Evening star., 1952-04-20
Steel Seizure
Its Legality Is Still Lively Issue
For Debate, Although Preoedents Exist
By WiIliom Hines

With the steel mills under Govern
ment control for more than 10 days,
much attention is being focused on
the question of whether President
Truman had the power to seize the
industry in order to avert strike.
This question, in fact, is rapidly
becoming top political issue. Demo-
Gratis generally-at least those Demo-
Gratis who are not anti-Truman body
and soul-take the attitude that it
was the proper thing for the Presi-
dent to do under the circumstances.
Such anti-administratio figures as
Senator Taft, however. hold the be-
lief that the seizure was clearly il
legal, if not an outright step to die
tatorship. The steel industry goes
along with this view.
Because the Government is in con-
troll of the steel industry, the question
of whether or not Mr.. Truman could
seize the mills is somewhat academic.
But the current controversy is not en-
tirely a second-guesS. The basic dis
cusSSion here touches on the con-
Stitutional powers of the Executive.
These powers have never been de-
lineated. Some legal minds feel they
never can be; that the question of
power must be settled as occasions
arise.
The Preamble
The fundamental purpose of gov
ernment is spelled out in the Consti-
tution'S preamble. This opening
clause states that the Constitution
was established 'in order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice.
insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the bless
ings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterlty. - But the question of
what individual or organization in
the Government will do these things
is left unanswered in many cases.
Article II of the Constitution says
that the executive power shall be
vested in President of the United
States of America" It was under this
clause, largely, that Mr.. Truman took
over the steel industry.
There is no clear decision as to
whether he had the right to act under
this general clause. But more to the
point is the fact that, having acted,
he cannot be stopped in the courts.
District Judge Alexander Holtzoff
said. the day after the seizure, that
there was doubt whether a Federal
court could enjoin the President. His
belief is bolstered by several court
decisions dating back as far as 1903.
1903 Decision
In the earliest case, the court took
close look at executive power and
distinguished it from simple minis
terial power" The difference between
these two seems to be that ministerial
power involves a mere execution of
orders, while executive power involves
the making of basic decisions The
decision in the 1903 Marbury VS..
Madison case held:
Where the head of a department
acts in case, in which executive dis
cretion is to be exercised; in which
he is the mere organ of executive
will; it is again repeated, that any
application to a court to control, in
any respect. his conduct would be re-
jected without hesitation The court
asserted that this doctrine applied
equally to mandamuS (which would
force the Executive to do something)
and to an injunction (Which would
prevent him irom doing Something). {.
In 1867, in the case of Mississippi
VS.. johnson. it was decided that an
injunction will not lie to restrain or
compel" performance of the executive
duties on the part of the President.
Jefferson. Lincoln, Wilson
Charges of overstepping their pow
erS have been leveled against Presi-
dents almost since the Nation was
founded. But these charges have not
stuck. Jefferson was criticized for the
Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln seized
rail and telegraph lines between
Washington and Annapolis. Wilson
took over an arms plant after it
ignored a War Labor Board ruling.
Franklin D. Roosevelt used the seizure
weapon 13 times, both in peace snd
in war. No way ever was found to
force any of these Presidents to
change their minds.
In the presidency as in law, prec-