The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-05-31

Eoacn J. r. Johnston and g. Henry west BY the
lands OF William Elliott Columbus Alexander ana John
Tucker; containing eleven hundred acres be the same
more or less, which said premises the SAID plantiu
claims IN lee And he, the sand plaintiff. being so
possessed thereof. the sale defendants, aierward, to
wit on the 9th day o Jan iary 1875 entered into the
said premises and elected the said plaintiff hererom
ana nnjnsliy withhold rom the said planG the pos
session thereof, 10 the damage Of the said plantif OF
$50, 600, and therefore he brings his sur
MILAN J. ROBERTSON p G.
FRANCIS l. SMITH
NOTICE DEFENDANTS
To FREDERICK KAUFMAN, K r. STRONG, ct al =
Please 10 take notice that The irstNonday OF Way
1877 that beng The IRIS, day Of the NAY rules 1871 OF
cult Court of Alexandra county, Va, declaration in
ejectmen', OF which tue foregoing IS copy.
y wItLtAs / I. s sniFE HIS Attorneys
DAMAGES Rent.
statement OF mesne profits filed With the foregoing
declaration -Amount or rent, al the yearly value Of
Sloooo from the 9th day OF January. 1875. until YER
dict. which said plaintiff means demand for the
Of the land In the declaration mentioned.
Statement OF damages which the plaintiff means to
demand Tor injuries done to the property IN the FORE
going declaration mentioned;-For obstruction and
waste oil the buildings aud other property, $oO,o0o
HISTORY or ARLINGTON
General George Washington by his will bequeathed
Arlington to George Washington Parke Custs and his
hcirs forever. custs the adopted son Of General
Washington He died in 1855, and by his Will left the
property TO his daughter and only child Mary Ran
dolph Lee, who became the wife OF Robert f.. Lee
House and estate, containing about eleven hundred
acres; his horses and carriages furniture, pictures
and plate, during the term OF her natural life. After
her death he provided that all the property should 60
to her eldest son, George Washington Gusts Lee and
to his heirs forever He further enoned that the said
elaest grandson should take his narae and arms Mrs
Lee his daughter. was 10 be allowed the privilege OF
dividing hor fathers plate among her other children;
bat Custs directed that the Mount Vernon plate and
every article he possessed which formerly belonged 10
General Washington and all tina: came from Mount
Vernon sbonid 60 80 George Washington Cuss Leo
aud descend from him entire his latest posterity
In his win ne also directed the emancipation Of all
his saves Ut the end OF Eve years from his death,
which took place 70 October, 1867. When Robert Il.
Lee joined the South he took these slaves with him,
but at the specified. he united every Of
them and sent them beyond tho Confederate lines
North. shortly before her death Mrs Lee and her
endeavored TO make compromise with the govern.
ment and offered surrender her title and that Of scr
heirs for the Of $500 000 Her petition rise
to an angry debate In the Senate, IN which the old
bitterness Of the rebellion revived The republi-
can turned matter excellent party
account and, Of course, nothing was done
Law
She died 1873 aud her son, who brings the pres
ent suit cjectment, again offered TO compromise.
u
the principal law points in the After presenting
copy o. tho viii OF Parke Custls the petition
forth. "Upon the construction Of the said Wal
your petitioner is advised that be took az
estate remainder after tho life estate OF his mother
Whether II waa technically vested or contingent
remainder upon tho true construction OF the Wall may
DO question of doubt II the remainder be contn-
gent your petitioner had estate Ia the property
until the death Of the life tenant II Il vested
remainder he had estate IN possession until that
event." The memorial then states how the United
States obtained possession OF the property In Sep
TENDER, 1868, three commissioners for the insur
rectionary district Of Virginia fixed the Of s92 OF
as tho amount OF tax due payable 70 the United
States the Arlington estate, which was valued on
the land books OF Virginia tor the 1860 at 1884, 100
For tho on.paymen OF the tax the estate became for
feited the United States and the commissioners I'D
vcrtised II Tor sac The sale took place the 18th OF
January, lS64 when, no person bidding amount
equal TO the then accrued and the estate having
been selected under tho direction Of the government
and pursuance o, President Lncoln's proclamation
or January D. 1864. tor government use, for war; mill
tary charitable and purposes, the commits
sioners bid It in for the sum Of 500, 500
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PRESENT POSSESSION
rhe petitioner ncxt recitcs (aud this will undoubt
eddy be the line OF argument Of the plaintiff for The
which an original owner urge against the title OF
any purchaser tax sale apply with increased force
against the title Of the United States purchaser
at sale Tor taxes, made under its authority and
BIZ its own commissioners. Tho Laws of Angus, 8,
1861 and June Z, 1862, referred to- and urged
that Mother affect the question The assessment
was made against the property Of q married woman,
and the which the justification OF the law
OF 1852 is based he relation OF the State OF Virginia
to the general governmentj cannot 1t is held, apply
to law for the collection OF taxes Tho petitioner
maintains that II the sale was not in every respect
constitutonaiy and legally made no has been deprived
OF his property without due process Of law, which
violation Of the constitution
STRONG vIEw.
Another aspect Of the case is given as follows =
.Thc land was assessed, taxed and sold the prop
erty OF the life tenant Your petitioners title
mainder was not noticed The sale could BY the
OF the law only DO prevented by the owners paying
the tax The tax sale certificate reccs the property
as owned by Mary A. Il. Leo II your petitioners
title In remainder contingent II was estate
the land and he was In No sense an owner u u was
vested 1t was estate not IN possession, but
pcctancy, and tho land taxed that Of the life
tenant. liz offered for sale he not owner,
therefore, within the meaning OF tho law, he could
not tender The tax. Ais right being taxed could
not be forfeited for It's on-paymenL Tho sale could
only pass, ut the utmost the ,l.o Of the HE tenaa
and not the remaincr The title passed by the sale
has cxpirod your petitioner remainder vests
in possession as in title. This view Is the more
patent as 40 assessment m AIDE against your
petitioner; no was imposed on or demanded OF
him. and no property or estate OF ais was ever adver-
tiset for sale sold 10 the government"
The case naturally attracts good deal Of attention
here and ts issue Is watched with considerable inter
est Very little doubt 10 entertained that IL viii be de-
cided In Mr.. Lees avor especially as large number
OF suits the recovery OF property purchased the
sales IN section have decided in favar OF
the claimants.
THE ARLINGTON oy TO DAY
Tho Arlington estate to-day much more beautiful
than II was WHOM In the possession OF the Loo family
A large amount al money has been expended VI by
the government and numerous drives and carriage
ways nave been through The grounds The oi
Washington, with the Capitol and It's many other
tercstng points, from the portco Of The mansion Is
superb The Potomac, skirtcd one side by the city
ana the Maryland hills and on the other by Tho Vr
rinia Shore widcns into what seems unruled lake,
At the urthest end Of which nestes the old time city