The power of the President to control the institution and continuance of suits by the Attorney-General and his assistants may seem to some an improper one, but its existence has been recognized since the foundation of the government. In 1827 the Attorney-General declared that he " entertained no doubt of the constitutional power of the President to order the discontinuance of' a suit . . . for it is one of the highest du':ies to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and consequently that they may not be abused by any officer under his authority or control, to the grievance of any citizen." In 1831 Taney, then Attorney-General, declared: " If it should be said that the District Attorney having the power to discontinue the prosecution, there is no necessity for inferring a right in the President to direct him to exercise it, I answer that the direction of the President is not required to communicate any new authority to the District Attorney, but to direct him in the execution of a power he is admitted to possess. The most valuable and proper measure may often be for the President to order the District Attorney to discontinue prosecution. The District Attorney might refuse to obey the President's order; and if he did refuse, the prosecution, while he remained in office, would still go on; because the President himself could give no order to the court or to the clerk to make any particular entry. He could act only through his subordinate officer, the District Attorney, who is responsible to him and who holds his office at his pleasure. And if that officer still continue a prosecution which the President is satisfied ought not to continue, the removal of the disobedient officer and the substitution of one more worthy in his place would enable the President through him faithfully to execute the law. And it is for this among other reasons that the power of removing the District Attorney resides in the President." 24

24 Op. Atty.-Gen., II, 482.

In United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co.25 and United States v. Bell Telephone Co.20 was upheld a general power of the Attorney-General and of his assistants, acting not in pursuance of any express statutory authority, but under their general powers as officers for the enforcement of the legal rights of the United States, to institute suits. In the first case the court say: " If the United States in any particular case has a just cause for calling upon the judiciary of the country, in any of its courts for relief . . . the question of the appeal to the judicial tribunals of the country must primarily be decided by the Attorney-General of the United States. . . . We are not insensible to the enormous power and its capacity for evil thus reposed in that department of the Government. . . . But it has often been said that the fact that the exercise of power may be abused is no sufficient reason for denying its existence, and if restrictions are to be placed upon the exercise of this authority by the Attorney-General it is for the legislative body which created the office to enact them."