Case: LEWIS E. PARSONS, Jr., v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Parsons v. United States
Decision Date: 1897-05-24
Docket Number: 
Citation: 32 Ct. Cl. 626
Volume: 32
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: LEWIS E. PARSONS, Jr., v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
LEWIS E. PARSONS, Jr., v. THE UNITED STATES.
[30 C. Cls. R., 222; 167 U. S., 324.]
On the claimant’s Appeal.
A district attorney in 1890 is commissioned for the term of four years. Before the term expires he is removed from office. Ilis successor, then appointed by the President, is subsequently confirmed by the Senate.
The court below decides:
1. The office of United States attorney was created l>y tlie Act 84th September, 1789 (1 Stat. L., 92), which says nothing as to to the duration or term of office.
2. The status of the office remained as above until the act To limit terms of office, 1880 (3 Stat. L., 582), which provided that they “shall be appointed for the term of four years, but shall be removable from office at pleasure.”
3. For the intervening thirty years the President exercised the power of appointment without legislative attempt to control the period for which an appointment should he made; and it became the practice and custom of the Executive to remove officers at pleasure.
4. The Tenure of Office Act, 8d March, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 430), and the Act 5th April, 1869 (16 id., p. 6), were incorporated into the Revised Statutes; but their provisions restricting the power of the President were repealed by the Act 3d March, 1887 (24 Stat. L.,p. 500).
5. The early legislation of Congress recognized the power of removal in the President impliedly, and the act of 1820 expressly. The tenure of office act grew out of the readjustment of institutions incident of the civil war, and conflicted with the earlier theory concerning the’ power of removal.
6. When Congress enacted the Revised Statutes (§ 769) they omitted from the act of 1820 the words, “shall beremovable from office at pleasure,” so as to preserve the consistency of the statute law as it then existed in the acts of 1867 and 1869.
7. The repeal of the above sections of the Revised Statutes was to restore the law to what it had been prior to 1867, leaving to the President the power of removal as it had existed from 1789 to 1820 by constitutional interpretation, and from 1820 to 1867 by the terms of the act of 1820.
8. The term of four years in Revised Statutes (§ 769) is a limitation upon an officer’s continuance in office without a new appointment. The officer is to hold for four years, “ subject to the conditions prescribed by laio; ” and by the effect of the act of 1887 the term of four years is made subject to the power of the President to remove.
9. When an officer is removed before his term of office expires and the appointment of his successor is confirmed by the Senate, the action of the Senate is a ratification of the removal of the officer.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Peckhaji
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, May 24, 1897.