Senator Pepper says in his argument that the genius of our race requires that the last hope of the people shall be reposed in the legislative branch of the Government. I do not think the last hope is reposed in either the legislative branch or the Executive. The last hope of the American people is reposed in the Constitution of the United States, which has seen fit to divide the powers in such a way that neither of these three great departments can monopolize the powers of government. I have no love for one-man power. I am inclined to think that the two greatest dangers in this country are, in the first place, what I call nullification by indirection "; that is, the perversion of Federal powers to accomplish purposes that are beyond the purposes of the Federal Government, of which we have recently had abundant evidences in the legislation of recent years, and the other is the steady cencentration of power in one man, which does threaten the equilibrium of the Government. Aristotle said, 2,000 years ago, that no constitution would long endure unless it corresponded to what he called the ethos of the peoplethat is, the spirit of the people-and when it ceased to correspond to the spirit of the people, then it would not be the spirit of the people that would be broken; it would be the constitution. I believe that is everlastingly true. And I believe that one of the most sinister signs of the times, in all departments of life-social, political, and economic-is that there is a strong centripetal tendency, toward one-man power. But see how wisely the Constitution preserves the equipoise; how it takes away from the President the temptation to remove any man without cause; because the moment he appoints a successor the Senate must be consulted. Moreover, Congress has its power over the purse strings. Congress has the power of impeachment. Congress can abolish the office altogether. Congress can do anything except create an office upon conditions which change the fundamental nature of our Government. That is what it can not do; and that is what it has attempted to do in this law, unless I am very much mistaken. Again I assert solemnly, that if it is within the power of Congress to create offices in such a way and by such methods as to constitute a redistribution of the powers of government, by transferring this executive power to Congress (which, being human, is also naturally ambitious and glad to have a power superior to that of the President)-if such be the fact then the Constitution will sooner or later become, by congressional usurpation, a mere house of cards. " Our form of government is a magnificent edifice to-day, erected by a hundred and thirty-six years of patient sacrifice and labor. It has its "cloud-capped towers"; its gorgeous palaces"; its "solemn temples "—and this great court is such a temple. But if the court should sustain Senator Pepper's contention, this noble edifice of constitutional liberty might one day become an "insubstantial pageant faded," and posterity might then say that it was not the work of supremely great men, but of muddled dreamers, for it would be of "such stuff as dreams are made of.” POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO REMOVE FEDERAL OFFICERS Supreme Court of the United States. No. 2, October Term, 1926. Lois P. Myers, administratrix of Frank S. Myers, appellant, v. The United States. Appeal from the Court of Claims. October 25, 1926 OPINION OF MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the court: This case presents the question whether under the Constitution the President has the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Myers, appellant's intestate, was on July 21, 1917, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to be a postmaster of the first class at Portland, Oreg., for a term of four years. On January 20, 1920, Myers's resignation was demanded. He refused the demand. On February 2, 1920, he was removed from office by order of the Postmaster General, acting by direction of the President. February 10, Myers sent a petition to the President and another to the Senate Committee on Post Offices, asking to be heard, if any charges were filed. He protested to the department against his removal, and continued to do so until the end of his term. He pursued no other occupation and drew compensation for no other service during the interval. On April 21, 1921, he brought this suit in the Court of Claims for his salary from the date of his removal, which, as claimed by supplemental petition filed after July 21, 1921, the end of his term, amounted to $8,838.71. In August, 1920, the President made a recess appointment of one Jones, who took office September 19, 1920. The Court of Claims gave judgment against Myers, and this is an appeal from that judgment. The court held that he had lost his right of action because of his delay in suing, citing Arant v. Lane, 249 U. S. 367; Nicholas v. United States, 257 U. S. 71; and Norris v. United States, 257 U. S. 77. These cases show that when a United States officer is dismissed, whether in disregard of the law or from mistake as to the facts of his case, he must promptly take effective action to assert his rights. But we do not find that Myers failed in this regard. He was constant in his efforts at reinstatement. A hearing before the Senate committee could not be had till the notice of his removal was sent to the Senate or his successor was nominated. From the time of his removal until the end of his term there were three sessions of the Senate without such notice or nomination. He put off bringing his suit until the expiration of the Sixty-sixth Congress, March 4, 1921. After that, and three months before his term |