[766] Most of the literature on the subject of emergency power presents an analysis of the range of actual power previously asserted by the President in time of emergency. [767] Scores of examples of such action can be gleaned from the studies cited above, and the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Vinson in the _Steel Seizure_ cases, _op. cit._, at 667-710. E.g., Lincoln directed the payment of unappropriated funds from the treasury to private individuals, in clear violation of Article I, Sec. 9, Cl. 7 of the Constitution. In patent disregard of Article I, Sec. 8, Cl. 12, delegating to Congress the power “to raise and support armies,” he increased the strength of the Army and Navy by presidential proclamation. Binkley, _op. cit._, pp. 111-14. Corwin has pointed to many administrative agencies established by President Roosevelt without prior legislative sanction (_Total War and the Constitution_, _op. cit._, pp. 50-52) and has alleged that the transfer of destroyers to Britain directly violated “at least two statutes and represented an exercise by the President of a power which by the Constitution is specifically assigned to Congress.” (_The President: Office and Powers_, _op. cit._, p. 289; 4th ed., 1957, p. 238). [768] 343 U.S. 579 at 611. [769] _Petitioners’ Brief_, p. 66. [770] 343 U.S. 579 at 646. [771] _Sawyer_ v. _United States Steel Co., et al._, 197 F. 2d 582 (1952). Both the government and the steel companies petitioned the Supreme Court for _certiorari_. [772] _Id._ Four of the nine judges dissented. The majority, citing _United States_ v. _Russell_, 13 Wall. 623 (1871) and _United States_ v. _Pee Wee Coal Co., Inc._, 341 U.S. 114 (1951), found judicial precedent for emergency requisitioning of property by the executive, unsupported by statute, with a concomitant right to compensation on the part of the property owners. Since the government claimed that continued production of steel was vital to the national security, and admitted the right of the companies to compensation, the majority thought the preliminary injunction should be stayed. _Id._, at 585. [773] 343 U.S. 937. Burton, J., with Frankfurter, J., concurring, noted their belief that _certiorari_ should be denied until the cases had been fully heard, on their merits, in the Court of Appeals. _Id._, at 938-39. [774] _Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co._ v. _Sawyer_, Dockets No. 744 and 745, 1952, _Brief for Petitioner_. Perlman speaks of “inherent constitutional power,” however. _Id._, at 113. [775] _Id._, at 19-20. [776] _Id._, at 102-150. [777] _Id._, at 26. [778] _Id._, at 73. [779] _Id._, at 49. [780] _Id._, at 48. [781] _Id._, at 49. [782] _Id._, at 16. [783] _Little_ v. _Barreme_, 2 Cranch 170 (1804). (The above discussion of the case closely parallels that in _Petitioner’s Brief_, pp. 44-46.) [784] _Id._, at 588. [785] _Id._, at 585. [786] _Id._, at 587. [787] _Id._ [788] _Id._