SPRINGER et al. v.

GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE

ISLANDS. AGONCILLO et al. v. SAME.

277 U.S. 189 (48 S.Ct. 480, 72 L.Ed. 845)

SPRINGER et al. v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
ISLANDS. AGONCILLO et al. v. SAME.

Nos. 564, 573.

Argued: April 10, 1928.

Decided: May 14, 1928.

opinion, SUTHERLAND [HTML]
Syl l abus from pages 189-191 i ntenti onal l y omi tted

Messrs. John W. Davi s, of New York Ci ty, and Jose Abad
Santos and James Ross, both of Mani l a, P. I., for peti ti oners.

Argument of Counsel from pages 191-195 i ntenti onal l y
omi tted

Mr. Wm. D. Mi tchel l , Sol Gen., of Washi ngton, D. C., Frederi ck
C. Fi sher, Speci al Counsel , of Mani l a, P. I., Wi l l i am Cattron
Ri gby, Li eutenant Col onel , Judge Advocate, of Washi ngton, D.
C., Hugh C. Smi th, Li eutenant Col onel , Judge Advocate, and
Robert P. Reeder, Speci al Assi stant to the Atty. Gen., for
Government of Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands.

Argument of Counsel from pages 195-197 i ntenti onal l y
omi tted

TOP

Mr. Justi ce SUTHERLAND del i vered the opi ni on of the Court.

These cases, presenti ng substanti al l y the same questi on,
were argued and wi l l be consi dered and di sposed of together.
In each case an acti on i n the nature of quo warranto was
brought i n the court bel ow chal l engi ng the ri ght to hol d offi ce
of di rectors of certai n corporati ons organi zed under the
l egi sl ati ve authori ty of the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands; No. 564
i nvol vi ng di rectors of the Nati onal Coal Company, and No.
573 i nvol vi ng di rectors of the Phi l i ppi ne Nati onal Bank.

The Nati onal Coal Company was created by Act 2705,
approved March 10, 1917, subsequentl y amended by Act
2822, approved March 5, 1919. The Governor General , under
the provi si ons of the amended act, subscri bed on behal f of
the Phi l i ppine Isl ands for substanti ally al l of the capi tal stock.
The act provi des:

'The voti ng power of al l such stock owned by the government
of the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands shal l be vested excl usi vel y i n a
commi ttee, consi sti ng of the Governor General , the Presi dent
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representati ves.'

The Nati onal Bank was created by Act 2612, approved
February 4, 1916, subsequentl y amended by Act 2747,
approved February 20, 1918, and Act 2938, approved January
30, 1921. The authori zed capi tal of the bank, as fi nal l y fi xed,
was 10,000,000 pesos, consi sti ng of 100,000 shares, of whi ch,
i n pursuance of the l egi sl ati ve provi si ons, the Phi l i ppi ne
Government acqui red and owns 97,332 shares; the
reami nder bei ng hel d by pri vate persons. By the ori gi nal act
the voti ng power of the government-owned stock was vested
excl usi vel y i n the Governor General , but by the amended acts
now i n force that power was 'vested excl usi vel y i n a board,
the short ti tl e of whi ch shal l be 'board of control ,' composed
of the Governor General , the Presi dent of the Senate, and the
Speaker of the House of Representati ves.' The Governor
General was al so di vested of the power of appoi ntment of
the presi dent and vi ce presi dent of the bank, ori gi nal ly vested
i n hi m, and thei r el ecti on was authori zed to be made by the
di rectors from among thei r own number. Provi si on was al so
made for a general manager, to be appoi nted or removed by
the board of di rectors wi th the advi ce and consent of the
board of control . The manager was to be chi ef executi ve of
the bank, wi th an annual sal ary to be fi xed by the board of
di rectors wi th the approval of the board of control . Further
duti es were conferred upon the board of control i n
connecti on wi th the management of the bank whi ch i t does
not seem necessary to set forth.

It i s worthy of note that thi s voti ng power has been s i mi l arl y
devol ved by the Legi sl ature upon at l east four other
corporati ons: The Nati onal Petrol eum Company, by Act 2814;
the Nati onal Devel opment Company, by Act 2849; the
Nati onal Cement Company, by Act 2855; and the Nati onal
Iron Company, by Act 2862-and the suggesti on of the Sol i citor
General that thi s i ndi cates a systemati c pl an on the part of
the Legi sl ature to take over, through i ts presi di ng offi cers, the
di rect control general l y of nati onal l y organi zed or control l ed
stock corporati ons woul d seem to be warranted.

In pursuance of the fi rst-quoted provi si on, peti ti oners i n No.
564 were el ected di rectors of the Nati onal Coal Company by a
vote of the government-owned shares cast by the Presi dnet
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House; and, i n
purusance of the second quoted provi si on, peti ti oners i n No.
573 were el ected di rectors of the Nati onal Bank i n the same
way. The Governor General , chal l engi ng the val i di ty of the
l egi sl ati on, di d not parti ci pate i n ei ther el ecti on. Whi l e there
are some di fferences between the two acti ons i n respect of
the facts, they are di fferences of detai l whi ch do not affect
the substanti al questi on to be determi ned.

On behal f of the Phi l i ppi ne government, respondent i n both
cases, i t i s contended that the el ecti on of di rectors and
managi ng agents by a vote of the government-owned stock
was an executi ve functi on i ntrusted by the Organi c Act of the
Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands to the Governor General , and that the acts
of the Legi sl ature di vesti ng hi m of that power and vesti ng i t,
i n the one case, i n a 'board,' and, i n the other, i n a
'commi ttee,' the majori ty of whi ch i n each i nstance consi sted
of offi cers and members of the Legi sl ature, were i nval i d as
bei ng i n confl i ct wi th the Organi c Act. The court bel ow
sustai ned the contenti on of the government and entered
judgments of ouster agai nst the peti ti oners i n each case.

The congressi onal l egi slati on referred to as the Organi c Act i s
the enactment of August 29, 1916, c. 416, 39 Stat. 545 (48
USCA 1001 et seq.), whi ch consti tutes the fundamental l aw
of the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands, and bears a rel ati on to thei r
governmental affai rs not unl i ke that borne by a state
Consti tuti on to the state. The act contai ns a Bi l l of Ri ghts,
many of the provi si ons of whi ch are taken from the Federal
Consti tuti on. It l ays down fundamental rul es i n respect of
taxati on, shi ppi ng, customs duti es, etc. Secti on 8 of the act
(48 USCA 1041) provi des:

'That general l egi sl ati ve power, except as otherwi se herei n
provi ded, i s hereby granted to the Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature,
authori zed by thi s act.'

And by secti on 12 (48 USCA 1043) thi s l egi sl ati ve power i s
vested i n a Legi sl ature, to consi st of two houses, one the
Senate and the other the House of Representati ves. Provi si on
i s made (secti ons 13, 14 and 17 (48 USCA 1044, 1045,
1048)) for membershi ps, terms, and qual i fi cati ons of the
members of each house. By secti on 21 (48 USCA 1111) i t i s
provi ded 'that the supreme executi ve power shal l be vested
i n an executi ve offi cer, whose offi ci al ti tl e shal l be 'the
Governor General of the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands." He i s gi ven
'general supervi si on and control of al l of the departments and
bureaus of the government i n the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands as far as
i s not i nconsi stent wi th the provi si ons of thi s act.' He i s made
'responsi bl e for the fai thful executi on of the l aws of the
Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands and of the Uni ted States operati ve wi thi n
the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands.' Other powers of an i mportant and
comprehensi ve character al so are conferred upon hi m. By
secti on 22 (48 USCA 1114) the executi ve departments of
the Phi l i ppi ne government, as then authori zed by l aw, are
conti nued unti l otherwi se provi ded by the Legi sl ature. The
Legi sl ature i s authori zed by appropri ate l egi sl ati on to
'i ncrease the number or abol i sh any of the executi ve
departments, or make such changes i n the names and duti es
thereof as i t may see fi t,' and 'provi de for the appoi ntment
and removal of the heads of the executi ve departments by
the Governor General .' Then fol l ows the provi so:

'That al l executi ve functi ons of the government must be
di rectl y under the Governor General or wi thi n one of the
executi ve departments under the supervi si on and control of
the Governor General .'

Secti on 26 (48 USCA 1071-1074, 1078) recogni zes the
exi sti ng Supreme Court and courts of fi rst i nstance of the
Isl ands, and conti nues thei r juri sdi cti on as heretofore
provi ded, wi th such addi ti onal juri sdi cti on as shoul d
thereafter be prescri bed by l aw.

Thus the Organi c Act, fol l owi ng the rul e establ i shed by the
Ameri can Consti tuti ons, both state and federal , di vi des the
government i nto three separate departments-the l egi sl ati ve,
executi ve, and judi ci al . Some of our state Consti tuti ons
expressl y provi de i n one form or another that the l egi sl ati ve,
executi ve, and judi ci al powers of the government shal l be
forever separate and di sti nct from each other. Other
Consti tuti ons, i ncl udi ng that of the Uni ted States, do not
contai n such an express provi si on. But i t i s i mpl i cit i n al l , as a
concl usi on l ogi cal l y fol l owi ng from the separati on of the
several departments. See Ki l bourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S.
168, 190, 191, 26 L. Ed. 377. And thi s separati on and the
consequent excl usi ve character of the powers conferred upon
each of the three departments i s basi c and vi tal -not merel y a
matter of governmental mechani sm. That the pri nci pl e i s
i mpl i ci t i n the Phi l i ppine Organi c Act does not admi t of doubt.
See Abueva v. Wood, 45 Phi l . Rep. 612, 622, 628, et seq.

It may be stated then, as a general rul e i nherent i n the
Ameri can consti tuti onal system, that, unl ess otherwi se
expressl y provi ded or i nci dental to the powers conferred, the
Legi sl ature cannot exerci se ei ther executi ve or judi ci al power;
the executi ve cannot exerci se ei ther l egi sl ati ve or judi ci al
power; the judi ci ary cannot exerci se ei ther executi ve or
l egi sl ati ve power. The exi stence i n the vari ous Consti tuti ons
of occasi onal provi si ons expressl y gi vi ng to one of the
departments powers whi ch by thei r nature otherwi se woul d
fal l wi thi n the general scope of the authori ty of another
department emphasi zes, rather than casts doubt upon, the
general l y i nvi ol ate character of thi s basi c rul e.

Legi sl ati ve power, as di sti ngui shed from executi ve power, i s
the authori ty to make l aws, but not to enforce them or
appoi nt the agents charged wi th the duty of such
enforcement. The l atter are executi ve functi ons. It i s
unnecessary to enl arge further upon the general subject,
si nce i t has so recentl y recei ved the ful l consi derati on of thi s
court. Myers v. Uni ted States, 272 U. S. 52, 47 S. Ct. 21, 71 L.
Ed. 160.

Not havi ng the power of appoi ntment, unl ess expressl y
granted or i nci dental to i ts powers, the Legi sl ature cannot
i ngraft executi ve duti es upon a l egi sl ati ve offi ce, si nce that
woul d be to usurp the power of appoi ntment by i ndi recti on,
though the case mi ght be di fferent i f the addi ti onal duti es
were devol ved upon an appoi ntee of the executi ve.
Shoemaker v. Uni ted States, 147 U. S. 282, 300, 301, 13 S. Ct.
361, 37 L. Ed. 170. Here the members of the Legi sl ature who
consti tute a majori ty of the 'board' and 'commi ttee,'
respecti vel y, are not charged wi th the performance of any
l egi sl ati ve functi ons or wi th the doi ng of anythi ng whi ch i s i n
ai d of the performance of any such functi ons by the
Legi sl ature. Putti ng asi de for the moment the questi on
whether the duti es devol ved upon these members are vested
by the Organi c Act i n the Governor General , i t i s cl ear that
they are not l egi sl ati ve i n character, and sti l l more cl ear that
they are not judi ci al . The fact that they do not fal l wi thi n the
authori ty of ei ther of these two consti tutes l ogi cal ground for
concl udi ng that they do fal l wi thi n that of the remai ni ng one
of the three among whi ch the powers of government are
di vi ded. Compare Myers v. Uni ted States, supra, pages 117,
118 (47 S. Ct. 25).

Assumi ng, for present purposes, that the duty of managi ng
thi s property, namel y, the government-owned shares of stock
i n these corporati ons, i s not soverei gn but propri etary i n i ts
nature, the concl usi on must be the same. The property i s
owned by the government, and the government i n deal i ng
wi th i t, whether i n i ts quasi soverei gn or i ts propri etary
capaci ty, neverthel ess acts i n i ts governmental capaci ty.
There i s nothi ng i n the Organi c Act, or i n the nature of the
l egi sl ati ve power conferred by i t, to suggest that the
Legi sl ature i n acti ng i n respect of the propri etary ri ghts of the
government may di sregard the l i mi tati on that i t must
exerci se l egi sl ati ve and not executi ve functi ons. It must deal
wi th the property of the government by maki ng rul es, and
not by executi ng them. The appoi ntment of managers (i n thi s
i nstance corporate di rectors) of property or a busi ness, i s
essenti al l y an executi ve act whi ch the Legi sl ature i s wi thout
capaci ty to perform di rectl y or through any of i ts members.

Whether the members of the 'board' or the 'commi ttee' are
publ i c offi cers i n a stri ct sense, we do not fi nd i t necessary to
determi ne. They are publ i c agents at l east, charged wi th the
exerci se of executi ve functi ons and, therefore, beyond the
appoi nti ng power of the Legi sl ature. Stockman v. Leddy, 55
Col o. 24, 129 P. 220, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 1052, i nvol ved a case
very much l i ke that now under consi derati on. The state
Legi sl ature had created a commi ttee of i ts own members to
i nvesti gate the ri ghts of the state i n the fl owi ng waters
therei n. The commi ttee was authori zed to determi ne what
steps were necessary to be taken to protect the ri ghts of the
state, to empl oy counsel , etc. There was no cl ai m that the
i nvesti gati on was for the purpose of ascertai ni ng facts to ai d
i n future l egi sl ation or to assi st the Legi sl ature i n i ts l egi sl ative
capaci ty, but i t was for the purpose of enabl i ng the
commi ttee i tsel f to reach a concl usi on as to what shoul d be
proper to do i n order to protect the ri ghts of the state. The
court, i n hol di ng the act unconsti tuti onal , sai d (page 31 (129
P. 223)):

'In other words, the General Assembl y not onl y passed an act-
that i s, made a l aw-but i t made a joi nt commi ttee of the
Senate and the House as i ts executi ve agent to carry out that
l aw. Thi s a cl ear and conspi cuous i nstance of an attempt by
the General Assembl y to confer executi ve power upon a
col l ecti on of i ts own members.'

And the court hel d that thi s was i nval i d under the provi si ons
of the state Consti tuti on respecti ng the tri parti te di vi si on of
governmental powers. See, al so, Cl ark v. Stanl ey, 66 N. C. 59,
8 Am. Rep. 488; State ex rel . Howerton v. Tate, 68 N. C. 546.

Peti ti oners seek to draw a paral l el between the power of
Congress to create corporati ons as appropri ate means of
executi ng governmental powers and the acts of the Phi l i ppine
Legi sl ature here under consi derati on. To what extent the
powers of the two bodi es i n thi s respect may be assi mi l ated
we need not stop not to determi ne, si nce the power of the
Legi sl ature to create the two corporati ons here i nvol ved i s
not doubted. But i t i s argued further that Congress, i n
creati ng corporati ons for governmental purposes, has
someti mes devol ved the voti ng power i n such corporati ons
upon persons other than executi ve offi cers. In the case of the
Smi thsoni an Insti tuti on, ci ted as an exampl e, Congress
provi ded for a governi ng Board of Regents composed i n part
of members of the Senate and of the House. There are tow or
three other i nstances i n respect of nonstock organi zati ons of
l i ke character. On the other hand, as poi nted out by the
Sol i ci tor General , i n the case of governmental l y organi zed or
control l ed stock corporati ons, Congress has uni forml y
recogni zed the executi ve authori ty i n thei r management,
general l y provi di ng i n express terms that the shares shal l be
voted by an executi ve offi cer, and i n no i nstance attempti ng
to grant such power to one or more of i ts members. Many
i nstances of thi s ki nd are ci ted by the Sol i ci tor General , but i t
i s not necessary to repeat hi s enumerati on. It i s enough to say
that, when we consi der the l i mi ted number of acts of
Congress whi ch fal l wi thi n the fi rst cl ass spoken of above, as
wel l as the pecul i ar character of the i nsti tuti ons deal t wi th,
and the contrary atti tude of Congress toward corporati ons of
a di fferent character, such acts cannot be regarded as l endi ng
support to a constructi on of the Consti tuti on whi ch woul d
justi fy congressi onal l egi slati on l ike that here i nvol ved. As thi s
court sai d i n Myers v. Uni ted States, supra, pages 170-171 (47
S. Ct. 43):

'In the use of congressi onal l egi slati on to support or change a
parti cul ar constructi on of the Consti tuti on by acqui escence,
i ts wei ght for the purpose must depend not onl y upon the
nature of the questi on, but al so upon the atti tude of the
executi ve and judi ci al branches of the government, as wel l as
upon the number of i nstances i n the executi on of the l aw i n
whi ch opportuni ty for objecti on i n the courts or el sewhere i s
afforded. When i nstances whi ch actual ly i nvol ve the questi on
are rare, or have not i n fact occurred, the wei ght of the mere
presence of acts on the statute book for a consi derabl e ti me,
as showi ng general acqui escence i n the l egi sl ati ve asserti on
of a questi oned power, i s mi ni mi zed.'

And we are further of the opi ni on that the powers asserted
by the Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature are vested by the Organi c Act i n
the Governor General . The i ntent of Congress to that effect i s
di scl osed by the provi si ons of that act al ready set forth.
Stated conci sel y, these provi si ons are: That the supreme
executi ve power i s vested i n the Governor General , who i s
gi ven general supervi si on and control over al l the
departments and bureaus of the Phi l i ppi ne government;
upon hi m i s pl aced the responsi bi l i ty for the fai thful
executi on of the l aws of the Phi l i ppi ne Isl ands; and, by the
general provi so, al ready quoted, al l executi ve functi ons must
be di rectl y under the Governor General or wi thi n one of the
executi ve departments under hi s supervi si on and control .
These are grants comprehensi ve enough to i ncl ude the
powers attempted to be exerci sed by the Legi sl ature by the
provi si ons of l aw now under revi ew. Myers v. Uni ted States,
supra.

It i s true that secti on 21 contai ns a speci fi c provi si on that the
Governor General shal l appoi nt such offi cers as may now be
appoi nted by the Governor General , or such as he i s
authori zed by thi s act to appoi nt, or whom he may hereafter
be authroi zed by l aw to appoi nt. And i t i s sai d that the effect
of thi s i s to confi ne the Governor General 's powers of
appoi ntment wi thi n the l i mi ts of thi s enumerati on. The
general rul e that the expressi on of one thi ng i s the excl usi on
of others i s subject to excepti ons. Li ke other canons of
statutory constructi on, i t i s onl y an ai d i n the ascertai nment
of the meani ng of the l aw, and must yi el d whenever a
contrary i ntenti on on the part of the l awmaker i s apparent.
Where a statute contai ns a grant of power enumerati ng
certai n thi ngs whi ch may be done and al so a general grant of
power whi ch, standi ng al one, woul d i ncl ude these thi ngs and
more, the general grant may be gi ven ful l effect i f the context
shows that the enumerati on was not i ntended to be
excl usi ve. See, for exampl e, Ford v. Uni ted States, 273 U. S.
593, 611, 47 S. Ct. 531, 71 L. Ed. 793, Portl and v. N. E. T. & T.
Co., 103 Me. 240, 249, 68 A. 1040; Grubbe v. Grubbe, 26 Or.
363, 370, 38 P. 182; Swi ck v. Col eman, 218 Il l . 33, 40, 75 N. E.
807; Lexi ngton ex rel . v. Commerci al Bank, 130 Mo. App. 687,
692, 108 S. W. 1095; McFarl and v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co., 94 Mo.
App. 336, 342, 68 S. W. 105.

Appl yi ng these pri nci pl es, we are unabl e to accept the
contenti on that the enumerati on here i n questi on i s excl usi ve
i n the face of the general provi si ons al ready quoted, and
parti cul arl y of that one whi ch decl ares that al l executi ve
functi ons are vested di rectl y i n the Governor General or
under hi s supervi si on and control . It i s true that thi s provi sion
i s i n the form of a provi so, and i t i s argued that i t i s therefore
nothi ng more than a defi ni ti on by negati on of the power
gi ven to the Legi sl ature i n the same secti on. But an anal ysis of
the secti on, whi ch i s reproduced so far as perti nent i n the
margi n, 1 shows, though not whol l y beyond doubt, that the
power gi ven to the Legi sl ature i s i tsel f a provi so. In other
words, both the grant of power to the Legi sl ature and the
grant of power to the Governor General are i n form provi sos
to the general provi si ons of secti on 22 whi ch precede them. It
i s di ffi cul t to assi gn to ei ther provi so the general purpose of
that form of l egi sl ati on, whi ch i s merel y to qual i fy the
operati on of the general l anguage whi ch precedes i t. We
thi nk rather that both provi sos are to be construed as
i ndependent and substanti ve provi si ons. As thi s court has
more than once poi nted out, i t i s not an uncommon practi ce
i n l egi sl ati ve proceedi ngs to i ncl ude i ndependent pi eces of
l egi sl ati on under the head of provi sos. See Georgi a Banki ng
Co. v. Smi th, 128 U. S. 174, 181, 9 S. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377;
Whi te v. Uni ted States, 191 U. S. 545, 551, 24 S. Ct. 171, 48 L.
Ed. 295; Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427, 435, 43 S. Ct. 154, 67 L. Ed.
332.

Fi nal l y, i t i s urged that, si nce no acti on has been taken by
Congress under secti on 19 of the Organi c Act (48 USCA
1052-1054), requi ri ng al l l aws enacted by the Phi l i ppi ne
Legi sl ature to be reported to Congress, whi ch reserves the
power to annul them, the l egi sl ati on now under revi ew has
recei ved the i mpl i ed sancti on of Congress, and shoul d not be
di sturbed. Cl i nton v. Engl ebrecht, 13 Wal l . 434, 446, 20 L. Ed.
659, i s ci ted i n support of thi s contenti on. In that case jurors
were summoned i nto the l egi sl ati ve courts of the terri tory of
Utah under the provi si ons of acts of Congress appl i cabl e onl y
to the courts of the Uni ted States. Thi s court hel d that the
jurors were wrongl y summoned, and a chal l enge to the array
shoul d have been sustai ned. The court, however, proceeded
al so to exami ne the jury l aw enacted by the terri tori al
Legi sl ature, and decl ared i t to be val i d. In the course of the
opi ni on i t was sai d that, si nce the si mpl e di sapproval by
Congress at any ti me woul d have annul l ed that l aw, i t was
not unreasonabl e to i nfer that i t was approved by that body.
In the l ater case of Cl ayton v. Utah Terri tory, 132 U. S. 632, 10
S. Ct. 190, 33 L. Ed. 455, an act of the same terri tory,
provi di ng for the appoi ntment of certai n offi cers was hel d to
be voi d as i n contraventi on of a provi si on of the terri tori al
Organi c Act vesti ng i n the Governor the power to appoi nt
such offi cers. Deal i ng wi th the same poi nt here made, thi s
court sai d (page 642 (10 S. Ct. 194)):

'It i s true that i n a case of doubtful constructi on the l ong
acqui escence of Congress and the general government may
be resotred to as some evi dence of the proper constructi on,
or of the val i di ty, of a l aw. Thi s pri nci pl e i s more appl i cabl e to
questi ons rel ati ng to the constructi on of a statute than to
matters whi ch go to the power of the Legi sl ature to enact i t.
At al l events, i t can hardl y be admi tted as a general
proposi ti on that under the power of Congress reserved i n the
organi c acts of the terri tori es to annul the acts of thei r
Legi sl atures the absence of any acti on by Congress i s to be
construed to be a recogni ti on of the power of the Legi sl ature
to pass l aws i n confl i ct wi th the act of Congress under whi ch
they were created.'

The i nference of an approval by Congress from i ts mere
fai l ure to act at best rests upon a weak foundati on. And we
thi nk, where the i nference i s sought to be appl i ed, as here, to
a case where the l egi sl ation i s clearly voi d as i n contraventi on
of the Organi c Act, i t cannot reasonabl y be i ndul ged. To
justi fy the concl usi on that Congress has consented to the
vi ol ati on of one of i ts own acts of such fundamental character
wi l l requi re somethi ng more than such i nacti on upon i ts part
as real l y amounts to nothi ng more than a fai l ure affi rmati vely
to decl are such vi ol ati on by a formal act.

Whether the Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature, i n vi ew of the al ternati ve
form of the provi si on vesti ng al l executi ve functi ons di rectl y
under the Governor General or wi thi n one of the executi ve
departments under hi s supervi si on and control , mi ght
devol ve the voti ng power upon the head of an executi ve
department or an appoi ntee of such head, we do not now
deci de. The Legi sl ature has not undertaken to do so; and, i n
the absence of such an attempt, i t necessari l y resul ts that the
power must be exerci sed di rectl y by the Governor General or
by hi s appoi ntee, si nce he i s the onl y executi ve now defi ni tel y
authori zed by l aw to act.

The judgments i n both cases are affi rmed.

Mr. Justi ce HOLMES (di ssenti ng).

The great ordi nances of the Consti tuti on do not establ i sh and
di vi de fi el ds of bl ack and whi te. Even the more speci fi c of
them are found to termi nate i n a penumbra shadi ng gradually
from one extreme to the other. Property must not be taken
wi thout compensati on, but wi th the hel p of a phrase (the
pol i ce power), some property may be taken or destroyed for
publ i c use wi thout payi ng for i t, i f you do not take too much.
When we come to the fundamental di sti ncti ons i t i s sti ll more
obvi ous that they must be recei ved wi th a certai n l ati tude or
our government coul d not go on.

To make a rul d of conduct appl i cable to an i ndi vi dual who but
for such acti on woul d be free from i t i s to l egi sl ate-yet i t i s
what the judges do whenever they determi ne whi ch of two
competi ng pri nci ples of pol i cy shall prevai l. At an earl y date i t
was hel d that Congress coul d del egate to the courts the
power to regul ate process, whi ch certai nl y i s l awmaki ng so
far as i t goes. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1, 42, 6 L. Ed.
253. Bank of the Uni ted States v. Hal stead, 10 Wheat. 51, 6 L.
Ed. 264. Wi th regard to the Executi ve, Congress has
del egated to i t or to some branch of i t the power to i mpose
penal ti es, Oceani c Steam Navi gati on Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U.
S. 320, 29 S. Ct. 671, 53 L. Ed. 1013; to make concl usi ve
determi nati on of duti abl e val ues, Passavant v. Uni ted States,
148 U. S. 214, 13 S. Ct. 572, 37 L. Ed. 426; to establ i sh
standards for i mports, Buttfi el d v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470,
24 S. Ct. 349, 48 L. Ed. 525; to make regul ati ons as to forest
reserves, Uni ted States v. Gri maud, 220 U. S. 506, 31 S. Ct.
480, 55 L. Ed. 563; and other powers not needi ng to be stated
i n further detai l . Houston v. St. Loui s Independent Packi ng
Co., 249 U. S. 479, 39 S. Ct. 332, 63 L. Ed. 717; Uni on Bri dge
Co. v. Uni ted States, 204 U. S. 364, 27 S. Ct. 367, 51 L. Ed. 523;
Ex parte Kol l ock, 165 U. S. 526, 17 S. Ct. 444, 41 L. Ed. 813.
Congress has authroi zed the Presi dent to suspend the
operati on of a stature, even one suspendi ng commerci al
i ntercourse wi th another country, Fi el d v. Cl ark, 143 U. S. 649,
12 S. Ct. 495, 36 L. Ed. 294, and very recentl y i t has been
deci ded that the Presi dent mi ght be gi ven power to change
the tari ff, J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. Uni ted States (Apri l 9,
1928) 276 U. S. 394, 48 S. Ct. 348, 72 L. Ed. 624. It i s sai d that
the powers of Congress cannot be del egated, yet Congress
has establ i shed the Interstate Commerce Commi ssi on, whi ch
does l egi sl ati ve, judi ci al and executi ve acts, onl y softened by
a quasi , makes regul ati ons, Inter-Mountai n Rate Cases, 234 U.
S. 476, 486, 34 S. Ct. 986, 58 L. Ed. 1408, i ssues reparati on
orders and performs executi ve functi ons i n connecti on wi th
Safety Appl i ance Acts, Boi l er Inspecti on Acts, etc. Congress
al so has made effecti ve excursi ons i n the other di recti on. It
has wi thdrawn juri sdi cti on of a case after i t has been argued.
Ex parte McCardl e, 7 Wal l . 506, 19 L. Ed. 264. It has granted
an amnesty, notwi thstandi ng the grant to the Presi dent of
the power to pardon. Brown v. Wal ker, 161 U. S. 591, 601, 16
S. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819. A terri tori al Legi sl ature has granted a
di vorce. Maynard v. Hi l l , 125 U. S. 190, 8 S. Ct. 723, 31 L. Ed.
654. Congress has decl ared l awful an obstructi on to
navi gati on that thi s court has decl ared unl awful . Pennsyl vania
v. Wheel i ng & Bel mont Bri dge Co., 18 How. 421, 15 L. Ed.
435. Paral l el to the case before us Congress l ong ago
establ i shed the Smi thsoni an Insti tuti on to questi on whi ch
woul d be to l ay hands on the Ark of the Covenant; not to
speak of l ater si mi l ar exerci ses of power hi therto
unquesti oned, so far as I know.

It does not seem to need argument to show that however we
may di sgui se i t by vei l i ng words we do not and cannot carry
out the di sti ncti on between l egi sl ati ve and executi ve acti on
wi th mathemati cal preci si on and di vi de the branches i nto
wateri ght compartments, were i t ever so desi rabl e to do so,
whi ch I am far from bel i evi ng that i t i s, or that the
Consti tuti on requi res.

The onl y qual i fi cati on of such l ati tude as otherwi se woul d be
consi stent wi th the three-fol d di vi si on of power, i s the
provi so i n secti on 22 of the Organi c Act 'that al l executi ve
functi ons of the government must be di rectl y under the
Governor General or wi thi n one of the executi ve
departments,' etc. Act of August 29, 1916, c. 416, 39 Stat.
553, U. S. C. ti t. 48, 1114. That does not appear to me to
govern the case. The corporati ons concerned were pri vate
corporati ons whi ch the l egi sl ature had power to i ncorporate.
Whoever owned the stock the corporati on di d not perform
functi ons of the government. Thi s woul d be pl ai n i f the stock
were i n pri vate hands, and i f the government bought the
stock from pri vate owners the functi ons of the corporati ons
woul d not be changed. If I am ri ght i n what I have sai d I thi nk
that ownershi p woul d not make voti ng upon the stock an
executi ve functi on of the government when the acts of the
corporati on were not. I cannot bel i eve that the Legi sl ature
mi ght not have provi ded for the hol di ng of the stock by a
board of pri vate persons wi th no duty to the government
other than to keep i t i nformed and to pay over such di vi dends
as mi ght accrue. It i s sai d that the functi ons of the board of
control are not l egi sl ati ve or judi ci al and therefore they must
be executi ve. I shoul d say rather that they pl ai nl y are no part
of the executi ve functi ons of the government but rather fal l
i nto the i ndi scri mi nate resi due of matters wi thi n l egi sl ati ve
control . I thi nk i t woul d be l amentabl e even to hi nt a doubt as
to the l egi ti macy of the acti on of Congress i n establ i shi ng the
Smi thsoni an as i t di d, and I see no suffi ci ent reason for
denyi ng the Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature a si mi l ar power.

Mr. Justi ce BRANDEIS agrees wi th thi s opi ni on.

Mr. Justi ce McREYNOLDS (di ssenti ng).

I thi nk the opi ni on of the majori ty goes much beyond the
necessi ti es of the case.

The Organi c Act i s careful to provi de:

'That al l executi ve functi ons of the government must be
di rectl y under the Governor General or wi thi n oen of the
executi ve departments under the supervi si on and control of
the Governor General .'

A good reason l i es behi nd thi s l i mi tati on whi ch does not apply
to our federal or state governments. From the l anguage
empl oyed, read i n the l i ght of al l the ci rcumstances, perhaps
i t i s possi bl e to spel l out enough to overthrow the chal l enged
l egi sl ati on. Beyond that i t i s unnecessary to go.

CC | Transformed by Publ i c.Resource.Org

1

Sec. 22. That, except as provi ded otherwi se i n thi s act, the
executi ve departments of the Phi l i ppi ne government shal l
conti nue as now authori zed by l aw unti l otherwi se provi ded
by the Phi l i ppine Legi sl ature. When the Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature
herei n provi ded shal l convene and organi ze, the Phi l i ppi ne
Commi ssi on as such, shal l cease and determi ne, amd the
members thereof shal l vacate thei r offi ces as members of
sai d commi ssi on: Provi ded, that the heads of executi ve
departments shal l conti nue to exerci se thei r executi ve
functi ons unti l the heads of departments provi ded by the
Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature pursuant to the provi si ons of thi s Act
are appoi nted and qual i fi ed. The Phi l i ppi ne Legi sl ature may
thereafter by appropri ate l egi sl ati on i ncrease the number or
abol i sh any of the executi ve departments, or make such
changes i n the names and duti es thereof as i t may see fi t, and
shal l provi de for the appoi ntment and removal of the heads
of the executi ve departments by the Governor General :
Provi ded, that al l executi ve functi ons of the government must
be di rectl y under the Governor General or wi thi n one of the
exeucti ve departments under the supervi si on and control of
the Governor General . * * * 48 USCA 1114.