Evening star., 1952-04-30

re OF oteeI "
vented by constitutional or legis-
lative prohibition"
That is defendants only support
for his position and for his stew
hardship" theory Of the Office Of
President; but with all due defer
ence and respect for that great
President Of the United States, !
am obliged to say that his state
ments do not comport with our
recognized theory Of government,
but with theory with which our
government of laws and not of
men is constantly at war.
Terms Defendants Position
Utterly Lacking in Support.
Enough has been said to show
the utter and complete lack of
authoritative support for defend
ants position. That there may be
no doubt as to what It is, he states
it unequivocally when he says in
his brief that he does mot per-
ceive how Article II (of the Con-
stitution, can be read so as to
limit the presidential power to
meet all emergencies" and he
claims that the finding of the
emergency is mot subject to ju-
dicial review" To my mind this
spells a form of government alien
to our constitutional Government
of limited powers. I. therefore,
find that the acts of defendant
are illegal and without authority
of law.
I shall next turn to defendants
claim that the courts are without
power to negate executive action
of the President. Defendant relies
on the case of Mississippi VS.. john
son. where the Supreme Court
held that the judiciary would not
attempt to control the President.
But in this case the President has
not been sued. Charles Sawyer is
the defendant, and the Supreme
Court has held on many occasions
that officers of the Executive
Branch of the Government may be
enjoined when their conduct is
unauthorized by statute, exceeds
the scope of constitutional au-
thority or is pursuant to uncon-
stitutional enactment.
There is no doubt, therefore,
that the defendant is subject to
an injunction, and the President
not only is not party but he is
not an indispensable party to this
action. I find this point no
bar to plaintiffs claim to relief.
Taking up the next point,
namely, that the courts will not
interfere in advance of a full
hearing on the merits except upon
a showing that the damage to
flow from a refusal of a temporary
injunction is irreparable and that
such damage outweighs the harm
which would result from it's issu-
ance. I first find as a fact, on the
showing made and without burd-
ening this opinion with a recital
of facts, that the damages are
|irreparable.
Weighing Respective Injuries
And Balancing the Equities.
AS to the necessity for weighing
the respective injuries and bal
ancing the equities, I am not sure
that this conventional require
ment for the issuance of q pre-
lliminary injunction is applicable
to a case where the court comes
to fixed conclusion, as I do. that
defendants acts are illegal. On
such premise, why are the plain
tiffs to be deprived of their prop
erty and required to suffer further
irreparable damage until answers
to the complaints are filed and
the cases are at issue and are
reached for hearing on the mer-
its? Nothing that could be sub
mitted at such trial on the facts
would alter the legal conclusion
I have reached. But assuming ]
am required to balance the equi-
ties, what is the situation in which
I find this case?
I am told by defendant of the
disastrous effects on our defense
efforts and economy If an injuc-
ton should be granted, because
it would automatically be followed
by a crippling strike; and I am
asked to weigh that damage
against the incalculable and ir-
reparable' injuries to plaintiffs
multi-billion dollar industry, if
should refuse to issue it. Assum-
ing the disastrous effects on the
defense effort envisioned by the
defendant. that can come about
only in case of a strike, and that
preSupposes that the United Steel
Workers will strike notwithstand-
ing the damage it will cause our
defense effort. It also presupposes
that the Labor Management Re-
lations Act. 1947. is inadequate
when it has not yet been tried
and is the statute provided by
Congress to meet just such an
emergency. And 1t further pre-
supposes. as defendant apparently
does, that, this statute being in
adequate, Congress will fail in its
duties, under the Constitution. to
legislate Immediately and appro-
priately to protect the Nation
from this threatened disaster.
Prefers Steel Walkout
To 'Tim0rous' Decision.
am unwilling to indulge in
that assumption, because I believe
that our procedures under the
Constitution can stand the stress
and strains of an emergency to-
day, as they have in the past, and