New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-09-20
THE CREDIT MOBILLER SUIT.


THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE MOTION TO DISMISS
CONTINUED BY MR.. PERRY-MR. CURTIss ARGU-
MENT ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION OF
TIE C0URT-THE ARGUMENT ON THE DEMURRER.
IFRoM THE SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRIBUSE.l
HARTFORD, Sept. 19.-At the opening of the
Circuit Court this morning the Hon. Aaron f. Perry,
Counsel for the United States in the suit against the
Union Pacific Railroad Company, continued his argu-
ment against the motion 70 dismiss He dwet more up
on the point under discussion than was developed in
the first part Of his argument, and cited number OF
cases. (which had evidently been collected with great
care and in support of the defense Mr.
Curtis followed with a clear logical and brief consdera
ton OF the consttutonaY Of the special act allowing
the case to be tried in Circuit Court The following Is
brief outline of the points made by him in his argu-
ment.
ARGUMENT OF THE HON. BENJAMIN R. CURTIS.
He said the principal inquiry was whether that
clause Of the Constitution preventing any deprivation
of e liberty and property without due process OF law
is applicable to and controls this law of Congress 1t
was first necessary TO 90 the history Of that clause
of the Constitution. When the Constitution was adopted
ii was universally received that all citizens must stand
equally before the laws of the land The great difficulty
in the Constitution that this principle had not been
perfectly secured The States which adopted the
Constitution relied upon the fact that the laws to
be made we're to be made by representatives
who were themselves and constituents to be bound
by them They also relied upon special provisions OF
the Constitution such trial by jury and the nde
pendence of the judiciary, and under these circum
stances the Constitution adopted Afterward the
people were not satisfied that this special principle had
received sufficient consideration. Then the people By
special of sovereign power inserted this act whereby
inequality of citizens could not be created by legislative
power
Considering then the right Of court to interpret 1.-THE
Constitution he said is authorized to put upon
any clause of the Constitution construction which
shall deprive that clause of power for which 1t was
inserted. Tho court ascertain for what end
the clause was inserted, and see whether the
nroposed construction will alter that end.
The Constitution says: Ono shall be deprived Of
Hfe liberty and property without due process of law"
What is due process Of aw Process of law includes
every act Of courts every step taken by the court in
suit is process OF law This meaning without dt0rtions
broad enough to anything that the respondents ask
in this case The other side holds that this does not in
cude mean process. by which you summon de-
PENDANTS before YOU. II Congress has not the
power by Of this provision of the Constitution
without due notice to compel individuals to perform
certain acts it incumber them as this act OF 1873
doesl What was OF law when this provision
was passed. Chief-Justce Washington says that the
act of 1882 defining the jurisdiction of Circuit Courts
was necessary ntoerabe burdens would be put upon
citizens. citizen in California might summon citizen
OF Connecticut appear before California Court.
Congress itself would think that the principle 1t carried
ont was TOO absurd to be moment considered 1t was
passed in a hurry This condition imposed on these
defendants could not be enforced against citizens gem
orally, and hence apply TO particular case.
The scope OF this language regarding life, liberty, and
property is much broader than has been allowed by tho
other side. lie not deprived Of property in being
forced TO 20 for Justice all the counry In addi-
lion 10 its being ian intOerabe burden" according TO
Judge Washn gton it involves dollars and cents. When
led
lose their property was IL without due process OF
law
Mr. Curtis passed from this to another point Can
executors and administrators be summoned II cannot
be due process of law which calls upon person in
hducary capacity appear IN a suit In which he can
The right of administrators aud executors TO
and sued is confined TO the territory OF the State
i'm which they have received letters probate.
You are asked force them TO do what Congress cannot
allow them for act could pass Congress increasing
the powers Of execution If parties die during suit,
administrators be summoned in. but they must be
first appointed If they should be appointed when the
suit should happen to be held then they could be
moned in otherwise they could not.
Mr. Curtis then turned his attention to the act OF Con-
gress OF 1878. The Constitution provides that the
judicial power shall vested in the Supreme Court and
such inferior courts Congress shall establish. When
the Circuit Courts have been at different times estab
lished their Jurisdiction has been been confined to their
for the institution Of one suit. "That suit" it says
"may be brought in any district" Hence, Congress
saws that any where 1t brought possesses
Jurisdiction over that one suit. and no other
court can touch the suit. On filing the
bill subpenas can be issued TO any defendants
wherever resident. Now Congress has not said what
one court shall have Jurisdiction. The AttorneyG
rals will has settled that He has declared that this
Court shall alone have such remarkable jurisdiction.
an OF IA hat
oourt should have Jurisdiction This has been done by
the Acknowledgement Enormous abuses might arise
IL an executive officer of the Government had such
power Mr.. Curtis paid handsome compliment, in
closing TO Gen. Williams and declared that in the pres
eut case no such suspicion could be entertained.
MR.. BARTLETT's ARGUMENT.
The argument on the motion to dismiss being con-
eluded the Hon. Sidney Bartlett to open the
demurrer The purpose Of the demurrers to raise
the question whether. under the laws OF the court
sut OF this character could be maintained granting
whether it was possible for the Government in case
of their own TO change the pScess of law by special
legislation had been already Argued and needed no
more consideration from him Assuming, however that
such suit can be maintained there remains the ques
non az 10 the relations OF the United states TO the sub
iect matter whether the legal relations or the United
states to the railroad company or the other defendants
are such that the Government has tte or interests or
rights which, upon established principles, would author
lie it 20 any suit upon either OF the grounds
prescribed by the act Tor they nave NOT Ieh the act
Mr. Bartlett then took the charter OF the Company,
and argued in a very able and comprehensive manner
whether the view taken by the Government Ohat the
property Of the Pacific Railroad Is held In trust by the
CiOvernment) was not correct II II was not cor
rect, then the Government had no right upon settled
principles OF law. vindcate the law against these
| three corporations.
IL is impossible give any account of his argument,
as depended essentially the workings in the char
| ter and act. Mr.. Ashton followed MIR. Bartlett but
gave way for an adjournment until this afternoon.
Al the session OF the Court this afternoon Mr. Ashton
opposed Mr.. Bartlett the question OF trust. arguing
fOreiDly That the Union Pacific Railroad Company was
held I'm trust by the United States and for their benefit
that the property was held by the corporation as
frus1ee. IrHsL mud