Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-03-06

"ui NV" carefully tDey e0GeaV0reu to avoid the
etauIlur oI any authority to destroy the States
ih"nl>elvcs or their proper Jurisdiction. There
fore, they gave the United States the right to
acquire land for such purposes as We're neces
sury aud proper to carry on the Government
created, but for 10 other purposes. The Unit
ed States might acquire land upon which to
ercc. Il seat OF government; and as the war.
making power was in the General Government,
aud DOT 10 the States, it MI hit purchase land
for the erection Of forts, magazines arsenals,
dock yards, and other needful buildings, but
these only because they were necessary to car.
ry on war. But even these things, necessary
aud proper Us they were, could not be done
without the consent Of the State in which the
laud was situated. But Arlington was not Dur.
chased by the Gvcrrincnt upon which to build
"lortS, nagaZlnes, arSeDalS, or dock-yards"
l. was bought "for Government use, for war,
military, charitable, and educational purposes"
Aud the consent eff the State of Virginia, 10
which the land Is, WAS never asked, nor has it
ever been given, though at the time Of the
purchase the government of Virginia, as recos.
nlzed by the Uuired States, which had its seat
fist at Wheeling, aud atterward at Alexandra,
was intensely loyal.
But the purposes for which the purchase
was nomiuaIIy made are most diverse and con-
Trajectory. How the Government could Use
the same tract of land at one aud the sau.e
tune Tor war and military and charitable aud
educational purposes, is not easy to See
4 fort and an asylum would not do very Well
standng side by side, nor would school be
apt TO flourish close by an arsenal or a dock
yard. And in this connection it might be per
liucnty asked, where the power Is found 10
the Constitution fur the United States to buy
land for charitable and educational purpose,
Certainly II Was uever intended that the Unto
States should Cw0 land as a mere proprietor,
and gu the same terms and tor the same Uses
that private individual would-that they
should raise corr and potatoes, or let the land
out to tenants. Aud Yet that is what is ioa:
with Arlington, except as to so much a Is
used as a natloral cemetery, with which latter
purpose it is neither the wish Of Mr.. Lee nor
myself to interfere, nor TO raise any question,
either lcVa! or cuuStlt utloual.
Ii the United States can become purchaser
at its own sale for taxes, and then buy land III
any part Of the States and continue to hold It
as mere owucr, without the consent OF the
State 10 which i; is then it is easy 10 see nov
any Stale might be I'D out 10 TOTO and pur
chas' d by the Government. 1t has paid Doth.
ing for Arlington; it urcd ouly outuld every.
body else al every sale. which it could do with
safety, because the citizen would have to pay
the money gu his lid il accepted, but the
United States, following the precedent 10 this
case, would pay nothng. A bidder 10 that
happy coudlduuu need not be particular as ID
the sum bid.
Iu the case Of Arlington, it is believed by
those who are Interested that it can be proved
that the taxes were actually rendered before
the SALE not by Mrs. Lee in prr>op. but ty q
friend for her. Ii this should be the fact, Il,
cuutiIeutly believe, then, uaIcr the decision Of
tho Supr, me Court III the case Of Bcunelt IS.
Hunter, the sale was void. ln that case the
court said:
The case requires the consideration and deter
mination Of one point only, namely, whether
the commissioners under the act could make
sale Tor taxes Notwithstanding previous tell
der of the amount cue?
But to whom did the right To make this pay
ment belong? The obvious answer Is u the
owner, either acting in person or through som.
friend or agent, compensated or uncompenSatrtl.
The telms OF the act are. tina: the owner or own
e!s may pay and 1t is familiar law that acts
done by one in bc"ail OF another are valid II
ratified either exp ressly or by implication and
that such ratification will be presumed in furth-
erancc OF justice.
But it is insisted that tn right of payment is
proper prr1on. But preccive no such liml-
tatlon in its terms
We cannot doubt that it might be properly
exercised by tho owner i'll person. or through
any ether person willing to act in his behalf and
not disavow"d by him
The application of these principles decides the
case before US.
The sum due the United States, for taxes,
penalty, and Gusts WAS rendered to the United
States before sale, and it WAS their duty to NC
cept This tender WAS not objected toAs insult
cent, but was refused solely because not made
warranted by the act. the tender must be held
good The certificate OF sale under which the
plaintiff in error claims title cannot therefore, be
sustained.
But whether any tender was 10 fact made or
not, either by Mrs. Lee in person, or by auy
oue for her, is matter OF 40 consequence.
The commissioners acted under uniform rule
to take the taxes from 30 one but the owner 10
person.; and the Supreme Court, III the case Of
lacey VS.. irwin, IS Wallace, cited above, de-
clded that the mere existence OF such rule Of
itself made all sales by the commissioners abs0-
luteiy void. Tie court said
1t is difficult to see how, upon the Case rs
found here, tho sale can be Sustained.
If an Her In n particular case To pay the laf
before sale, and refused by the commissioners
because not ma &c by the owner in person, rcn
ders II 81 b., qleut sale by thu commissioners
void, (sce Bennett vs.. Hunter, supr:.) surely
general rule announced by the commissioners,
that in all cases such an otf"r would be refused
must produce the same effect SUI q rule, .!
necessity, dispenses with regular tender in any
case. In he absence Of any proof to the coltra-
ry 1t is \ legal presumption that the tax IN lhia
case, though not actually ofcred, would haT'
bcen "iiered and psid bef,re SALE but for the
know refusal Of the commissioners 10 accrp'
any offer when not made by the owner in pcrs"n:
Ii St., the commissioners were not authorized
to make tho sale in controversy, and the JudS-
mcnt lnust be affirmed.
iusiat therefore, that the sale undcr which
the Uuted States claims Arlington is void
and that he title is still in e. W. Custls Lee;
First Because any law which requires sale
of whole tract of land to pay tax is uncOn,
if the land can be divided and a part
would pay the tax and charges. (Bennet vs.
Hunter, IS Grattan, affirmed by Supreme Court
III,