have been at odds as to power of removal of appointive office holders.

The question, frequently an issue for heated political debate, reached the court in an appeal by Frank S. Myers, appointed by President Wilson to the postmastership at Portland, Oreg., in July, 1917, and subsequently removed by him in February, 1920.

Mr. Myers challenged his removal as illegal because of the act of congress of July 12, 1876, which provided that postmasters of the first three classes "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the senate."

He contended he was entitled to pay for the full four years because President Wilson had not obtained the consent of the senate for his removal.

The court of claims dismissed the suit. holding that it was not brought in time, and Myers appealed to the higher tribunal. Here it was argued, once and then ordered re-argued. Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to represent congress in the case.

The opinion today was delivered by Chief Justice Taft, with Justices Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis, each presenting separate dissenting opinions, all agreeing, in the words of Justice McReynolds, that the position taken by the court was revolutionary.

Under the opinion the president is recognized as having power, which cannot be restricted by congress, to remove any federal official commissioned by him or a predecessor, with the exception of a few judges. The court held that broadly this power was placed in the president's hands to enable him to carry out the constitutional injunction to see that the laws are well and faithfully executed. as it had been contended by those who opposed congressional control over removals, that unless such power were given. the president might be paralyzed in the efficiency and proper administration of executive duties. In reviewing the reasons for this power, it was said that otherwise the president might find many of those upon whom he must rely for loyal support out of harmony with his policies, and openly showing allegiance to adverse influences in congress.

Chief Justice Taft. in a 55 page printed opinion, pointed out that the controversy had reached the court in such form as to require its decision, and reviewing it in its various phases since the first congress announced that the constitution granted "the President the executive power of government, the general administrative control of those executing the laws. including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The chief justice's opinion further stated that the constitution restricted congressional control. over removal in inferior offices when the appointment is not made by the President.

"To hold otherwise," the court stated, "would make it impossible for the President in case of political or other differences with the senate or congress to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The majority of the court declared its position strongly sustained not only by legislative history but also by court decisions. The minority vigorously contested this point, asserting that this decision was a flat reversal made by the court in 1803 in the case of Marbury versus Madison.

have been at odds as to power of removal of appointive office holders.

The question, frequently an issue for heated political debate, reached the court in an appeal by Frank S. Myers, appointed by President Wilson to the postmastership at Portland, Oreg., in July, 1917, and subsequently removed by him in February, 1920.

Mr. Myers challenged his removal as illegal because of the act of congress of July 12, 1876, which provided that postmasters of the first three classes "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the senate."

He contended he was entitled to pay for the full four years because President Wilson had not obtained the consent of the senate for his removal.

The court of claims dismissed the suit. holding that it was not brought in time, and Myers appealed to the higher tribunal. Here it was argued, once and then ordered re-argued. Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to represent congress in the case.

The opinion today was delivered by Chief Justice Taft, with Justices Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis, each presenting separate dissenting opinions, all agreeing, in the words of Justice McReynolds, that the position taken by the court was revolutionary.

Under the opinion the president is recognized as having power, which cannot be restricted by congress, to remove any federal official commissioned by him or a predecessor, with the exception of a few judges. The court held that broadly this power was placed in the president's hands to enable him to carry out the constitutional injunction to see that the laws are well and faithfully executed. as it had been contended by those who opposed congressional control over removals, that unless such power were given. the president might be paralyzed in the efficiency and proper administration of executive duties. In reviewing the reasons for this power, it was said that otherwise the president might find many of those upon whom he must rely for loyal support out of harmony with his policies, and openly showing allegiance to adverse influences in congress.

Chief Justice Taft. in a 55 page printed opinion, pointed out that the controversy had reached the court in such form as to require its decision, and reviewing it in its various phases since the first congress announced that the constitution granted "the President the executive power of government, the general administrative control of those executing the laws. including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The chief justice's opinion further stated that the constitution restricted congressional control. over removal in inferior offices when the appointment is not made by the President.

"To hold otherwise," the court stated, "would make it impossible for the President in case of political or other differences with the senate or congress to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The majority of the court declared its position strongly sustained not only by legislative history but also by court decisions. The minority vigorously contested this point, asserting that this decision was a flat reversal made by the court in 1803 in the case of Marbury versus Madison.

have been at odds as to power of removal of appointive office holders.

The question, frequently an issue for heated political debate, reached the court in an appeal by Frank S. Myers, appointed by President Wilson to the postmastership at Portland, Oreg., in July, 1917, and subsequently removed by him in February, 1920.

Mr. Myers challenged his removal as illegal because of the act of congress of July 12, 1876, which provided that postmasters of the first three classes "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the senate."

He contended he was entitled to pay for the full four years because President Wilson had not obtained the consent of the senate for his removal.

The court of claims dismissed the suit. holding that it was not brought in time, and Myers appealed to the higher tribunal. Here it was argued, once and then ordered re-argued. Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to represent congress in the case.

The opinion today was delivered by Chief Justice Taft, with Justices Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis, each presenting separate dissenting opinions, all agreeing, in the words of Justice McReynolds, that the position taken by the court was revolutionary.

Under the opinion the president is recognized as having power, which cannot be restricted by congress, to remove any federal official commissioned by him or a predecessor, with the exception of a few judges. The court held that broadly this power was placed in the president's hands to enable him to carry out the constitutional injunction to see that the laws are well and faithfully executed. as it had been contended by those who opposed congressional control over removals, that unless such power were given. the president might be paralyzed in the efficiency and proper administration of executive duties. In reviewing the reasons for this power, it was said that otherwise the president might find many of those upon whom he must rely for loyal support out of harmony with his policies, and openly showing allegiance to adverse influences in congress.

Chief Justice Taft. in a 55 page printed opinion, pointed out that the controversy had reached the court in such form as to require its decision, and reviewing it in its various phases since the first congress announced that the constitution granted "the President the executive power of government, the general administrative control of those executing the laws. including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The chief justice's opinion further stated that the constitution restricted congressional control. over removal in inferior offices when the appointment is not made by the President.

"To hold otherwise," the court stated, "would make it impossible for the President in case of political or other differences with the senate or congress to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The majority of the court declared its position strongly sustained not only by legislative history but also by court decisions. The minority vigorously contested this point, asserting that this decision was a flat reversal made by the court in 1803 in the case of Marbury versus Madison.

have been at odds as to power of removal of appointive office holders.

The question, frequently an issue for heated political debate, reached the court in an appeal by Frank S. Myers, appointed by President Wilson to the postmastership at Portland, Oreg., in July, 1917, and subsequently removed by him in February, 1920.

Mr. Myers challenged his removal as illegal because of the act of congress of July 12, 1876, which provided that postmasters of the first three classes "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the senate."

He contended he was entitled to pay for the full four years because President Wilson had not obtained the consent of the senate for his removal.

The court of claims dismissed the suit. holding that it was not brought in time, and Myers appealed to the higher tribunal. Here it was argued, once and then ordered re-argued. Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to represent congress in the case.

The opinion today was delivered by Chief Justice Taft, with Justices Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis, each presenting separate dissenting opinions, all agreeing, in the words of Justice McReynolds, that the position taken by the court was revolutionary.

Under the opinion the president is recognized as having power, which cannot be restricted by congress, to remove any federal official commissioned by him or a predecessor, with the exception of a few judges. The court held that broadly this power was placed in the president's hands to enable him to carry out the constitutional injunction to see that the laws are well and faithfully executed. as it had been contended by those who opposed congressional control over removals, that unless such power were given. the president might be paralyzed in the efficiency and proper administration of executive duties. In reviewing the reasons for this power, it was said that otherwise the president might find many of those upon whom he must rely for loyal support out of harmony with his policies, and openly showing allegiance to adverse influences in congress.

Chief Justice Taft. in a 55 page printed opinion, pointed out that the controversy had reached the court in such form as to require its decision, and reviewing it in its various phases since the first congress announced that the constitution granted "the President the executive power of government, the general administrative control of those executing the laws. including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The chief justice's opinion further stated that the constitution restricted congressional control. over removal in inferior offices when the appointment is not made by the President.

"To hold otherwise," the court stated, "would make it impossible for the President in case of political or other differences with the senate or congress to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The majority of the court declared its position strongly sustained not only by legislative history but also by court decisions. The minority vigorously contested this point, asserting that this decision was a flat reversal made by the court in 1803 in the case of Marbury versus Madison.

have been at odds as to power of removal of appointive office holders.

The question, frequently an issue for heated political debate, reached the court in an appeal by Frank S. Myers, appointed by President Wilson to the postmastership at Portland, Oreg., in July, 1917, and subsequently removed by him in February, 1920.

Mr. Myers challenged his removal as illegal because of the act of congress of July 12, 1876, which provided that postmasters of the first three classes "shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the senate."

He contended he was entitled to pay for the full four years because President Wilson had not obtained the consent of the senate for his removal.

The court of claims dismissed the suit. holding that it was not brought in time, and Myers appealed to the higher tribunal. Here it was argued, once and then ordered re-argued. Senator Pepper, of Pennsylvania, was appointed to represent congress in the case.

The opinion today was delivered by Chief Justice Taft, with Justices Holmes, McReynolds, and Brandeis, each presenting separate dissenting opinions, all agreeing, in the words of Justice McReynolds, that the position taken by the court was revolutionary.

Under the opinion the president is recognized as having power, which cannot be restricted by congress, to remove any federal official commissioned by him or a predecessor, with the exception of a few judges. The court held that broadly this power was placed in the president's hands to enable him to carry out the constitutional injunction to see that the laws are well and faithfully executed. as it had been contended by those who opposed congressional control over removals, that unless such power were given. the president might be paralyzed in the efficiency and proper administration of executive duties. In reviewing the reasons for this power, it was said that otherwise the president might find many of those upon whom he must rely for loyal support out of harmony with his policies, and openly showing allegiance to adverse influences in congress.

Chief Justice Taft. in a 55 page printed opinion, pointed out that the controversy had reached the court in such form as to require its decision, and reviewing it in its various phases since the first congress announced that the constitution granted "the President the executive power of government, the general administrative control of those executing the laws. including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers, a conclusion confirmed by his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The chief justice's opinion further stated that the constitution restricted congressional control. over removal in inferior offices when the appointment is not made by the President.

"To hold otherwise," the court stated, "would make it impossible for the President in case of political or other differences with the senate or congress to take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

The majority of the court declared its position strongly sustained not only by legislative history but also by court decisions. The minority vigorously contested this point, asserting that this decision was a flat reversal made by the court in 1803 in the case of Marbury versus Madison.