Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-03-06
THE ARLINGTON ESTATE.
Speech of Hon. ]. w. Johnston, OIL W.


the House bill in reference to the title OF The
Arlington estate being before the Senate as III
Comntte of the Whole. the peudiog ques
ton being on the motion to postpone the bill
indefinitely, Mr. Johnston, ofNirgina, said
MIR. President, propose to give plain and
brict statement Of the facts aud the law IN re-
gard to the claim of g.. W. Gusts Lee to Ar,
liugton, in connection with Senate bill No Gel.
heretofore introduced by me-. Arlington Is one
of the historical estates vi the couOtry. Ii Is
situated in Virginia, nearly opposite to " ash
ingtun, and overlook. that city. aud Is visible
from many parts of it. Il was tie property #
George W. Pa,kc Gusts, who died IN 1857.
By his will, whci was duly admitted to pro
bate 10 the proper court, he devised To Ills
dearly beloved daughter aud only child, Mary
Ann Randolph Lee my Arlington house cs-
tate, iu the county of Alexandria, contalong
eleven hundred acres, during the term OF her
natural lite." Mary Ann Raudol pE Lee Was
the wife Of Rober, L Lee.
The will contained this further provision:
On the death OF my daughter, Mary Ann Ran
dolph Lee, all the property left to her during
the term of her natural life, | give and bequeath
to my eldest grandson, George Washington
Gusts Lee, to him and his heirs forever, he my
Whether this devise gave 6. W. Custis Lee
a vested or contingent interest Is questionable.
IF the remainder was contingent, then u. w.
Gusts Lee had no estate III the property TIL
the death of the life tenant. Ii it was vested
remainder, be had no estate IN possession till
that event.
Alter the death of the teslator, Parke Gus
tis, Arlington was taken possession OF by Rob
ert E. Lee, in right Of his wife, who continued
to reside there till the war commenced The
property was placed on the commissioner $
books in the name of Mary Ann Randolph
Lee, and the taxes were assessed against her.
She had no trustee, but the devise Was TO her
directly, aud the estate held by her.
Robert +. Lee was colonel 10 the Army Of
the Uuited States He was Virgiuiau by
birth and residence. He was not hostile to the
Government of the United States. % the
contrary, South Carolina seeded 10 December,
1860, and he remained at his post. Other
States followed, aud he still kept his place.
Fort Sumter was fred upon, aud the troops OF
the United States had collision with ctlzens
10 the streets of Baltimore, and still he ad
hered to the United States. But on the 10Th
of April, 1861, the convention then IN session
10 Virginia passed an ordinance of secession,
aud that State united herself with her sister
States OF the South. Colonel Lee believed
that his allegiance was due prlmarl y to his
own State, and therefore, in the war then i'm
pending, he felt impeed to take whatever
side his State took. If she bad gone tor the
Uninn, 90 doubt he would have done so too.
His espousal of the southern side 10 the con
test made it necessary for him to abandon his
home, and his fortunes were followed by his
wife and children. Arlington was thrown into
r.l,o nd ca
till the war ended.
On the 5th August 1861, Congress passed
"An act to provide increased revenue from lm-
ports to pay interest on the public debt, aud
for other purposes" aud % the 7th June,
1862, passed IAN act for the collection Of d.
rect taxes in insurrectonary districts within
the United States and for other purposes
and on the 9th February, 1868, enacted still
| another law, entitled IAN act to amend az act
entitled An act for the collection of direct
taxes 10 iusurrectiouary districts within the
United States, and for other purposes, &c.
The first named law imposed direct annual
tax of $4,000, 900 upon the United States,
and apportioned to Virginia 1887 ,552 81, and
provided all the machinery tor assessing and
collecting the tax The tax imposed upon Ar
liugton was $92 OF.
The Treasury Department aud the commis-
sioners appointed under the law ruled, in cou-
strung the statutes, that nobody could pay the
taxes upon property assessed except the per-
SOD against whom and in whose naine the tax
was charged. That this was SO is proved by
the evidence of John Hauxhurst, one Of the
commissioners at Alexandria, who made the
sale 10 this case, given in the case Of lacey vs..
Irwin, reported in IS Wallace, and by the
finding of Judge Boud, the circuit judge who
tried that case; and by an extract FROM letter
addressed 30th December, 1874 by the Com
missioner of Internal Revenue to the Hon.
George f. Wright, of the Senate, in relation
to the bill for the relief of owners and pur-
chasers of lauds sold for direct taxes in insur.
rectiopary States which is as follows
The third section provides in certain cases,
where the original owners will not, or cannot
through disability, execute q quit claim deed,
and where 1t shall also be shown that the tax
commissioners made it their rule not to receive
the tax, &C., after advertisement and before sale
unless rendered by the owner, in proper person,
the purchase money may be refunded to the pur-
csser condition that he executes quit claim
deed to the original owner. This provision Is
intended to afford relief where the titles to
United States tax sale property have become
practically worthless by decision OF the United
states courts. as in Virginia. See opinions
United States Supreme Court IN Bennett vs
hunter, w allaCei D. oZoi anu LACEY We. Twin,
IS Wallace, p. $40. 1t will be seen that the lat
ter opinion invaldstes all those titles in Virgin
ia, as the tax commissioners testify that their
rule IS to tender, which the Sup! eme Court de-
clsres illegal. was applied in ali cases. The only
relief now afforded to purchasers at tax sale is
under the act of May 9, 1872. by which they
must have been evicted by judgment ola United
States court before their money can be refund
ed This section would prevent this useless lit.
igation, which must be more or less collusive as
the judgment Of the court is known beforehand.
Mr.. Hauxhurst testiGes:
Question. How many pieces Of property were
sold as "belonging TO MIR. Dixon ?"
Answer. Two
O. Was it not common occurrence for par
ties to ask you, both in and out of Office, wheth-
er you would receive payment Of the taxes from
any one except the owner in person, without any
special offer to pay on their part?
A. 1t was a common occurrence.
c. Have you any recollection of his (Quesen
berry, offering any money in payment of these