Evening star., 1938-07-19

| /
discuss the method of organization of
the Civil Aeronautics Authority, which
is an innovation in the organization
Of Federal regulatory commissions.
To appreciate fully the significance
of the method of organization of this
new agency, 1t is first necessary to
understand certain principles of con-
stitutional administrative law which
! are fundamental in our form Of
government and to be familiar with
certain phases of the history Of the
independent Federal commissions. In
these principles and in that history
lie the reasons for the method of
organization Of the Aeronautics Au-
thority.
1t is an inherent principle upon
which the Federal Government is
based, known as the separation of
powers doctrine, that the executive,
legislative and judicial branches ct the
Government shall operate indcpend-
emily Of each other, and tina: neither
shall exercise control over the other.
The Constitution provides that the
executive power shall be vested in a
President of the United States" and
also requires that "he shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed"
1t Is by virtue OF these two general
grants Of power that the President is
the chief executive officer of the Gov
ernment, and the doctrine of separa-
tion of powers protects his exercise CT
those powers from control by the leg
islative and judicial branches.
Can Remove OfIcers,
However, Congress, since the found
ing of our Government, has created
subordinate executive offices and vest
ed in those offices the initial RESPONSE
bility for executing the laws, Under
such circumstances the constitutional
powers OF the President have GUS
tomarily been exercised by him through
the power, likewise vested in him by
the Constitution, to remove Govern
ment officials from Office. This means
of exercising executive supervision was
recognized as early as 1889. when,
after lengthy debate. the flrst Con-
gress in which sat many of the trainers
of the Constitution construed that
instrument as granting to the Presi-
dent the power to remove Federal
officers as necessary incident OF his
executive power and his duty 20 take
care that the laws be faithfully exc
cuted.
The principle was affirmed in 1925
by the Supreme Court of the United
States in the case Of Myers VS.. United
States, in which that court held that
an unrestricted removal power being
inherent in the Office of the Chief
Executive, the doctrine of separation
of powers would not permit Congress
to place restrictions upon tnat power.
From time to time during the
past so years independent regulatory
commissions have been created by
Congress to administer laws regulating
various phases Of the Nations business
activities. Examples are the Inter-
state Commerce Commission, the Fed
eral Trade Commission. the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and the
Federal Communications Commission
1t was at first generally thought that
commissions of this character were
upon substantially the same footing as
ordinary executive agencies with re-
spect to the Presidents removal power.
Consequently, in creating commissions,
executive as we'll as regulatory powers
were placed within the Jurisdiction of
some of them.
Can Limit Removal Power.
In 1885, however, the Supreme Court
in the case of Humphrey VS.. United
States held that Congress could place
restrictions upon the Presidents power
to remove a member OF the Federal
Trade Commission. The court based
its decision upon the fact that the
Federal Trade Commission exercised
no purely executive functions and was
an agency of Congress rather than an
executive agency, since 1t was given
broad discretion to regulate the con-
duct OF private individuals within the
limits of general standards prescribed
by Congress. These functions, the
court said, were not executive, but
legislative, and concluded that with
respect to officers exercising functions
solely Of the latter nature the Con-
stltutlon did not give the President
unstricted power of removal.
AS a result of the Humphrey deci-
sion those commissions which exercise
both types of functions are in an
anomalous position. With respect to
their legislative functions such COM
missions are entitled under that deci-
sion to have the independence of their
decisions protected against the Pres
ldent's power Of removal, but at the
same time in 50 far as they exercise
executive functions such protection
would result in preventing the Pres
ldent from discharging his constitu-
tlonal responsibility for the faithful
performance of those executive func-
tions.
1t was this problem which arose in
connection with the organization of
the Civil Aeronautics Authority be-
cause part Of the governmental func-
tlons relating to civil aviation are leg
lslative and part are purely executive.
1t was considered essential, however,
that all these governmental functions
be vested in a single agency.
AS finally enacted, the Civil Aero
nautlcs Act solves this problem in the