No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Constitutional Law in 1926-1927: The Constitutional Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the October Term, 1926
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 August 2014
Extract
The most conspicuous constitutional decision rendered by the Supreme Court during its 1926 term, or for many a preceding term, was in the case of Myers v. United States. It is here held that the power of the President to remove executive officers appointed by him with the consent of the Senate cannot be restricted by Congress. On the question of the removal of such officers the Constitution is entirely silent. It is an interesting commentary on the process by which we make constitutional law that a problem as important as this, a problem which was debated at length in 1789, upon which presidents have acted and congresses have passed statutes, should now, after 137 years, be definitely settled for the first time, and be settled now only because the late Mr. Myers saw fit to sue the government in the Court of Claims for his salary.
The facts in the case are simple. In 1917 President Wilson appointed Myers to a first-class postmastership at Portland, Oregon, for a term of four years. In 1920, by direction of the President, he was removed from office. A statute passed in 1876 and still in force provides that “postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law.” The removal of Myers was never referred to the Senate for its consent.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1928
References
1 272 U. S. 52. The constitutional aspects of the case have been widely discussed. The most exhaustive treatment is that by Corwin, E. S., “Tenure of Office and the Removal Power under the Constitution,” 27 Columbia Law Review, 353CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Galloway, G. B., “The Consequences of the Myers Decision,” 61 American Law Review, 481Google Scholar; a note by Fairlie, J. A., 21 Illinois Law Review, 733Google Scholar, and two unsigned notes in 25 Michigan Law Review, 280, and 36 Yale Law Journal, 390. See also the brief article by Powell, T. R., “Spinning Out the Executive Power,” New Republic, November 17, 1926, p. 369Google Scholar.
2 Act of July 12, 1876, 19 Stat. at L. 80.
3 Wallace v. United States, 257 U. S. 541.
4 58 Ct. Cl. 199. The Court of Claims gave judgment against Myers on the ground of undue delay in suing. The constitutional question was not considered.
5 These opinions, together with briefs of counsel and reports of the oral arguments, are printed as Senate Document 174, 69th Cong. 2d. Sess.
6 This clause referred to a chief clerk in the department who, “whenever the principal officer shall be removed from office by the President of the United States,” should have custody of the papers and records of the department.
7 1 Cranch 137.
8 Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324. The legislative grant of removal power is specifically held declaratory.
9 Act of Mar. 2, 1867, 14 Stat. at L. 430.
10 “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 1.
11 McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, at 189.
12 Even better is Professor Corwin's terse comment, op. cit., 369, “what a judge cannot prove he can still decide.”
13 This is shown not only in the speculations indulged in by the justices who wrote opinions, but also in most of the articles cited in note 1, supra, p. 70 For a careful and sensible analysis of this phase of the case see McBain, H. L., “Consequences of the President's Unlimited Power of Removal,” 41 Political Science Quarterly, 596CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14 Professor McBain takes the opposite view, op. cit., 600.
15 274 U. S. 480.
16 Ex parte Wells, 18 Howard 307.
17 236 U. S. 79.
18 Chapman v. Scott, 10 Fed. (2d.) 156; same, 10 Fed. (2d.) 690.
19 273 U. S. 135.
20 299 Fed. 620.
21 Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168.
22 The doctrine of this case had been earlier announced by the New York Court of Appeals in People ex rel McDonald v. Keeler, 99 N. Y. 463, which is here quoted with approval.
23 272 U.S. 1.
24 Oct. 6, 1917, 40 Stat. at L. 411, and later amended.
25 Mar. 1, 1913, 37 Stat. at L. 701.
26 Feb. 28, 1920, 41 Stat. at L. 456.
27 June 7, 1922, 42 Stat. at L. 624.
28 273 U. S. 299.
29 274 U. S. 664.
30 Feb. 26, 1926, 44 Stat. at L. 9.
31 273 U. S. 12.
32 274 U. 8. 531.
33 274 U. S. 259.
34 In Alston v. United States, 274 U. S. 289, the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act, as amended, is upheld against the contention that the restrictions imposed on buying and selling narcotics are not relevant to the taxing power.
35 272 U. S. 581.
36 272 U. S. 630.
37 272 U. S. 321.
38 U. S. Code, Title 26, Sec. 1, 181.
39 Nov. 23, 1921, 42 Stat. at L. 222.
40 272 U. S. 564.
41 272 U. S. 530.
42 274 U. S. 501.
43 September 21, 1922, 42 Stat. at L. 858.
44 U. S. Code, Title 19, Sect. 506.
45 July 31, 1789, 1 Stat. at L. 29.
46 Supra, note 37.
47 274 U. S. 559.
48 Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132. See comment in this Review, vol. 20, p. 87Google Scholar.
49 In Ford v. United States, 273 U. S. 593, there is a somewhat elaborate examination of our treaty of 1925 with Great Britain permitting search and seizure of vessels seeking to smuggle liquor into this country. It is held that the treaty is not violated by the seizure of an English vessel and the arrest of those on it, outside the three-mile limit, for a conspiracy to violate the Prohibition Act laid in a bay within our territorial jurisdiction. Several complex problems incident to the proceeding are discussed in a long opinion.
50 273 U. S. 70.
51 219 U. S. 346.
52 The state decisions have been commented upon in this Review, vol. 20, p. 587Google Scholar, and vol. 21, p. 581.
53 272 U. S. 734.
54 Act of August 10, 1917, 40 Stat. at L. 276, as amended by act of October 22, 1919, 41 Stat. at L. 297.
55 In New York v. Illinois, 274 U. S. 488, it is held that New York may not secure injunctive relief against the diversion by Illinois of water from the Great Lakes on the ground that such diversion will prevent the use by the state of New York and its citizens of the water for power purposes, since no such use is shown nor immediately contemplated, nor has Congress consented to such use.
56 273 U. S. 28.
57 273 U. S. 95.
58 260 U. S. 377. See comment in this Review, vol. 18, p. 60Google Scholar.
59 272 U. S. 312.
60 258 U. S. 254. See comment in this Review, vol. 16, p. 622Google Scholar.
61 273 U. S. 1.
62 273 U. S. 284.
63 262 U. 8. 390. See comment in this Review, vol. 18, p. 69Google Scholar.
64 268 U. S. 510. See comment in this Review, vol. 20, p. 98Google Scholar.
65 271 U. S. 500. See comment in this Review, vol. 21, p. 81Google Scholar.
66 United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U. S. 103; Quon Quon Poy v. Johnson, 273 U. S. 352.
67 273 U. S. 195.
68 July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. at L. 209.
69 August 27, 1894, 28 Stat. at L. 509, as amended by act of February 12, 1913, 37 Stat. at L. 667.
70 274 U. S. 268.
71 213 U. S. 347.
72 272 U. S. 549.
73 273 U. S. 677.
74 254 U. S. 443.
75 272 U. S. 359.
76 U. S. Code, Title 12, Section 548.
77 First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341.
78 273 U. S. 548.
79 273 U. S. 561.
80 273 U. S. 456.
81 273 U. S. 536.
82 298 Fed. 515.
83 Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232.
84 274 U. S. 392.
85 274 U. S. 490.
86 274 U. S. 200.
87 The state decisions on this question are commented on in this Review, vol. 20, p. 600Google Scholar.
88 273 U. S. 418.
89 Mr. Justice Holmes says in his dissent: “I think….. that the notion that a business is clothed with a public interest and has been devoted to the public use is little more than a fiction intended to beautify what is disagreeable to the sufferers. The truth seems to me to be that, subject to compensation when compensation is due, the legislature may forbid any business when it has a sufficient force of public opinion behind it….. But if we are to yield to fashionable conventions, it seems to me that theatres are as much devoted to public use as anything can well be. We have not that respect for art that is one of the glories of France. But to many people the superfluous is the necessary, and it seems to me that government does not go beyond its sphere in attempting to make life livable for them. I am far from saying that I think this particular law a wise and rational provision. That is not my affair. But if the people of the state of New York speaking by their authorized voice say that they want it I see nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent their having their will.”
90 272 U. S. 365.
91 Supra, note 88.
92 Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U. S. 525.
93 274 U. S. 603.
94 226 U. S. 137.
95 272 U. S. 425.
96 273 U. S. 414.
97 274 U. S. 1.
98 274 U. S. 445.
99 United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81.
100 Connally v. General Construction Co. 269, U. S. 385. See comment in this Review, vol. 21, p. 86Google Scholar.
101 272 U. S. 306.
102 267 U. S. 552.
103 Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286.
104 State v. Howatt, 116 Kans. 412.
105 274 U. S. 112.
106 274 U. S. 357.
107 274 U. S. 380.
108 274 U. S. 328.
109 272 U. S. 295.
110 272 U. S. 494.
111 Wachovia Bank & T. Co. v. Doughton, 272 U. S. 567, invalidates a state law as being an extraterritorial exercise of the power of taxation. Road Improvement District No. 1 v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 274 U. S. 188, and Kadow v. Paul, 274 U. S. 175, involve questions of due process in special assessments.
112 272 U. S. 400.
113 273 U. S. 510.
114 272 U. S. 465.
115 273 U. S. 584.
116 242 U. S. 160.
117 274 U. S. 352.
118 272 U. S. 605.
119 Act of February 17, 1911, 36 Stat. at. L. 913.
120 Oregon-Washington R. & Navigation Co. v. Washington, 270 U. S. 87. See this Review, vol. 21, p. 92Google Scholar.
121 273 U. S. 34.
122 273 U. S. 83.
123 274 U. S. 676.
124 273 U. S. 45.
125 274 U. 8. 135.
126 274 U. S. 614.
127 274 U. S. 554.
128 273 U. S. 407.
129 274 U. S. 76.
130 272 U. S. 713.
131 272 U. S. 525.
132 Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U. S. 149.
133 U. S. Code, Title 28, Sec. 41.
134 274 U. S. 427.