480 Opinion of the Court. vides but to "any person not an enemy or ally of enemy or national of any foreign country." That would wipe out all suits to reclaim property brought by any foreign interest, no matter how friendly. We stated in Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404, 410-411, "The right to sue, explicitly granted by § 9 (a), should not be read out of the law unless it is clear that Congress by what it later did withdrew its earlier permission." Such a drastic contraction, if not complete sterilization, of § 9 (a) as petitioner suggests should therefore be made only if no other alternative is open. There are several reasons which make us hesitate to take that course. In the first place, as we have suggested, the phase of the problem with which we are presently concerned and with which Congress was wrestling when it amended the Act in 1941 started and ended with property having an enemy taint. We find not the slightest suggestion that Congress was concerned under this Act with property owned or controlled by friendly or neutral powers and in no way utilized by the Axis. Those interests were not waging economic warfare against us. Secondly, we are dealing here with the power "to affirmatively compel the use and application of foreign property in a manner consistent with the interests of the United States." Sen. Rep. No. 911, 77th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2. It is hard for us to assume that Congress adopted that drastic course in the case of friendly or neutral foreign interests whose investments in our economy were in no way infected with enemy ownership or control. Our hesitation is, moreover, increased when we note that § 7 (c) makes the remedy under the Act the only one Congress has granted a claimant. It is not easy for us to assume that Congress treated all non-enemy nations, including As to the powers of the custodian or other agency designated by the President over the property, see § 5 (b) (1), supra note 4, and § 12. Opinion of the Court. 332 U.S. our recent allies, in such a harsh manner, leaving them only with such remedy as they might have under the Fifth Amendment. The problem is not without its difficulties whichever way we turn. But we think that we adhere more closely to the policy of both § 5 (b) as amended and § 9 (a), if we do not carry over into the amended Act the consequences of Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller, supra. As we have observed, the scheme of the Act when Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller was decided was to respect the corporate form, even though the enemy held all the stock of the corporate claimant. Hamburg-American Co. v. United States, supra. The 1941 amendment to § 5 (b) reflected a complete reversal in that policy. The power of seizure and vesting was extended to all property of any foreign country or national so that no innocent appearing device could become a Trojan horse. Congress did not, however, alter the definitions of enemy or of ally of enemy contained in § 2. They remain the same as they were at the time Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller was decided." Yet if the question were presented for the first time under the amended Act, we could not confine the statutory definitions of enemy or ally of enemy to the narrow categories indicated by Behn, Meyer & Co. v. Miller. To do so would be to run counter to the policy of the Act and be disruptive of its purpose. We are dealing with hasty legislation which Congress did not stop to perfect as an integrated whole. Our task is to give all of it— 1917 to 1941-the most harmonious, comprehensive meaning possible. Markham v. Cabell, supra. So if the definitions contained in § 2 are to be harmonized with the policy underlying § 5 (b) and § 9 (a) of the amended Act, we would have to say that they are merely illus 7 See note 2, supra. 8 See note 2, supra. 8 480 Opinion of the Court. trative, not exclusionary. To do otherwise would be to impute to Congress a purpose to paralyze with one hand what it sought to promote with the other. There is perhaps in logic some basis for saying that that should be the consequence since Congress did not amend 2 when it revised the Act by its amendment of § 5 (b). The argument is that the only change effected was in § 5 (b) and that § 2 which stands unamended should be taken to mean what it meant before 1941. But the answer to our problem cannot be had by the use of logic alone. We are dealing here with conflict and confusion in the statute. Though neither § 2 nor § 9 (a) was amended with § 5 (b) in 1941, one of them must be read differently after than before that event. We believe it is more consonant with the functions sought to be served by the Act to apply § 2 differently than it was previously applied than to read § 9 (a) more restrictively. We believe a more harmonious reading of § 2, § 5 (b) and § 9 (a) is had if the concept of enemy or ally of enemy is given a scope which helps the amendment of 1941 fulfill its mission and which does not make § 9 (a) for the first time in its history and contrary to the normal connotation of its terms stand as a barrier to the recovery of property by foreign interests which have no possible connection with the enemy. It is suggested, however, that this approach may produce results which are both absurd and uncertain. It is said that the entire property of a corporation would be jeopardized merely because a negligible stock interest, perhaps a single share, was directly or indirectly owned or controlled by an enemy or ally of an enemy. It is also pointed out that securities or interests other than stock might be held by an enemy or ally of an enemy and used effectively in economic warfare against this country. But what these interests are, the extent of holdings necessary to constitute an enemy taint, what part of a friendly alien corporation's property may be retained where only a fractional enemy ownership appears, are left undecided. Since we assume from the allegations of the complaint that respondent is free of enemy taint and therefore is not within the definition of enemy or ally of an enemy, those problems are not now before us. We recognize their importance; but they must await legislative or judicial clarification. Affirmed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. WILLIAMS ET AL. v. FANNING, POSTMASTER OF LOS ANGELES. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 47. Argued October 22, 1947. Decided December 8, 1947. 1. Those against whom the Postmaster General has issued a postal fraud order may sue the local postmaster to enjoin him from carrying out the order; and the Postmaster General is not an indispensable party. Pp. 492-494. 2. The superior officer is an indispensable party if a decree granting the relief sought will require him to take action, either by exercising directly a power lodged in him or by having a subordinate exercise it for him. Pp. 492-493. 3. The superior officer is not an indispensable party if the decree which is entered would effectively grant the relief desired by expending itself on the subordinate official who is before the court. Pp. 493-494. 158 F.2d 95, reversed. See 60 Stat. 50, adding § 32 (a) (2) (E) to the Act. 490 Opinion of the Court. The District Court dismissed a suit to enjoin a postmaster from carrying out a fraud order issued by the Postmaster General. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 158 F. 2d 95. This Court granted certiorari. 331 U. S. 797. Reversed, p. 494. Richard L. North argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Irving M. Walker. Frederick Bernays Wiener argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Perlman, Herbert A. Bergson, Paul A. Sweeney and Melvin Richter. MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court. This case, here on certiorari to resolve a conflict between the circuits,' presents the question whether those against whom the Postmaster General has issued a postal fraud order may sue the local postmaster to enjoin him from carrying out the order or whether the Postmaster General is an indispensable party. The Postmaster General, after a hearing in Washington, D. C., found that petitioners' weight-reducing enterprise was fraudulent. He accordingly issued a fraud order (R. S. §§ 3929, 4041, 39 U. S. C. §§ 259, 732) directing respondent, postmaster at Los Angeles, California (where petitioners do business) to refuse payment of any money order drawn to the order of petitioners, to The Circuit Court of Appeals in the instant case followed its earlier decisions holding that the Postmaster General was an indispensable party. Neher v. Harwood, 128 F. 2d 846; Dolphin v. Starr, 130 F. 2d 868. Accord: National Conference v. Goldman, 85 F. 2d 66 (Second Circuit). Contra: Jarvis v. Shackelton Inhaler Co., 136 F. 2d 116 (Sixth Circuit). For collection and review of the cases see 158 A. L. R. 1126. 762211 O-48-36 |