Evening star., 1938-03-23
T. V. A.
Continued From First Page)

-
held the Presidents power to remove
postmaster although the law pro-
vlded the postmaster should hold office
for four years and could be removed
by the President only with the consent
Of the Senate.
Mr.. jackson contended the high
courts unanimous ruling that Mr..
Roosevelt did not have authority to
remove William E. Humphrey, mem
Der Of the Federal Trade Commission,
limited the ruling to the Myers case,
but did not disturb its effect as applied
to executive officers.
This Interpretation has been dis
puted by numerous persons, who con-
tend the opinion expressed in the
Humphrey case is Incompatible with
the removal of Chairman Morgan.
Certain Charges Specified.
The Trade Commission Act specified
certain charges on which the Presi-
dent could remove commissioner. but
none of these was brought against Mr..
Humphrey.
The court cited this fact in re-
versing the Presidents action. and also
stated that the Presidents general
power Of removal depended on the
character of duties being performed
and that holders of partly legislative
and partly judicial posts Gas in the case
OF the Federal Trade Commission)
could be removed only on grounds
stated in laws creating the agency.
MIR. Jackson asserted Chairman
Morgan's duties involved no judicial
functions. The T. v. A. Act states
directors may be removed by joint res
olution of Congress, but Mr.. jackson
contended this could not be construed
as setting up an exclusive means of
removal.
In one section the act directs the
President to remove a director who
considers political qualifications in ap-
pointing subordinates. ITO authorize
the President to remove director for
mere consideration of political en-
dorsement in appointing minor en-
ploye, and yet to deny him the power
to remove director for more substan-
tiai causes would be an absurdity-
and the rules of construction do not
permit an Interpretation which would
attribute to the Congress the intend
ment Of an absurd result" Mr.. jack
son concluded.
After his request for unanimous con-
sent had been blocked by Senator
Barkley. Senator Bridges asked the
majority leader If he would agree to
accept impartiality as basis for all
future investigation.
TN cross those bridges when I
come to them" Senator Barkley re-
piled. THE Senator from Nebraska
(Norris) has indicated he would not
want to serve in T. v. A. investiga-
tion, and have in mind introducing
. resolution for an investigation stat
ing In advance that would not care
to serve"
Barkley May Offer Bill.
This was the first indication Sena-
tor Barkley may offer his own resolu-
ton.
When Senator Bridges asked if his
resolution would be the next order of
business after disposition of the re-
organization bill, the majority leader
said Senator McNary, Republican, Of
Oregon had said he wanted to go
through the unanimous consent cal
endar which would require one day.
When Senator Barkley suggested
there was no disposition on the part
Of anybody from the President on
down" to interfere with an investiga-
ton, Senator Bridges pointed out
that Mr.. Humphrey died before the
Supreme Court ruled his removal was
illegal.
That's not necessarily precedent" I"
said Senator Barkley.
be -~-~e ~ot" Senator BRIDGES re-
Senator Bridges then made it clear
that he wanted to serve on any COM
laittee that Investigates T. v. A., but
aaid he would be unbiased.
Nobody doubts that the Senator 4