, 1873-09-27
CREDIT MOBILlER.
Arguments In tho United States Court
at Hartford Conn.
Mr.. Evarts' Objections to the Form OF
the BilI---The Defense Garry
Their Points.
Probability TINT tho Bill VIII Go to
Pieces, nnd TINT Government
Will Have to Start Anew.

| ,,,,,,
| "A' Ai"'o ~ otAre AileW.
|
!
tlne following letter appeared In snanll portion
"a W.. ".',.:a' vaI"ou o1 seS'etaay
S''''.e".e ,,.en. ~ 'ne & en'cago a 1a1o.me ~ .oe.
rha norrt ,,,onn, ~ ,,,,s s,, w.. ~ -o''.
waa anuounoo l,v ta,o1ro-,, ~ H.. ,a,a''r s'
and Just,co uurt aa;;1 thot Al, sro,,.,orta ,a,a;
In c1osod ,,v Fr;,ov oro,,,,, - 49, a,na",a, -"
A.. cs..s. 1a1s ~ o'oAinR' ~ was o,too.eu W
s"o oourt, aiHo, that motion8 to dismiHa Should
bo argnod first, and afterwards tho general
demurrer. Thirty or forty millions Of dollars
will buy Strong dofcuso and g,,oh a dofenac
| t., -. 4",'o,.,.1,. "u o"on ooA0nne
~ ~ insalea % "hen D. william n. Evarts' henjami1'
-, eultls' al'u olanoy bat'iott unto ther ao1ii'
tioa to that end. Tho Government wero over
matched beyond oil comparison in 1nattor OF
! co,,oo1 o,,1 J., ,,,1,. ~ ..a. u .-.
| f,ti, ~ a,rraa,o.. a.. ,.,I go ee1I" 49,.
~, NV W "pi4oo.'o WV ,"os 1io!4 'Ao folS Statt'
Ino doVofhment agroou, as flrat atop. not to
move the pro confosso against any Of tho par
ties defendant, Notwithstanding several Of then,
~ tha nara,st l,,a, ".o. .,a ~ .no pfoo'ou'ngA
| =. 'no eo'elnMous aBalhes theln,-thna begin
ming tho battla with rotroat.
| ARGUMENTS.
wox that ~ no,vo,,d r. E1ava,,, -; ~, .vt a",.
""n '1'''1 ~ ''""t''u H. na"aiu' III h1s own bo-
hnlf. III the afternoon, Alr. Evarts took up the
| defonso, and spoke for near1y two hours in a
clear, logical style. Ho was followed By Mr., Ash
ton. wno hae },oon aic for somo Tina ~ ,vna
aoio 'o 10 mu1solt ]ua'lce' LAG was conllnedmostly
to his brief, which WA compiled from various
legal authorities, but waH not much to the dam
ago Of Mr.. Eyarts. Next WAS Mr.. Perry for
half mn ho,r ,rhon i'm 1or~t oa,ona.u, 49,. ~
..,. 9eA nno" wv oou.t "u1o"fhoo. friday
,nofhihe mr. lofty LOOK up his argument for IN
hoar or moro, and was followed by Mr.. Curtis,
and 10 BY MIR. Bartlett, who alone spoke upon
tionB to diHmiss.
Renders Of The TRIBUNE may remember
et'.. ofiot statement Of tho case, which appeared
about wook since, Wherein selections we're
brought, and tho questionable points maf1o en-
phatic by undertaking. Noyertholoss tho i'm
preston was quito general horo TINT objec-
tlons to
THE FonM OF THE R1LL
would not be listcnod to which impression, how
over, was modified nftor Mr. Evarts' argument.
Ihat idea was founded upon the fact Tint tha
aot was the result .' Of apoo'a nvostgaton that
la"Yers had the handling OF 1t tint tho Attor-
! ney-ooneral himself brought the bill, aud ho, at
least, ought to bo man whose legal ability ia
not 70 Dc questioned. But tho learned counsel
for defonse put new face OH tho matter. Tho
stoailng would seem to bo admitted, and tho in
ventlso gonius ought to DO o4ul to redress.
Iot IN Q legal way withal for, II a man iB to bo
hung, he llas right to bo hung by law. (which
III 1no wlser hero Justice or 1niqulty?"
Inc aetenae was we'll planned and thorough
and 1t woulu DO interesting to know the poinsR
'ot 1t.
MIR. EvAnTs
LOOK comprehensive Wow of the case as re-
iatea TO the Constitution; made prominent tho
irrogularlteB OF the procedure and tho
lnhuFlaaolnty or establishing precedent
OF thls kihu. hlr. curtis took q historical Wow,
eonhhed hlmself cioHoy to tho Immediate QueH-
lion, hnd spoke With great power. Mr.. Dartlott
treated tho do'nurrer, attacking tie bill in de-
tail anu very raggel-looklng document ho
le!L 1t.
Mr.. EvGrts began by saying that this suit WAS
OF nosc! character; 1T had no precodent; it
would nave no successora With the assistance
ment:
~ the Constitution, the dutios Of the LegiH-
latlVe, EXECUTIVE, anu Judleia! departments arc
placed, IN express tern1s tho first in Congress,
Tue second IN tho President, the Inst in tho Su-
premo court; 9nd, when wo como to the oxa1n-
inatlon Of legal paper, wo have to consider
which of these throo it belongs to. and, il We
mud it m issuing from any other, condemn it at
Gnee: The judiciary act Of 1889 divides tho
held in districts torrtorially constituted; aud
"No person shall bo arrested la one district for
trlai III another, IN any civil action boforo Cir
quit or District Court. And no civil suit shall
be brought before ethor Of said Courts, against
an inhabitant OF tho United States, by an orig
inal process, in my other district than that
whereof he m is an lnhabftant or in which ho shall
DO found at tho time OF serving tho writ" Such
haa beon tho law OF tho land ever ainco, and Is
tho law Of tho land today in all cases excepting
TUG particular rtl parties and dofendants to thia
sult' Iho language OF tho act
IS D1REcTLY OPPOSED
to o.E tho Language Of tho Constitution. The mat
tors upon which this act proposes relief were
transacted before this act was passed, and 1t ac-
cordingly becomes retrospective legislation, nnd
subjects thoso dofendants to a different pro-
cess than was ever existent before, and different
from that existent now in case Of all
tho roBt OF tho people OF tho United States, Nr.
Eva Evarts argued thnt tho act WAS IN roalty, an OK
post laeto law. Ho wont On TO- say that mo
person! can pc deprived OF life, liberty, or prop
orty without duo process OF INV" which meant
tMo M Sumo as as tho "law Of the land in tue Magma
ChartA: but tnoso dsfoudants arc made the sub
Jecta or special Legislation, md lre triol by an
not apply to auy othorporsons, nor even to those
-