Evening star., 1952-04-30

|volyed and, therefore. do not com,
within the rule Of stare decisis
Insofar Is they are out Of har.
|mony with the views here Sc
forth, these expressions are dis
approved" And the view set fortl
in that opinion was that the Pres
ident had no power to remove ;
member of the Federal Trad'
Commission by reason of the fac
that he was a member Of a quasi
Legislative and quasi-Judicial agen'
Icy of Government and not a pure
lily executive officer as was Myers.
i This would seem to dispose O
defendants contention that th'
Supreme Court differed from TIN
hereinabove quoted views Of Chic
Justice Taft.
But defendant goes further ant
says there is no lack Of judicia
recognition Of this flexible execu'
tive power" to seize property with
out authority Of statute, and h
cites, in support of this statement
the following cases: Roxfort
Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney
but that case involved power
exercised under a war statute
Employers Group Of Motor Freight
Carriers. Inc, ct al. v. Nationa
Labor Board ct al; but that like
wise involved a war statute, ant
no rights had been taken OF
threatened to be taken which re.
lquired review Of the boards order
Alpirn ct al. v. Huffman ct al.
but that likewise was under {
statute authorizing the President
during the national emergency tt
make requisitions. United State.
v. Pewee Coal Co., Inc, where
there was a non-statutory seizure
during World War II, and where
compensation was allowed: but HI
neglected to state that the legality
Of the seizure was not an issue II
the case. These cases are, there.
fore, not opposite.
Quotations From Hamilton
Are Called UncOnvincing.
He next cites general Language
from the works of Alexander
Hamilton. Vol. 4, Page 438, but i
is far from convincing when reat
in context. He thereafter cites il
Ire Neagle. involving a habeas cor
pus proceeding brought by Neagle
"a United States Marshal who killet
David s. Terry in defense of Judg'
Stephen A. Field, but that casl
i. traced the source of power in th'
Executive to Article =, Section
requiring that he shall "tak'
care that the laws be faithfully
executed"
He also cites the Prize Cases
but that simply upheld the valid.
|ity of President Lincoln's blockade
of Southern ports and was predi.
Gated upon the existence of 6
state of war, which is not claimed
by defendant to exist. He also
cites in re Debs, concerning thu
dispatch Of troops by President
Cleveland in a labor dispute, fol
the purpose of enforcing the faith.
full execution of the laws of the
United States and the protection
OF its property, and removing oh.
structions to interstate commerc.
and the United States mail. There
again, the authority is traced tt
an express grant of power.
These cases. therefore, do moi
support his contention, but refutt
1t. He next refers to seizures by
former Presidents. some durinf
war and several shortly preceding
a war. without the authority o.
statute, but it is difficult to follow
his argument that several priol
acts ;apparently unauthorized b,
law, but never questioned in thu
courts. by repetition clothe a latel
unauthorized act with the CLOAK
OF legality. Apparently, accord.
ing to his theory, several repeti.
tive, unchallenged, illegal act.
sanctify those committed there.
after. I disagree.
Denies President Holds
Power Of Eminent Domain,
Defendant also contends thar
the Executive has an inherent
power in the nature Of eminen
domain. which justifles his action
The power of eminent domain /,
a congressional power. AS statee
by the Supreme Court In Hooe v
United States. "The taking of pri.
vate property by an officer of tn,
United States for public use, with.
out being authorized, expressly o.
by necessary implication, to do 81
by some act of Congress, is not tn.
act Of the Government" TIL,
President. therefore, does not nav,
the power Of eminent domain, ant
the cases defendant cites do mo-
disclose that he has anything il
the nature Of such power. In.
; stead, they relate to the right O.
the Government to take and de.
stroy property in connection witt
military operations. They Sc
forth the stringent requirement.
for the exercise of this right ane
hold that, in some instances, ther,
is an obligation. upon the genera
principle Of justice" to pay there.
for. United States v. Pacific R. r
These cases have no application tt
the issues here involved, and there
Is no merit to this point.
Defendant also quotes from thu
autobiography of President Theo.
dore Roosevelt at Pages 388- 389
wherein he states that it was moi
only his right but his duty (as
President) to do anything that