The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-25 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, LINCOLN'S INN, June 17.
—Before the Lord Chancellor, and the Lords
Justices of Appeal.—ln the case of the United
States versus Wagner, on Monday last, in giving
judgment, the Lord Chancellor said the question in
the case was whether the United States of America
were entitled to institute a suit in their own name
for moneys and goods asserted to be their property,
and which had come into the defendant's hands.
lle was of opinion that this Court was hound to take
judicial notice of the existence of the United States
as a sovereign Power, and that the name in which
they had sued was their correct title. As the Vice-
Chancellor had observed in his judgment, the ques-
tion was not whether the United States could sue
in this court, but what was the mode in which they
were to sue. The defendant's counsel went so far
as to contend that the proper course of proceeding
would have been for the suit to have been brought
in the name of the President, but with this view the
Vice-Chancellor did not concur. If, then, the Pre-
sident was not the proper person to sue, what other
mode could be resorted to of prosecuting their
rights in a foreign country than that of suing in
their own names ? He (the Lord Chancellor) was
unable to appreciate the distinction which had been
drawn between a monarchy and a republic. When
a monarch sued, he did so, not as representing the
State; but as having all the rights of the State
vested in himself ; whereas, in the case of a re-
public, those rights were the property of the State.
The Vice-Chancellor held that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to sue in the form they had done, be-
cause there was no one put forward by them for
examination by the defendants ; but he (the Lord
Chancellor) was not aware of any rule of the court
that a person should not sue because you could not
get discovery from him, if such a rule existed, the
result would be that a Republican Government
suing would be compelled to join some person as
co-plaintiff who had no interest in the question in
dispute, although acquainted with the facts of the
case, and that would be contrary to the rule of the
court, which prohibited the joining as plaintiff a
person having no interest in the matter. There
could be no injustice done to the defendants
by allowing the United States to sue in their
own name, because the defendants, if they wished
to obtain discovery, could apply to the United
States for the name of some person capable of
giving discovery, and, in the event of a refusal,
could apply to this court for a stay of proceedings
until the request was complied with. The order,

therefore, of the Vice- Chancellor must be reversed.
The Lords Justices concurred.

THE FORTUNES OF OUR PRESIDENTS.

Some one has collected information in regard to
the fortunes left by the dead and the living ex-
Presidents. We learn that Jefferson died poor.
Indeed, if Congress had not purchased his library,
giving him five times its value, he would with
difficulty have kept the wolf from his door. Madison
saved his money, and was comparatively rich. To
add to his fortune, however, or that of his widow,
Congress purchased his manuscript papers, and paid
$30,000 for them. James Monroe, the sixth Presi-
dent of the United States, died so poor that his re-
mains found a resting place through the charity of
his friends. They remain in a cemetery, but no
announcement marks the spot where they repose.
John Quincy Adams left $50,000, the result of in-
dustry, prudence, and inheritance. He was a man
of method and economy. Martin Van Buren died
rich. Throughout his political life he studiously
looked out for his own interest.

James K. Polk left about $150,000, $50,000 of
which was saved from his Presidency of four years.
John Tyler left $50,000. Before he was President
he was a bankrupt. In office he husbanded his means,
and then married a rich wife. Zachary Taylor left
$160,000. Millard Fihnore is a wealthy man.
Franklin Pierce saved $50,000 from his term of
service. James Buchanan, who is a bachelor,
and saves all l►e gets, is estimated to be worth at
least $200,000. From the same source we learn that
Henry Clay left a very handsome estate. It pro-
bably exceeded $lOO,OOO. He was a prudent mana-
ger, and a scrupulously honest man. Daniel Web-
ster squandered some millions in his lifetime, the
product of his professional speculation. He died
leaving his property to his children, and his debts
to his friends. The former sold for less than
$20,000, the latter exceeding s2so,ooo.—Buffalo
Courier.

The Hon. A. G. Curtin, ex-Governor of the
State of Pennsylvania, who is stopping at Homburg-les-
Monts, is mentioned by prominent American politicians
passing through here as candidate for the Vico-Presidency,
on the same ticket with General Grant. A fact is, that
the ex-Governor has the fairest prospects of any politician
in the State of Pennsylvania, anTlierhaps of New York
too. His health, which might have been his greatest
drawback, is fast improving.

The Fenian President, Roberts, sailed for Europe
on the Ist inst.