Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-04-15
ARLINGTON.
A1tie Ofthe Governments TO the ArIinx-
ton Estate Legally observation-disclosures
rial Of Gen. Lee, and the Bill Intro
dueed by Judge johnson.
From the Louisville COurier-JOurnal.

From the Louisville COurier-JOurnal.
WASHINGTON, April 12.-AccOrding to
the recent decisions of the United States
supreme Court in similar cases to that by
which the Government has acquired posses
sion OF the Arlington property, the title is
defective and cannot be maintained in a
court Of law. The title of the United
States to the property is based exclusively
upon a sale for alleged non-payment of
taxes under the law of Aug. I.
1862, entitled an act for the collection
Of taxes in the insurrectionary districts,
etc. The memorial of Gen. G.. w. Gusts
Lee, recently presented in the Senate BY
Judge Johnston, sets forth the chain of
title and the facts. G.. W. Parke GUSTS.
who was the owner of the property for
many years, devised the estate to Mrs.
Mary Ann Randolph Lee, with remainder
TO her eldest son. Gen. q. w. Gusts Lee,
on his mothers death, succeeded to this
title. There is no difficulty in establish
ing the fact that when the tax imposed by
the act Of 1862 fell due, payment of the
same was rendered to the commissioners
by a friend Of Mrs. Lee, and was refused
by the United States Tax Commissioners,
under a rule established by them, not to
receive payment from any one except the
owner in person. The land was subse-
quently sold by the tax commissioners,
bought by the United States War Depart
ment, and converted into a United States
cemetery.
n LEGAL DECISIONS.
1t seems very extraordinary that Mr..
Stanton should have rested on a title which
the United States Circuit Court at Rich
mOnd and the United States Supreme
Court both concur in rejecting as invalid.
The question was first ruled by the Su-
preme Court in the case Of Behcett vs..
Hunter, reported in 9th Wallace. ana the
same decision vas reafiirmed at the Octo-
Der term, 1873, in The case of Jefferson
lacey, who claimed under one of these tax
titles, The court saws that the pavIlent Of
the tax, which the act requires to be MAIN |
tanned, is not necessarily TO be made by him
(the owner in person; il - enough if it be
made by any person for him. OH the ground
that an act done by one for the benefit Of
Is valid if ratified expressly or by
implication. and that such ratification will
be presumed in furtheranee of justice. Il
being shgSn also in this case that
he commissioners had adopted a
rule not TO receive tax due on
d4htLLleEu luL SllCs uAAltcN tCAAutI-
ed by the owner in person, the Supreme
Court says that, if there be such a rule, ne
,essity dispenSes with a regular tender in
,sy ease. In the absence of any proof to
he cCl,rsFy, It is a Legal presumption that
he tax in this 6zse, though not actually
would have been offered and paid
the sale but for the kncSn refusal
4 the Commissioners to accept any offer
not made by the owner in person.
IN this gtCund the title of Lacy is adj
judged void; and - the same facts exist in
he case of the Arlington property, there
an be no defense to IN action OF ejectment
y Gen. G.. w. C.. Lee, if he should bring
His memorial asks Congress to give
i'm a fair compensation for this property.
The matter has been brought to the atten-
ion Of the President and Cabinet, the
expressing the opinion that if the
tile was defective steps should be prompt
: taken to perfect it. ,
JUDGE JOHNsTON's BILL. I
Senator Johnston, of Virginia, has
rought in a bill, which is now before the
judiciary Committee, providing for an ex- {
minatiOn of the question of title by the
United States Court of Claims, and, in case
he government title be found defective,
hen to ascertain a suitable compensation ]
Dr. the owners. So far, there does not
to be any opposition to this bill from /
ny quarter, and the facts are so clear that
is supposed it will pass without invoking :
ny heated debate or controversy. The
alue Of the property in question may be I
estimated at S150OOO {