05-22
HUMPHREYS CASE
RULING IS NEAR
Question of Presidents
Right to Remove Officers
ar-Reaching.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

The Supreme Court of the United
States has had many important issues
TO decide this year, all the way from
the gold clause cases to the matter
of whether the Federal Government
under the NJ R. A. can regulate hours
and wages, but there is no case be-
fore it which transcends in impor-
tance the question of whether the
President of the United States shall
be able to remove at will and with
out cause anybody in Federal COM
mission or bureau.
The decision in the now famous
Humphreys case is believed to be due
next week, or certainly the week after,
when the court will recess tor the
Summer.
Hence, within another fortnight the
American people will know whether
the President has behind him the
sanction of constitutional law II being
able not only to appoint men of his
own choosing to key positions in the
executive branch of the Government,
but to force them to surrender their
independent judgment at the penalty
of removal.
Important Points Involved.
If the Supreme Court upholds Mr.
Roosevelt in his right of removal of
all officers, whether they serve on
the quasi judicial commissions or in
administrative posts, it will mean the
following things:
First, that the members of the Fed
rH t1Jin ho q
at will and cannot therefore become
the supreme court" Of monetary mat
ters, as recommended by Secretery of
the Treasury Morgenthau in lis re-
cent testimony on the pending bank
ing bill
Second. That the members of the
Federal Trade Commission, who are to
be given important tasks to perform
under the extended N. R. A, are not
going to be judicial officers sitting
impartially in judgment on the many
complicated issues involved in a fair
trade practice case. They are to be
subject to White House instructions.
Third. That members of the Federal
Communications Commission, which
controls radio broadcasting, are to be
removable at the wish of the Presi-
dent and this means political control
of the air and the ultimate suppress
sion of criticism of the administration
in power.
Fourth. That the proposed national
labor relations board of three men is
to be removable at any time by the
President. hence all labor policies
which the supposedly judicial board
would normally consider on a fact
and Law basis must now become mat
ters of policy controlled and inf1u-
enced by the appointing and removal
authority-namely, the President of
the United States.
Independent Commissions.
All these commissions were set up
by Congress as sort of bipartisan
tribunal so that they would be inde-
pendent commissions. In fact that is
what they are called in official cata-
logues. But If the Supreme Court
should rule that the Presidents power
of removal is absolute, then Congress
will lose all check on these commits
sions once the members have been
confirmed by the Senate.
To put it another way, fixed tenure
IS it has been known throughout our
history would disappear. The mere
fact that Congress says a man shall
serve for four or six or two years, as
the case may be, will be meaningless.
The President would have the right
also to ignore the specific Injunction
of Congress to the effect that removal
Z Ln eko
The issue in the Humphreys case,
which was argued recently by Col.
William Donovan, former Assistant
Attorney General, Is so broad that it
may well be regarded as the most
important single case before the Su-
preme Court. Not even the Schechter
case on N. R. A. equals it in impor-
tance, for there are so many issues
involved in the N. R. A. dispute that
many cases are bound to arise for
future litigation. Once the Hum
phreys case, however, is disposed of, it
will affect the form of our government
for years to come, making the Pres
ident the virtual dictator of policies
over independent commissions and
bringing that kind Of administrative
or quasi-judicial body to an end.
Rule Over I. C. C.
Thus the Interstate Commerce Com
mission, which has heretofore decided
railroad rate questions, would be sub
ject to orders from the White House
II the Supreme Court upheld the Pres
tdent's blanket power of removal.
What it means really Is that all
commissions and boards hereafter
would become political and be the VIC
Tins of group and political pressure
through or by the Executive. Well
informed lawyers are predicting that
If the Supreme Court should hold that
the power of removal is limited to
what Congress specifies and that
quasi judicial commissions should be
treated as more or less in the same
category as the judiciary itself, it will
mean more public confidence in COM
missions and their independence of
judgment. It would develop a readi-
ness on the part of Congress to en-
trust and delegate authority to BIZ
partisan boards made up of men free
from influence by the presidential
Office,