Ask the Scholar
Page 8 of 21
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
- 4 -
Justice discusses the activities of President Lincoln in some
little degree, showing that the Emancipation Proclamation was
wholly without statutory authority; that President Lincoln had summoned
troops and paid them out of the Treasury without appropriation;
and that, "a most apt precedent for this case, Mr. Lincoln seized
the rail and telegraph lines leading to Washington, without statutory
authority. When, later, Congress confirmed this last-mentioned
act, the action was clearly understood at the time to be only
confirmatory. Indeed, some Senators opposed the action on the
ground that it might be construed as a limitation ;upon existing
Presidential power.
The Chief Justice also cites In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890),
where the Supreme Court held that a Federal officer had acted in line
of duty when he was guarding a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Concededly, there was no specific statute authorizing the President
to assign such a guard.
The dissent also takes up President Cleveland's use of
troops in the Pullman strike in 1895, terming it "of special
significance". There, no statute authorized the President's
action, and he acted in the face of a disclaimer by the Governor
of Illinois that supplemental force was necessary.
The "stewardship theory" of President Theodore Roosevelt
to the effect that the Executive is bound to serve the people affirmatively
in cases where the Constitution does not explicitly forbid him to act
is often referred to, as is President Taft's withdrawal of Government-
owned oil lands from sale to private citizens. President Taft also
withdrew the lands despite a statutory provision that these lands were
open to purchase by United States citizens. His action was upheld
in United States vs. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 (1915).
Page data
- Page
- 8
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- 188a47de0cc7f9b3
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 159441514
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "159441514",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Report, Analysis of Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., vs. Charles Sawyer",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"General Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"imageCount": 21,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "159441514",
"label": "Report, Analysis of Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., vs. Charles Sawyer",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "159441514",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Report, Analysis of Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co., vs. Charles Sawyer",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514",
"collections": [
"President's Secretary's Files (Truman Administration)",
"General Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-01.jpg",
"imageCount": 21,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/159441514",
"naId": 159441514,
"levelOfDescription": "item",
"productionDates": [
{
"dateQualifier": "ca.",
"logicalDate": "1952-06-01",
"month": 6,
"year": 1952
}
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 8,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/truman/hst-psf/602190/876560/876560-07-08.jpg",
"mediaId": "188a47de0cc7f9b3",
"ocrText": "- 4 -\nJustice discusses the activities of President Lincoln in some\nlittle degree, showing that the Emancipation Proclamation was\nwholly without statutory authority; that President Lincoln had summoned\ntroops and paid them out of the Treasury without appropriation;\nand that, \"a most apt precedent for this case, Mr. Lincoln seized\nthe rail and telegraph lines leading to Washington, without statutory\nauthority. When, later, Congress confirmed this last-mentioned\nact, the action was clearly understood at the time to be only\nconfirmatory. Indeed, some Senators opposed the action on the\nground that it might be construed as a limitation ;upon existing\nPresidential power.\nThe Chief Justice also cites In re Neagle, 135 U.S. 1 (1890),\nwhere the Supreme Court held that a Federal officer had acted in line\nof duty when he was guarding a Justice of the Supreme Court.\nConcededly, there was no specific statute authorizing the President\nto assign such a guard.\nThe dissent also takes up President Cleveland's use of\ntroops in the Pullman strike in 1895, terming it \"of special\nsignificance\". There, no statute authorized the President's\naction, and he acted in the face of a disclaimer by the Governor\nof Illinois that supplemental force was necessary.\nThe \"stewardship theory\" of President Theodore Roosevelt\nto the effect that the Executive is bound to serve the people affirmatively\nin cases where the Constitution does not explicitly forbid him to act\nis often referred to, as is President Taft's withdrawal of Government-\nowned oil lands from sale to private citizens. President Taft also\nwithdrew the lands despite a statutory provision that these lands were\nopen to purchase by United States citizens. His action was upheld\nin United States vs. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459 (1915)."
}