[758] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, op. cit., at 582.
[759] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al., v. Sawyer, 103 F. Supp. 978.
[760] Id., at 980, 981.
[761] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., et al., v. Sawyer, 103 F. Supp. 569.
[762] Id., at 573.
[763] Mr. A. Holmes Baldridge, the Assistant Attorney General, conducting the government’s defense, rejected every opportunity offered by the District Court to justify the seizure order under a particular clause of the Constitution, or a specific statute. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, Dockets No. 744 and 745, 1952. Transcript of Record, passim. (Washington, 1952). In his brief filed with Judge Pine on April 25, Mr. Baldridge claimed for “The President of the United States of America ... inherent power in such a situation to take possession of the steel companies in the manner and to the extent which he did by his Executive Order of April 8, 1952. This power is supported by the Constitution, by historical precedent, and by court decisions.” Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction—Filed April 25, 1952, p. 113.
[764] Transcript of Record, op. cit., p. 377. In addition, the following colloquy is illuminating:
The Court: “... As I understand it, you do not assert any statutory power.”
Mr. Baldridge: “That is correct.”
The Court: “And you do not assert any express constitutional power.”