The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-04-17
Thrilling Tale Of q Title in Prologue
and Three Chapters.

According to recent decisions of the Uni
ted States Supreme Court in similar cases to
that by which the Government has acquired
possession of the Arlington property. the
title is defective and can not be maintained
in court Of law. The title of the United
States to the property is based exclusively
upon sale for alleged non-payment of taxes
under the law of the 9TH of August, 1862,
entitled "an act for the collection OF taxes
i'll insurrectiOnary districts" etc. The me-
mortal of General G. w. Custis 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,
which reverted to her eldest son. General
G. w. Custis Lee, on his mothers death,
succeeded to this title"
There is no difficulty in establishing the
fact that when the tax imposed by the act
of 1862 fell due, payment of the same was
rendered to the commissioners by friend
Of Mrs. Lee, and was refused by the United
States Tax Commissioners under rule
established by them not to receive pay
ment from any one except the owner in
person. The land was subsequently sold
by the Tax Commissioners, bought by the
United States War Department, and con-
verified into United States cemetery. 1t
seems very extraordinary that Mr.. Stanton
should have rested on title which the
United States Circuit Court at Richmond
and the United States Supreme Court both
concur in rejecting as invalid. The ques-
ton was first ruled by the Supreme Court
in the case of Bennett vs. Hunter, reported
in 9th Wallace, and the same decision was
reaffirmed at the October term, 1873, in the
case OF Jefferson Lacey, who claimed under
one of these tax titles.
The court say that the payment OF the
tax which this act requires to be maintained
need not necessarily be made by the owner
in person it is enough if it be made by any
person for him, on the ground that an act
done by one for the benefit of another is
valid if ratified expressly or by implica-
ton, and that such ratification will be pre-
sumed in f,rtherance of justice. 1t being
shown, also, in this case, that the Commits
soners had adopted rule not to receive
tax due on property advertised for sale
unless rendered by the owner in person, the
Supreme Court say that such rule neces-
sarily dispenses with regular tender in
any case. In the absence Of any proof to
the contrary, it is a legal presumption that
the tax, in this case. though not actually |
offered, would have been offered and paid |
before the sale, but for the known refusal of |
he Commissioners to accept any offer when
lot made by the owner in person. On this
ground the title of Lacey is adjudged void
As the same facts exist in the case of the
Arlington property, there can be no defense
% an action of ejectment by Gen. G. w. C.
zee, if he should bring one. His memorial
SKIS Congress to give him a fair compensa-
ion for this property. The matter has been
'rOught to the attention Of the President and
'abinet, the former expressing the opinion
hat, if the title was detective. steps should
e promptly taken to perfect it. Senator
ohnston, Of Virginia, has brought in bill,
Which is now before the judiciary Commit
ee, providing for an examination of the
nestion of title by the United States Court
f Claims, and in case the Government title
e found defective, then to ascertain suit
bic compensation for the owner. So far
here does not seem to be any opposition to
his bill from any quarter, and the facts are
0 clear that it is supposed it will pass with
ut involving any heated debate or contro-
ersy. The value of the property may be
Dughly estimated at $15O,OOO.