The opinion of the court was delivered by: FOLLMER
This is an action by a licensed master and radio operator of a merchant vessel who was denied security clearance by the Commandant of the Coast Guard under the Magnuson Act, Act of August 9, 1950, 64 Stat. 427, 50 U.S.C.A. § 191, and Executive Order 10173, October 18, 1950, 15 F.R. 7005, U.S.Code Cong.Service 1950, p. 1661, and regulations issued by the Coast Guard pursuant thereto (33 C.F.R. Parts 6, 121) against officials of the Coast Guard stationed at the Port of Philadelphia. Plaintiff seeks an injunction against defendants' refusal to issue security clearance to him, claiming that the Magnuson Act, the Executive Order, and Coast Guard Regulations issued thereunder are an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and a denial of due process to plaintiff.
The Complaint which was filed August 7, 1953, alleges, inter alia:
That on July 29, 1953, plaintiff made application for employment as master of vessel to be operated by the Atlantic Refining Company.
That on the same day plaintiff was advised that he could not be thus employed and permitted to ship unless and until he received a security clearance from the United States Coast Guard.
That on July 30, 1953, at the Philadelphia office of the United States Coast Guard, plaintiff sought permission from the Shipping Commissioner to ship as master for Atlantic Refining Company without having received security clearance from the said Coast Guard, when he was advised that a clearance certificate was essential prior to shipping.
That on August 3, 1953, the Shipping Commissioner addressed a letter to plaintiff's attorney stating, inter alia, that on May 23, 1951, plaintiff had been refused a clearance certificate, and that the statement of reasons for such refusal of that date would be given to plaintiff upon application to the Shipping Commissioner.
That from the refusal of May 23, 1951, plaintiff had appealed to local, area and National Appeal Board, and on July 14, 1953, plaintiff was notified that upon review of his case the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard was satisfied that reasonable grounds existed for the retention of plaintiff's classification as a poor security risk.
That on August 6, 1953, plaintiff applied to the Shipping Commissioner for statement of reasons for refusal of security clearance and was advised by the Commissioner that the only statement available was the same statement which plaintiff had received on May 23, 1951.
Defendants did not answer the Complaint, but on December 4, 1953, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the following grounds:
'1. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
'2. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief to plaintiff because he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedy provided by the amended regulations issued on October 27, 1953, by the United States Coast Guard pursuant to the Act of August 9, 1950 (64 Stat. 427, 50 U.S.C. 191) (18 F.R. 6941).'
On December 14, 1953, plaintiff filed a paper captioned 'Motion of Plaintiff for Summary Judgment.' This paper sets forth the following:
'1. The defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
'2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment states that there are no genuine issues ...