<<  <  >  >>

Page 7

A scheme of government like ours no doubt at times feels the lack of power to act with

complete, all-embracing, swiftly moving authority. No doubt a government with distributed

authority, subject to be challenged in the courts of law, at least long enough to consider and

adjudicate the challenge, labors under restrictions from which other governments are free. It has

not been our tradition to envy such governments. In any event our government was designed to

have such restrictions. The price was deemed not too high in view of the safeguards which these

restrictions afford. I know no more impressive words on this subject than those of Mr. Justice

Brandeis:

"The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the

Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the

exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose was, not to avoid friction, but,

by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the

governmental powers among three departments, to save the people from

autocracy." Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 240, 293.

It is not a pleasant judicial duty to find that the President has exceeded his powers and

still less so when his purposes were dictated by concern for the Nation's well-being, in the

assured conviction that he acted to avert danger. But it would stultify one's faith in our people to

entertain even a momentary fear that the patriotism and the wisdom of the President and the

Congress, as well as the long view of the immediate parties in interest, will not find ready

accommodation for differences on matters which, however close to their concern and however

intrinsically important, are overshadowed by the awesome issues which confront the world. [Ibid.