Syllabus ment and the number of instances in the execution of the law in which opportunity for objection in the courts or elsewhere has been afforded. 13. The provisions of the act of May 15, 1820, for removal of the officers therein named "at pleasure" were not based on the assumption that without them the President would not have that power, but were inserted in acquiescence to the legislative decision of 1789. 14. Approval by the President of acts of Congress containing provisions purporting to restrict the President's constitutional power of removing officers held not proof of Executive acquiescence in such curtailment where the approval was explicable by the value of the legislation in other respects-as where the restriction was in a rider imposed on an appropriation act. 15. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, considered, in connection with Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, and held not authoritative on the question of removal power here involved. The questions (1) Whether a judge appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate under an act of Congress, not under authority of Article III of the Constitution, can be removed by the President alone without the consent of the Senate; (2) whether the legislative decision of 1789 covers such a case; and (3) whether Congress may provide for his removal in some other way, present considerations different from those which apply in the removal of executive officers, and are not herein decided. This court has recognized (United States v. Perkins, 116 U. S. 483) that Congress may prescribe incidental regulations controlling and restricting the heads of departments in the exercise of the power of removal; but it has never held, and could not reasonably hold, that the excepting clause enables Congress to draw to itself, or to either branch of it, the power to remove or the right to participate in the exercise of that power. To do this would be to go beyond the words and implications of that clause and to infringe the constitutional principle of the separation of governmental powers. Assuming the power of Congress to regulate removals as incidental to the exercise of its constitutional power to vest appointments of inferior officers in the heads of departments, certainly so long as Congress does not exercise that power, the power of removal must remain where the Constitution places itwith the President, as part of the executive power, in accordance with the legislative decision of 1789. Whether the action of Congress in removing the necessity for the advice and consent of the Senate, and putting the power of appointment in the President alone, would make his power of Syllabus removal in such case any more subject to congressional legislation than before, is a question not heretofore decided by this court and not presented or decided in this case. Congress is only given power to provide for appointments and removals of inferior officers after it has vested, and on condition that it does vest, their appointment in other authority than the President with the Senate's consent. Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court October 25, 1926. CASES DECIDED IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS APRIL 1, 1926, TO JANUARY 31, 1927 IN WHICH JUDGMENTS WERE RENDERED BUT NO OPINIONS DELIVERED, OR WHEREIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS WERE MADE FOR REPORT TO CONGRESS No. D-638. MARCH 8, 1926 Independent Bridge Co. Deduction of cost of superintendence, etc. Dismissed. Motion for new trial overruled November 1, 1926. No. E-114. APRIL 5, 1926 Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. Transportation of National Guard, $2,230.11. No. D-823. APRIL 5, 1926 Nashville Bridge Co. Contract for steel barges. Dismissed. No. E-354. APRIL 5, 1926 Sperry Gyroscope Co. Services and material furnished. Dismissed. (See 61 C. Cls. 823.) No. C-124. APRIL 5, 1926 Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. Transportation of military impedimenta, $17,251.79. No. A-94. APRIL 12, 1926 St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry. Co. No. A-299. APRIL 12, 1926 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. Transportation of motor ambulance bodies, $3,790.22. No. C-57. APRIL 12, 1926 St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. Transportation of military impedimenta, $1,309.59. No. C-351. APRIL 12, 1926 St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry. Co. Refund of internal-revenue tax, $1,175.47. On mandate of Supreme Court. (59 C. Cls. 727; 270 U. S. 163.) No. A-3. APRIL 19, 1926 Armour & Company. Contract for packing-house products, $929,766.46. (See Swift & Co. case, 59 C. Cls. 364; 270 U. S. 124.) Miller & Hart. No. A-5. APRIL 19, 1926 Contract for packing-house products, $23,728.21. (See Swift & Co. case, 59 C. Cls. 364; 270 U. S. 124.) No. A-108. APRIL 19, 1926 Cudahy Packing Co. Contract for packing-house products, $440,632.76. (See Swift & Co. case, 59 C. Cls. 364; 270 U. S. 124.) No. C-1042. APRIL 26, 1926 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Transportation of miscellaneous Government property, $5,249.69. No. A-255. APRIL 26, 1926 Pere Marquette Ry. Co. Transportation of military impedimenta, $3,828.08. On mandate of Supreme Court. (59 C. Cls. 965; 270 U. S. 320, 337.) Georgine Iselin. No. B-96. APRIL 26, 1926 Refund of internal-revenue tax, $4,608.58. On mandate of Supreme Court. (59 C. Cls. 654; 270 U. S. 245.) No..D-810. Everett Knitting Works. APRIL 26, 1926 Refund of income tax. Dismissed. No. 34706. APRIL 26, 1926 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. Transportation of military impedimenta, $6,747.07. (See Southern Pacific Co. case, 268 U. S. 263, and Reading Co. case, 270 U. S. 320.) Harry B. Stilz. No. C-1203. MAY 3, 1926 Infringement of patent. Dismissed. No. D-314. MAY 3, 1926 Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Refund of excise taxes. Dismissed. No. D-878. MAY 3, 1926 Gilbert Freedman. Refund of income tax. Dismissed. |