United States of America Ex Rel Alpheus Brown v. Franklin Lane
| Decision Date | 09 March 1914 |
| Citation | 34 S.Ct. 449,232 U.S. 598,58 L.Ed. 748 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. ALPHEUS H. BROWN v. FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary of the Interior. No. ___ |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Andrew Wilson, Albert L. Wilson, and James P. Schick for petitioner.
No appearance for Franklin K. Lane.
Memorandum opinion by direction of the court. By Mr. Chief Justice white:
The act of June 28, 1906, entitled, An Act for 'the Division of the Lands and Funds of the Osage Indians in Oklahoma Territory, and for Other Purposes,' in its 9th section provided, among other things, for a tribal council composed of eight persons. The members of this council were to be chosen at an election whose date was fixed, and which was to be conducted in the manner directed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, provision being made for the biennial recurrence of such election, and consequently for a two years' term for the members of the council. The provision, however, creating the council, contained this express qualification: 'And the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to remove from the council any member or members thereof for good cause, to be by him determined.' 34 Stat. at L. 545, chap. 3572. On January 2d, 1913, the Secretary of the Interior, in the exertion of the power thus conferred, by a formal order removed 'each and every member of the council.' It was declared in the order that the power exercised was exerted for good cause, and this statement was followed by a specification of various acts of misfeasance or nonfeasance, which it was deemed rendered the removal necessary. Among those who were thus removed was A. H. Brown, the relator, who, shortly after the action of the Secretary that is, in February, 1913, commenced proceedings by mandamus to vacate the order on the ground that it had been made without previous notice, and without affording an opportunity to be heard and to defend and therefore was not authorized by the statute, and, if it was authorized, was void because repugnant to the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
The trial court denied the relief, and the court of appeals of the district, in affirming such action, held that the statute conferred upon the Secretary power to remove without necessity of notice or hearing; and moreover, that as so construed the statute was not in conflict with the Constitution (40 App. D. C. 533). This application for the allowance of a writ of error is before us because of the reference of the same to the court by the chief justice, to whom it was primarily presented.
The asserted right to the writ is based upon the third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of § 250 of the Judicial Code: the third conferring the right to review 'in cases involving the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States, or the constitutionality of any law of the United States;' the fifth giving such right 'in cases in which the validity of any authority exercised under the United States, or the existence or scope of any power or duty of an officer of the United States, is drawn in question;' and the sixth also giving the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bailey v. Richardson
...622, 60 S.Ct. 377, 84 L. Ed. 519; United States ex rel. Brown v. Lane, 1913, 40 App.D.C. 533, writ of error denied 1914, 232 U.S. 598, 34 S.Ct. 449, 58 L.Ed. 748. 70 United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft supra note 71 1948, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 138, 171 F.2d 145, 146. 72 Eberlein v. United States......
-
McCurdy v. Steele
...(citation omitted); United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, 329 U.S. 40, 54, 67 S.Ct. 167, 91 L.Ed. 29 (1946); Brown v. Lane, 232 U.S. 598, 34 S.Ct. 449, 58 L.Ed. 748 (1914); C. J. Antieau, II Modern Constitutional Law § 12.136 (1969). A review of the cases suggests that the Fifth Amendm......
-
Stephan v. United States 8212
...REED, and by him referred to the full Court. Cf. Budlong v. Budlong, 296 U.S. 550, 56 S.Ct. 245, 80 L.Ed. 389; Brown v. Lane, 232 U.S. 598, 600, 34 S.Ct. 449, 450, 58 L.Ed. 748; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U.S. 131, 143, 8 S.Ct. 21, 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Bess v. West Virginia, 308 U.S. 509, 60 S.Ct. ......
-
In re Luken
... ... McKEY v. STEGER. No. 2062.United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.August ... 936; Equitable Assurance Society v ... Brown, 187 U.S. 308, 314, 23 Sup.Ct. 123, 47 ... [216 ... 982; United States ex rel ... Brown v. Lane, 232 U.S. 598, 34 Sup.Ct. 449, 58 L.Ed ... 748 ... ...