WASHINGTON, October 26. - The power of the president to remove a federal officer without the consent of the senate was sustained by the supreme court today, thus ending a dispute as to constitutional rights that has waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government for half a century.

The decision was handed down in the case of Frank S. Myers, now deceased, former postmaster at Portland, Ore. Myers was appointed by President Wilson in 1917, and removed from office three years later, without the consent of the senate. Because his appointment had to be confirmed by the senate his heirs con-his removal without the senate's consent was not constitutional.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion. Back to 1789. Chief Justice Taft found that congress in 1789 discussed the principles involved in the case and held that the president should have broad powers of appointment and removal, not only is the president's power of removal upheld by legislation but also by the very nature of the office, the court held.

The check given by the senate in the requirement that the president must submit some appointments for confirmation, does not imply a similar right of a check upon removal.

In its opinion the court held unconstitutional the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 in which restrictions were imposed upon the president. Of Basic Importance. The decision is considered by legal authorities as among the most important ever decided by the supreme court. Solicitor general James M. Beck, in arguing the right of the president to remove, declared "the principle involved is of the very foundation of our government." "If the president cannot remove officials, however unfit and unworthy they may be," he said, "then he has neither the independence nor the power than has been attributed to the office."

The Myers case has been before the courts for several years. When Myers originally sued for $8,838 back pay, the government merely set up the defense that delay in bringing the suit was fatal to recovery of damages. The court of claims sustained the government, and did not pass upon the legality of the removal.

Justice McReyolds, Holmes and Brandeis dissented.

Justice McReyolds, who wrote the dissenting opinion, called the court's decision revolutionary in character. * * * Court Recesses. WASHINGTON, October 26. - The supreme court announced today it would recess from November 1 to November 22.

WASHINGTON, October 26. - The power of the president to remove a federal officer without the consent of the senate was sustained by the supreme court today, thus ending a dispute as to constitutional rights that has waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government for half a century.

The decision was handed down in the case of Frank S. Myers, now deceased, former postmaster at Portland, Ore. Myers was appointed by President Wilson in 1917, and removed from office three years later, without the consent of the senate. Because his appointment had to be confirmed by the senate his heirs con-his removal without the senate's consent was not constitutional.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion. Back to 1789. Chief Justice Taft found that congress in 1789 discussed the principles involved in the case and held that the president should have broad powers of appointment and removal, not only is the president's power of removal upheld by legislation but also by the very nature of the office, the court held.

The check given by the senate in the requirement that the president must submit some appointments for confirmation, does not imply a similar right of a check upon removal.

In its opinion the court held unconstitutional the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 in which restrictions were imposed upon the president. Of Basic Importance. The decision is considered by legal authorities as among the most important ever decided by the supreme court. Solicitor general James M. Beck, in arguing the right of the president to remove, declared "the principle involved is of the very foundation of our government." "If the president cannot remove officials, however unfit and unworthy they may be," he said, "then he has neither the independence nor the power than has been attributed to the office."

The Myers case has been before the courts for several years. When Myers originally sued for $8,838 back pay, the government merely set up the defense that delay in bringing the suit was fatal to recovery of damages. The court of claims sustained the government, and did not pass upon the legality of the removal.

Justice McReyolds, Holmes and Brandeis dissented.

Justice McReyolds, who wrote the dissenting opinion, called the court's decision revolutionary in character. * * * Court Recesses. WASHINGTON, October 26. - The supreme court announced today it would recess from November 1 to November 22.

WASHINGTON, October 26. - The power of the president to remove a federal officer without the consent of the senate was sustained by the supreme court today, thus ending a dispute as to constitutional rights that has waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government for half a century.

The decision was handed down in the case of Frank S. Myers, now deceased, former postmaster at Portland, Ore. Myers was appointed by President Wilson in 1917, and removed from office three years later, without the consent of the senate. Because his appointment had to be confirmed by the senate his heirs con-his removal without the senate's consent was not constitutional.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion. Back to 1789. Chief Justice Taft found that congress in 1789 discussed the principles involved in the case and held that the president should have broad powers of appointment and removal, not only is the president's power of removal upheld by legislation but also by the very nature of the office, the court held.

The check given by the senate in the requirement that the president must submit some appointments for confirmation, does not imply a similar right of a check upon removal.

In its opinion the court held unconstitutional the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 in which restrictions were imposed upon the president. Of Basic Importance. The decision is considered by legal authorities as among the most important ever decided by the supreme court. Solicitor general James M. Beck, in arguing the right of the president to remove, declared "the principle involved is of the very foundation of our government." "If the president cannot remove officials, however unfit and unworthy they may be," he said, "then he has neither the independence nor the power than has been attributed to the office."

The Myers case has been before the courts for several years. When Myers originally sued for $8,838 back pay, the government merely set up the defense that delay in bringing the suit was fatal to recovery of damages. The court of claims sustained the government, and did not pass upon the legality of the removal.

Justice McReyolds, Holmes and Brandeis dissented.

Justice McReyolds, who wrote the dissenting opinion, called the court's decision revolutionary in character. * * * Court Recesses. WASHINGTON, October 26. - The supreme court announced today it would recess from November 1 to November 22.

WASHINGTON, October 26. - The power of the president to remove a federal officer without the consent of the senate was sustained by the supreme court today, thus ending a dispute as to constitutional rights that has waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government for half a century.

The decision was handed down in the case of Frank S. Myers, now deceased, former postmaster at Portland, Ore. Myers was appointed by President Wilson in 1917, and removed from office three years later, without the consent of the senate. Because his appointment had to be confirmed by the senate his heirs con-his removal without the senate's consent was not constitutional.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion. Back to 1789. Chief Justice Taft found that congress in 1789 discussed the principles involved in the case and held that the president should have broad powers of appointment and removal, not only is the president's power of removal upheld by legislation but also by the very nature of the office, the court held.

The check given by the senate in the requirement that the president must submit some appointments for confirmation, does not imply a similar right of a check upon removal.

In its opinion the court held unconstitutional the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 in which restrictions were imposed upon the president. Of Basic Importance. The decision is considered by legal authorities as among the most important ever decided by the supreme court. Solicitor general James M. Beck, in arguing the right of the president to remove, declared "the principle involved is of the very foundation of our government." "If the president cannot remove officials, however unfit and unworthy they may be," he said, "then he has neither the independence nor the power than has been attributed to the office."

The Myers case has been before the courts for several years. When Myers originally sued for $8,838 back pay, the government merely set up the defense that delay in bringing the suit was fatal to recovery of damages. The court of claims sustained the government, and did not pass upon the legality of the removal.

Justice McReyolds, Holmes and Brandeis dissented.

Justice McReyolds, who wrote the dissenting opinion, called the court's decision revolutionary in character. * * * Court Recesses. WASHINGTON, October 26. - The supreme court announced today it would recess from November 1 to November 22.

WASHINGTON, October 26. - The power of the president to remove a federal officer without the consent of the senate was sustained by the supreme court today, thus ending a dispute as to constitutional rights that has waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government for half a century.

The decision was handed down in the case of Frank S. Myers, now deceased, former postmaster at Portland, Ore. Myers was appointed by President Wilson in 1917, and removed from office three years later, without the consent of the senate. Because his appointment had to be confirmed by the senate his heirs con-his removal without the senate's consent was not constitutional.

Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion. Back to 1789. Chief Justice Taft found that congress in 1789 discussed the principles involved in the case and held that the president should have broad powers of appointment and removal, not only is the president's power of removal upheld by legislation but also by the very nature of the office, the court held.

The check given by the senate in the requirement that the president must submit some appointments for confirmation, does not imply a similar right of a check upon removal.

In its opinion the court held unconstitutional the Tenure of Office Act of 1867 in which restrictions were imposed upon the president. Of Basic Importance. The decision is considered by legal authorities as among the most important ever decided by the supreme court. Solicitor general James M. Beck, in arguing the right of the president to remove, declared "the principle involved is of the very foundation of our government." "If the president cannot remove officials, however unfit and unworthy they may be," he said, "then he has neither the independence nor the power than has been attributed to the office."

The Myers case has been before the courts for several years. When Myers originally sued for $8,838 back pay, the government merely set up the defense that delay in bringing the suit was fatal to recovery of damages. The court of claims sustained the government, and did not pass upon the legality of the removal.

Justice McReyolds, Holmes and Brandeis dissented.

Justice McReyolds, who wrote the dissenting opinion, called the court's decision revolutionary in character. * * * Court Recesses. WASHINGTON, October 26. - The supreme court announced today it would recess from November 1 to November 22.