The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
The following legal points are necessary to be borne in mind in connection with the current problem: (1) Where no fixed term of office of a particular inferior executive officer has been fixed by Congress, the President has the unlimited power of removal with or without cause. (2) Where the term of an officer of a legislative or judicial agency is fixed by the statute or where his removal for cause is provided for, the President may remove such officer only after notice and hearing and upon a finding of legal cause. (3) Legal cause is any cause which directly relates to and affects the administration of the particular office to which the officer has been appointed. Bearing in mind the three principles outlined above it should be noted that the office of Governor of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is one which requires the performance of quasi-legislative (and sometimes quasi-judicial) functions; the term of office of a Governor is fixed by law; and the power of removal, while vested in the President, is limited n for cause". So far as legal cause in this case is concerned, it would appear that continued absence from Washington and an apparent unwillingness or inability to grasp and fully understand some of the basic problems under the Board 1 s administration (which has already required certain changes in Board Member assignments) are circumstances which directly reflect upon the competency of the individual to perform his duties. In addition, the extent to which he has usurped power as a Board Member to cause the expenditure of Board funds for purely private purposes casts serious reflection upon his official integrity. Finally, the information reported to the Board by those who have attended various functions addressed by the incumbent, particularly that relating to the tenor and quality of his remarks in reflecting upon the integrity of the Board, both individually and collectively, when added to all of the foregoing would seem to place the fact of his incompetency to hold public office beyond challenge. If the President should determine to take action, the first course (which might well eliminate the necessity for any further action) would be to call the incumbent to the White House and offer him a chance to resign. Should he decline to do so, it would then be necessary for the President to meet the requirements of "notice and hearing". The simplest way in which this requirement could be met would be by the President addressing a communication to the incumbent officer notifying him in reasonable detail of the nature of the causes which have come to the Presidents attention, the fixing of a time and place (either before the President himself or before some Executive Assistant designated for the purpose) when the evidence on both sides might be received. 2Thls does not necessarily require any formal procedure in court room manner and could be handled quite infernally. Lastly, th0 President should, on the basis of the record which has been presented to him, notify the incxmibent of his removal from office "for tncompetency and gross neglect of duty*.
@FedFRASER