principal’s son and the principal’s doctor, and then notarized. The Durable General Power of Attorney was later challenged by the principal’s daughter, who claimed that the principal had lacked mental capacity to sign the document, due to his medical condition. In re Hoerter, 15 Misc.3d 1101(A), 836 N.Y.S.2d 499 (Table N.Y. Sur. 2007). FURTHER READINGS McGovern, William M., and Sheldon F. Kurtz. 2001. Wills, Trusts, and Estates. 2d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Group. CROSS REFERENCES Signature. X, MALCOLM See MALCOLM X. X RATING A classification devised by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) in 1968 to designate certain films containing excessive violence or explicit sexuality. It was replaced in 1990 by the NC-17 rating (no one 17 and under admitted). Since the 1920s the U.S. movie industry has practiced self-regulation to forestall government CENSORSHIP. In 1968, the MPAA and NATO adopted a movie-rating system that is based on age classification. Any film produce d or distrib- uted by members of MPAA must receive a rating from a Ratings Board, which is part of its Classification and Rating Administration. There are five rating classifications: G (suitable for all ages); PG (parental guidance suggested); PG-13 (may not be suitable for children under age 13); R (restricted, children you nger than age 17 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian); and, until 1990, X (no one under age 17 admitted). In 1990, the X rating was changed to NC-17. The distinction between the R and the X rating was based on the overall sexual or violent content ofa movie. A movie was given an R rating if it contained adult themes, nudity, sex, or profanity. A movie given an X rating contained an accumulation of brutal or sexually connota- tive language or explicit sex, or excessive and sadistic violence. Over time, very few MPAA-prod uced movies were given an X rating. If an X rating was awarded, a producer would usually re-edit the film to qualify for an R rating. This re- editing was done because theater owners generally refused to book X-rated movies, thereby reducing the size of the potential audience. In the 1970s, the X-rating concept was used by the producers and exhibitors of pornographic movies as a promotional device. Though these films were not MPAA produc- tions, and the producers could not submit their films for review, the X rating was not trademarked by MPAA. This meant that pornographic films could be advertised as X-rated or XXX-rated, which suggested that the MPAA’s X rating was a code for hardcore PORNOGRAPHY. Because of this problem, the X rating was changed in 1990 to NC-17. The MPAA sought to reaffirm the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 1968 ratings design, in which the “adults-only” category explicitly describes a movie that most parents would not want their children to see. Unlike the X rating, the NC-17 rating was trademarked by the MPAA, so it could not be used by producers of films that were not MPAA productions. Despite the attempt to remove the taint of pornography from the adults-only category, the NC-17 rating, like the X rating before it, is avoided by motion picture compa- nies. Theater owners remain opposed to exhibiting films that substantially restrict the size of the potential audience, many of whom are 17 years old or younger. Because it was never trademarked, the X rating is still used occasionally by films that do not seek the MPAA’s approval. More Movies may be advertised as rated XXX in order to attract customers, but this is not a rating from the Motion Picture Association of America, which only rates movies produced by its members. JAMES LEYNSE/CORBIS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 478 X, MALCOLM commonly, those films are released as unrated or with no rating. FURTHER READINGS Classification and Rating Administration Website. “Every- thing You Always Wanted to Know about the Movie Rating System.” Available online at www.filmratings. com/questions.htm (accessed Sept. 25, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Entertainment Law; Movie Rating; Theaters and Shows. XYY CHROMOSOMAL ABNORMALITY DEFENSE A legal theory that holds that a defendant’s XYY chromosomal abnormality is a condition that should relieve him or her of legal responsibility for his or her criminal act. Criminologists have examined many theories as to why a person becomes a criminal. Since the nineteenth century, biological theories have been proposed that seek to link criminal behavior with innate characteristics, yet these theories have been strongly challenged by the scientific com- munity. With the development of modern genetics, scientists have noted abnormalities in the chromosomal structure of some people. A chromosome is the threadlike part of the cell that carries hereditary information in the form of genes. The normal human genetic complement consists of 23 pairs of chromo- somes. One of these pairs determines gender. Women have two X chromosomes, and men usually have an X and a Y chromosome. However, in 1 in 500 to 1,000 live male births, an individual has an extra Y chromosome. This XYY abnormality is often characterized by tallness and severe acne and sometimes by skeletal malformations and mental deficiency. With the discovery of the XYY abnormality in 1961, some social scientists proposed a link between the abnormality and aggressive and impulsive behavior. This “supermale” syn- drome seemed confirmed when studies of prison populations showed the presence of the abnormality to be significantly higher than in the general population. Armed with these studies, defense attorneys sought to use the XYY chromosomal abnor- mality as a criminal defense theory. However, the defense has never been successfully used in the United States. Though the abnormality can be easily diagnosed using a blood test, the courts have rejected the defense because of the lack of conclusiveness of SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE regarding the theory of criminality. The legal community’s misgivings have been confirmed by subsequent studies of the general population, especially those in which affected individuals were observed from early childhood over a long period of time. These studies have cast serious doubt on the validity of linking the chromosomal anomaly directly to behavioral abnormalities. Numerous XYY individuals live normal lives as law-abiding citizens. In the early twenty-first century, the XYY defense is com- pletely discredited and is very rarely used. XYZ AFFAIR The XYZ Affair was a diplomatic incident that almost led to war between the United States and France. The scandal inflamed U.S. public opinion and led to the passage of the ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS of 1798 (1 Stat. 570, 596). Though the affair caused an unofficial naval war, the two countries were able to negotiate their differences and end their co nflict in 1800. The affair took place during one of the Napoleonic wars between France and Great Britain. The French regarded the United States as a hostile nation, particularly after the signing of Jay’s Treaty in 1794. This treaty settled some of the problems that continued to cause friction between the United States and Great Britain after the peace treaty of 1783 that granted the colonies independence. Consequently, President JOHN ADAMS appointed Charles Pinckney minis- ter to France in 1796 in an attempt to ease French-U.S. relations. After Charles Talleyrand, the French foreign minister, refused to recognize Pinckney, Adams appointed a commission to France, consisting of Pinckney, JOHN MARSHALL, and Elbridge Gerry. Before official negotiations on a treaty to establish peaceful relations and normalize trade could occur, Talleyrand sent three French agents to meet with the commission members. The agents suggested that Talleyrand would agree to the treaty if he received from the United States a $250,000 bribe and France received a $10 million loan. The commission refused, with Pinckney quoted as saying, “No! No! Not a sixpence! ” Outraged, the commission sent a report to Adams, who inserted the letters X, Y, and Z in place of the agents’ names and forwarded the report to Congress. Congress and the public GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION XYZ AFFAIR 479 were angered at the attempted BLACKMAIL.An undeclared naval war took place between the two nations between 1798 and 1800. Anticipat- ing a declared war with France, Congress enacted the Alien and SEDITION Acts. These internal security laws were aimed at French and Irish immigrants, who were thought to be supportive of France. The acts lengthened the period of NATURALIZATION for ALIENS, authorized the president to expel any alien considered dangerous, permitted the detention of subjects of an enemy nation, and limited FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Talleyrand, unwilling to risk a declared war with the United States, sought an end to the dispute. The next U.S. delegation that was sent to France was treated with appropriate respect, and the Treaty of Morfontaine, which restored normal relations between France and the United States, was signed in 1800. The XYZ Affair also served as the basis for the first direct federal tax imposed on Amer- icans in 1798, essentially a property tax on land and slaves. FURTHER READINGS Finklestein, Paul, ed. 2006. Encyclopedia of the American Nation. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Stinchcombe, William C. 1980. The XYZ Affair. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Vaughan, Harold Cecil. 1972. The XYZ Affair, 1797–98: The Diplomacy of the Adams Administration and an Unde- clared War with France. New York: F. Watts. CROSS REFERENCES Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 480 XYZ AFFAIR YALTA AGREEMENT British prime minister Winston Churchill, U.S. president FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, and Soviet premier JOSEPH STALIN met from February 4 to 11, 1945, at Yalta, in the Crimea. The conference—the last atten ded by all three of these leaders—produced an agreement con- cerning the prosecution of the war against Japan, the occupation of Germany, the structure of the UNITED NATIONS, and the post–WORLD WAR II fate of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria. The Yalta agreement proved to be controversial, as many in the United States criticized Roosevelt for abandon- ing Eastern Europe to the Communists. Roosevelt went to Yalta seeking early Soviet participation in the war against Japan. Fearing that Japan would not surrender easily, Roosevelt promised Stalin the return of territories lost following the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan, but only 90 days after the surrender of Germany. With the surrender of Japan in August 1945, which followed the dropping of nuclear bombs by the United States on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet Union obtained the promised territories after expending minimal military effort. Roosevelt also sought Stalin’s approval of the U.N. Charter, which had already been drafted. Stalin had previously insisted that each of the 16 Soviet republics be represented and that the permanent members of the Security Council retain a permanent VETO on all issues, not just those involving sanctions or threats to peace. Roosevelt and Churchill objected to this proposal, and at Yalta, Stalin agreed to three seats for the Soviet Union in the General Assembly and a limited veto. The postwar status of Germany was also settled at Yalta. Germany was to be divided into four zones of occupation by the three countries and France, as was the city of Berlin. Germany was to have its industrial base rebuilt, but its armaments industries were to be abolished or confiscated. The leaders also approved the creation of an international court to try German leaders as war criminals, setting the stage for the NUREMBERG TRIALS and other denazification efforts. The most troublesome issue was the fate of the Eastern European countries that Germany had conquered during the war. The Soviet army occupied most of the territory, making it difficult for Churchill and Rooseve lt to bargain with Stalin on this point. It was agreed that interim govern ments in these countries would give way to democratically elected regimes as soon as practicable. On Poland, Churchill and Roosevelt abandoned the London-based Polish government-in-exile, agreeing that members of this group must work with the Soviet- dominated group with headquarters in Lublin, Poland. The boundaries of Poland were altered as well, with its eastern border following the Curzon Line and its western border expanded into former German territories. Y 481 In the aftermath of World War II, the results envisioned in the Yalta agreement on Eastern Europe proved illusory. Communist regimes were established by the Soviet Union, accompa- nied by the destruction of democratic political groups. The legacy of Yalta continued until the collapse of COMMUNISM and the emergence of democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. FURTHER READINGS Harbutt, Fraser. 2009. Yalta 1945: Europe and America at the Crossroads. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Yakovlev, Alexander, ed. 1985. The Yalta Conference, 1945: Lessons of History. Moscow: Novosti Press Agency. CROSS REFERENCES Roosevelt, Frankl in Delano; S talin, Joseph; World War II. YEAR BOOKS Books of legal cases, or reporters, published annually in England from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. The development of English COMMON LAW was based on the law of the case. Lawyers and courts relied on previous court decisions that involved similar issues of law and fact. The law of the case could not take hold, however, until cases were recorded, reported, and eventually published. The English Year Books, which were created in about 1290 , are the first example of a reporting system. Though they were informal and often contained running commentary about the judges’ personalities and the lawyers’ quips, the Year Books were referred to increas- ingly by judges and lawyers. During the reign of King Edward I (1272- 1307) legal materials began to be collected into separate books for each year. During this early period the Year Books were extremely informal. They contained accounts by anonymous scribes and law students of courtroom proceedings and arguments that helped explain the judicial decision. The quality of the reports varied according to the abilities of the note takers. Despite these shortcomings, the reports con- veyed basic procedural information to lawyers and students, but they stated few RULES OF LAW. English LEGAL PUBLISHING began in 1481 with the printing of the Year Book. Until that time Year Books had been prepared and circulated in handwritten copies. It was during this period that the Year Books became more professional and unif orm. They were published at the expense of the Crown, but they were not official reports of cases. The printed versions were arranged by year, but it sometimes took two or three years after a case had been decided for it to be reported. The compilation of Year Books ceased in 1535 during the reign of King Henry VIII, for reasons that remain unclear. Thereafter court reports were issued in a different form by named reporters. Since the late nineteenth century, modern critical editions of the Year Books have been prepared by the SELDEN SOCIETY. Legal historians have found the Year Books a rich source of information about law and life in medieval England. YELLOW DOG CONTRACT An employment agreement whereby a worker promises not to join a LABOR UNION or promises to resign from a union if he or she is already a member. Until the 1930s, employers were able to use a variety of measures to prevent employees from joining LABOR UNIONS. One of the most effective was the yellow dog contract, which frequently forced employees to either sign an agreement not to join a union or be fired. Courts upheld the legality of yell ow dog contracts and frequently struck down state laws that sought to outlaw them. The enactment of the WAGNER ACT in 1935 (29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) finally put an end to these types of agreements. (L-r) British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin meet in Yalta, in the Crimea, in February 1945. RARE BOOKS AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS DIVISION, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 482 YEAR BOOKS The U.S. Supreme Court’s hostility to efforts by government to outlaw the yellow dog contract was rooted in the concept of “liberty of contract.” Near the end of the nineteenth century, the Court used the DUE PROCESS provisions of the Fifth and Fou rteenth Amend- ments to the U.S. Constitu tion to strike down federal and state laws regulating business. These amendments provide that no government was to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Court interpreted this prohibition to include the negotiating of terms of employment be- tween an employer and an employee. Therefore, in Adair v. United States, 208 U.S. 161, 28 S. Ct. 277, 52 L. Ed. 436 (1908), the Court struck down a federal law that protected union members by prohibiting yellow dog contracts and the discharge or blacklisting of employees for union activities. In his majority opinion Justice JOHN HARLAN presumed that there was equal bargaining power between an employer and an employee, and that the law was an unreasonable intrusion on personal liberty and property rights, as guaranteed by the FIFTH AMENDMENT. When Kansas enacted a law prohibiting yellow dog contracts, the Court declared the law unconstitutional under the FOURTEENTH AMEND- MENT as an infringement of freedom of contract. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 35 S. Ct. 240, 59 L. Ed. 441 (1915). The Wagner Act of 1935 gave employees the right to join unions and to bargain collectively with their employers. Congress outlawed the yellow dog contract and other UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES on the part of employers, finding that these practices were contrary to public policy. Existing yellow dog contracts were declared unenforceable by the courts. The Supreme Court’s upholding of the constitutionality of the Wagner Act in NLRB V. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP ., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S. Ct. 615, 81 L. Ed. 893 (1937), meant the end of the yellow dog contract. FURTHER READINGS Cushman, Barry. 1992. “Doctrinal Synergies and Liberal Dilemmas: The Case of the Yellow-Dog Contract.” Supreme Court Review (annual). Ernst, Daniel. 1989. “The Yellow-Dog Contract and Liberal Reform, 1917–1932.” Labor History 30 (spring). CROSS REFERENCES Labor Law; Substantive Due Process. YICK WO V. HOPKINS An 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 6 S. Ct. 1064, 30 L. Ed. 220 (1886), held that the unequal applica- tion of a law violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. A law that is racially neutral on its face may be deliberately administered in a discriminatory way, or it may have been enacted in order to disadvantage a racial minority. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court stated for the first time that a state or municipal law that appears to be fair on its face will be declared unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amend- ment because of its discriminatory purpose. Yick Wo, a native and subject of China, was convicted and imprisoned for violating an ordinance of the city of San Francisco, California, which made it unlawful to maintain a laundry “without having first obtained the consent of the board of supervisors, except the same be located in a building constructed either of brick or stone.” The 1880 ordinance was neutral on its face, but its purpose and its administration appeared suspect to Yick Wo and other Chinese. Most laundries in San Francisco were owned by Chinese and were constructed out of wood. The few laundries owned by whites were located in brick build- ings. At the time the ordinance was passed, Chinese immigration had brought around 75,000 Chinese to California, half of whom lived in San Francisco. The white population became increasingly anti-Chinese and sought ways to control the Chinese population. In 1885 the San Francisco Board of Super- visors denied Yick Wo and 200 other Chinese laundry owners their licenses, even though their establishments had previously passed city inspections. After he was denied his license, Yick Wo continued to operate his business. He was eventually arrested and jailed for ten days for violating the ordinance. More than 150 other Chinese laundry owners were also arrested for violating the ordinance. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Yick Wo argued that the ordinance violated the Fourteenth Amendment, as the law denied him equal protection of the laws. He poi nted out that only one-quarter of the laundries could operate under the ordinance, with 73 owned by non-Chinese and only one owned by a Chinese. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION YICK WO V. HOPKINS 483 San Francisco contended the ordinance was a valid exercise of the POLICE POWERS granted by the U.S. Constitution to cities and states. Justice STANLEY MATTHEWS, writing for a unanimous court, struck down the ordinance. Matthews looked past the neutral language to strike down the ordinance as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. He found that the division between wood and brick buildings was an “arbitrary line.” Moreover, whatever the intent of the law may have been, the administration of the ordinance was carried out “with a mind so unequal and oppressive as to amount to a practical denial by the state” of equal protection of the laws. Matthews held that: Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appliance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations be- tween persons in similar circumstances, mate- rial to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the constitution. Because the unequal application of the ordinance furthered “unjust and illegal discrim- ination,” the Court ruled that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo has become a central part of CIVIL RIGHTS jurisprudence. If a law has a discrimina- tory purpose or is administered unequally, courts will apply the Fourteenth Amendment and strike down the law. Yick Wo is also the source of modern civil rights DISPARATE IMPACT cases, in which discrimination is established by statistical inequality rather than through proof of intentional discrimination. FURTHER READINGS Chin, Gabriel J. 2007. “Unexplainable on Grounds of Race: Doubts about Yick Wo.” Arizona Legal Studies Working Paper No. 30-07. Kaylor, Dan. 1980. “Orders that Wouldn't Wash: Historical Background of Yick Wo v. Hopkins.” Lincoln Law Review 11 (spring). Maltz, Earl M. 1994. “The Federal Government and the Problem of Chinese Rights in the Era of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 17 (winter). YIELD Current return from an investment or expenditure as a percentage of the price of investment or expenditure. The term yield is the proportionate rate that income from an investment bears to the total cost of the investment. For example, a ten-dollar profit on a one hundred dollar investment represents a 10 percent yield. Thus, a yield for stock dividends or bond interest paid will be expressed as a percentage of the current price. A yield can also refer to the bond coupon or STOCK DIVIDEND rate, divided by the purchase price. There are several specific types of yields. On bonds, a current yield is the annual interest paid, divided by the current market price of the bond. As interest rates fall, the market price of the bond rises; as they rise, bond prices fall. The current yield reflects the actual rate of return on a bond. For example, a 9.5 percent bond with a face value of $1,000 yields $95 per year. If this bond is purchased on the secondary bond market for $1,100, the interest will still be $95 per year, but the current yield will be reduced to 8.6 percent because the new owner paid more for the bond. A nominal yield is the annual income received from a fixed-income security, divided by the face value of the security. It is stated as a percentage figure. For example, if a security with a face value of $5,000 were to generate $500 in income, the nominal yield would be 10 percent. On bonds, a yield to maturity is a complex calculation that reflects the overall rate of return an investor would receive from a bond if the bond is held to maturity and the interest payments are reinvested at the same rate. It takes into account the purchase price, the coupon yield, the time to maturity, and the time between interest payments. A net yield is the rate of return on an investment after deducting all costs, losses, and charges for investment. A dividend yield is the current annual dividend, divided by the market price per share of stock. “Yield spread” refers to differences in yields between various issues of SECURITIES. In the old ENGLISH LAW of real property, when a tenant did a service for his landlord, that was referred to as a yield. This is why older leases often utilize the term “yielding and paying” in reference to the reservation of rent. YORK-ANTWERP RULES A group of directives relating to uniform bills of lading and governing the settlement of maritime losses among the several inter ests, including ship and cargo owners. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 484 YIELD Maritime law includes international agree- ments, national laws on shipping, and private agreements voluntarily adhered to by the parties involvedinshippingcontracts.TheYork-Antwerp Rules of General Average are the best known example of such private agreements, as they establish the rights and obligations of the parties when cargo must be jettisoned from a ship. Under the law of general average, if cargo is jettisoned in a successful effort to refloat a grounded vessel, the owners of the vessel and the cargo saved are required to absorb a proportionate share of the loss, in order to compensate the owner of the cargo that has been singled out for sacrifice. All participants in the maritime venture contribute to offset the losses incurred. The law of general average became an early form of marine insurance. The York-Antwerp Rules were first promul- gated in 1890 and have been amended several times, most recently in 1994. They are the result of conferences of representatives of mercantile interests from many countries. The rules provide uniform guidelines on the law of general average that are included in private shipping agreements and depend upon their voluntary acceptance by the maritime community. These international rules ensure uniformity and determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The rules are incorporated by reference into most bills of lading (documents given by a shipping company that list the goods accepted for transport and sometimes list the terms of the shipping agreement), contracts of affreight- ment (a contract with a ship owner to hire the ship, or part of it, for the carriage of goods), and marine insurance policies. The York-Antwerp Rules attempt to cover many types of expenses associated with an imperiled ship. For example, the rules provide for recovery by the ship owner of the costs of repair, loading and unloading cargo, and main- taining the crew, if these expenses are necessary for the safe completion of the voyage. Claims are generally made against the insurer of the cargo and the ship owner’s insurance underwriters. FURTHER READINGS Cooke, Julian, and Richard Cornah. 2007. The Law of General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules.13th ed. West Yorkshire, U.K.: Sweet & Maxwell. Fernandez, Charles and Anthony. 1999. “Interpreting the Rule of Interpretation In the York-Antwerp Rules.” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 30 (July). Kouladis, Nicholas. 2006. Principles of Law Relating to International Trade. New York: Springer. CROSS REFERENCES Admiralty and Maritime Law; Shipping Law. v YOUNG, OWEN D. Owen D. Young was a prominent corporate lawyer and businessperson who played a major part in negotiating German reparations follow- ing WORLD WAR I. His 1929 proposal to restructure reparations, called the Young Plan, was an attempt to relieve financial pressure on Germany and end active oversight of its economy by the United States, Great Britain, and France. Young was born on October 27, 1874, in Van Hornesville, New York. He graduated from St. Lawrence University in 1894 and earned a law degree from Boston University in 1896. He later completed a doctorate in Hebrew literature in 1923 from St. Lawr ence. Young practiced law in Boston from 1896 until 1913, when he moved to New York City. In 1913 Young’s handling of a case against a General Electric Company subsidiary brou ght an invitation to become GE’s general counsel. By 1922 he had become chairman of the board. Owen D. Young. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MANAGERS [ARE] NO LONGER ATTORNEYS FOR STOCKHOLDERS , THEY [ARE] BECOMING TRUSTEES OF AN INSTITUTION . —OWEN D. YOUNG GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION YOUNG, OWEN D. 485 Always interested in the problems of the laboring man, he pushed for the adoption of employee STOCK OPTION plans and the use of unemployment insurance. Under his guidance (and teaming with president Gerard Swope), GE shifted into the extensive manufacturing of home electrical appliances, establishing the company as a leader in this field and speeding the mass electrification of farms, factories and transportation systems within the United States. He was chairperson of the board of directors from 1922 to 1939 and again from 1942 to 1944. Young also organized Radio Corporation of America (RCA) in 1919 and was its honorary chairperson from its inception until 1929. In the mid-1920s he helped found the National Broadcasting Company (NBC). In 1924 Young and Charles G. Dawes represented the United States at the post-World War I reparations conference. The TREATY OF VERSAILLES had mandated that a Reparations Commission be formed to determine how much Germany was to pay the Allies for war destruction and to set the terms of payment. The German government complained that the payment sched- ule was unrealistic. In response, the U.S. repre- sentatives helped formulate the Dawes Plan under which Germany was to make billions of dollars of reparations stretching over a period of years. The German economy prospered from 1924 to 1929 but it still could not make its annual reparations payment. The Reparations Commis- sion, seeking to resolve the issue, appointed Young in 1929 to head a committee to develop a workable reparations plan. Young played a major role in creating the proposal, which red uced German reparations to approximately $26 bil- lion, one-third the amount originally assessed in 1921. Payments were spread out over 58 years, ending in 1988, and were to be made to the new Bank for International Settlements. The Young plan also called for the DISSOLUTION of the Reparations Commission and an end to Allied occupation of the Rhineland. The German government quickly agreed to these terms. Despite the more favorable terms, right- wing German opposition leaders campaigned against the Young Plan, seeing it as another attempt to humiliate Germany. ADOLF HITLER and his Nazi party demanded the government repudiate the war debt and the war-guilt claus e of Versailles upon which the debt was based. Nevertheless, the plan was approved by the German Reichstag. When Hitler came to power in 1933, however, he refused to recognize the plan and repudiated all war debts, making the Young Plan a dead letter. Young died on July 11, 1962, in St. Augustine, Florida. FURTHER READINGS Case, Josephine Young, and Everett Needham. 1984. Owen D. Young and American Enterprise: A Biography. Boston: David R. Godine. Marks, Sally. 2003. The Illusion of Peace: International Relations in Europe, 1918–1933. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CROSS REFERENCES Hitler, Adolf; Treaty of Versailles. YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 72 S. Ct. 863, 96 L. Ed. 1153 (1952), the Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Owen D. Young 1874–1962 ❖ 1874 Born, Van Hornesville, N.Y. ◆ 1913 Became general counsel for the General Electric (GE) Company ◆ 1896 Earned law degree from Boston University 1933 Hitler came to power in Germany and repudiated all war debts 1922–39 Served as chair of the board of directors of GE 1914–18 World War I 1962 Died, St. Augustine, Fla. 1919–33 Served on RCA's executive committee 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War ▼▼ ▼▼ 1900 1875 1925 1950 1975 ❖ ◆ 1918 Treaty of Versailles ended World War I and laid out German reparations payments ◆ 1919 Organized Radio Corporation of America (RCA) 1924 Represented United States at Reparations Commission conference; helped construct the Dawes Plan 1929 Developed Young Plan to restructure Germany's reparations payments ◆◆ 1947 Served on Truman's Commission on Foreign Aid, which developed the Marshall Plan 1942–44 Returned to chairmanship of GE ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 486 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER an EXECUTIVE ORDER directing the secretary of commerce to seize possession of the nation’s steel mills during a labor dispute and keep them operating while hostilities continued in the KOREAN WAR. Also known as the Steel Seizure Case, Youngstown Sheet & Tube stands for the proposition that the EXECUTIVE BRANCH has no constitutional authority to seize possession of private property, even if it is for public use during times of national emergency because such authority is vested in the lawmaking powers of Congress. The case arose from a labor dispute between American steel companies and their employees over the terms of a collective bargaining agreement that was under negotiation in 1951. Employees wanted higher wages, but manage- ment protested that such increases could only be me t through drastic price hikes. President HARRY S. TRUMAN opposed further price hikes because the economy was already suffering from inflation. However, Truman feared that any disruption in domestic steel production would impede the American war effort in Korea, which was entering its second year, and thus imperil the safety of U.S. troops. When negotiations between labor and management reached an impasse, the employ- ees’ representative, United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O., announced its intention to commence a nationwide strike on April 12, 1952, at 12:01 A.M. A few hours before the strike was to begin, Truman issued Executive Order 10340, which commanded the secretary of commerce, Charles Sawyer, to seize most of the nation’s steel mills and keep them running. In carrying out this order, the secretary directed the presidents of the seized steel companies to serve as operating managers for the U.S. government. Until directed otherwise, each president was to operate his plant in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by the secretary. While obeying these orders under protest, the steel companies filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking declaratory relief to invali- date the executive order and injunctive relief to restrain its enforcement. On April 30, 1952, the district court issued a PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION immediately restraining the secretary of commerce from continuing the seizure and possession of the steel mills. On that same day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stayed the district court’s order on the grounds that resolution of such an issue is more appropriate for the U.S. Supreme Court. Granting CERTIORARI three days later, the Supreme Court decided the case on June 12, 1952. In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the executive order and affirmed the district court’s judgment. Justice HUGO BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The president’s power to issue the order, the Court said, derives, if at all, from an act of Congress or from the U.S. Constitution. There are no other sources for PRESIDENTIAL POWER, the Court wrote. The Court found that Truman had not acted pursuant to congressional authority. Prior to issuing the order, Truman had given Congress formal notice of the impending seizure. However, neither house responded. The Court also observed that Congress had considered amending the LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT of 1947, 61 Stat. 136, popularly known as the TAFT-HARTLEY ACT, to include a provision authorizing the seizure of steel mills in time s of national crisis. Yet, Congress rejected the idea. No other federal statutory authority existed, the Court stressed, from which presidential power to seize a private business could be fairly inferred. The Court next turne d to the president’s constitutional powers. Article II of the Consti- tution delegates certain enumerated powers to the executive branch. Unlike Article I, which gives Congress a broad grant of authority to make all laws that are “necessary and proper” in exercising its legislative function, Article II limits the authority of the executive branch to narrowly specified powers. Consistent with Article II, the Court said, a president may recommend the enactment of a particular bill, VETO objectionable legislation, and “faithfully execute” laws that have been passed by both houses of Congress. As commander in chief, the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is vested with ultimate responsibility for the nation’s armed forces. However, the Court emphasized, the office of the president has no constitutional authority outside the language contained within the four corners of the Constitution. Lawyers for the exe cutive branch had argued that the presidency carries with it certain inherent powers that may be reasonably in- ferred from the express provisions of the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER 487 . century. The development of English COMMON LAW was based on the law of the case. Lawyers and courts relied on previous court decisions that involved similar issues of law and fact. The law of the case could. TRUSTEES OF AN INSTITUTION . —OWEN D. YOUNG GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION YOUNG, OWEN D. 485 Always interested in the problems of the laboring man, he pushed for the adoption of employee STOCK. chairmanship of GE ◆ ◆ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 486 YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER an EXECUTIVE ORDER directing the secretary of commerce to seize possession of the