Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-03-05
The Arlington Case.


linetop, vas further argued before Judge Robt. |
W. Hughes. in the United States Circuit Court
this morning, the Court opening at 10 o'clock.
Judge w stel Wioughby stated that counsel
on the other side had INDUCED him to MAKE
few additional remarks upon the case ot.Cohens,
vs. West Va. Counsel Oh the other SIDE haa
relied upon that case. 1t was argued that be-
cause this case arises under the Constitution
and laws of the United States this Court had
Jurisdiction to decide against the government.
The case of Cohen was criminal case, and ne
pleaded the United States statutes, aud the
Court held that the Supreme Court had ap'
pelIate Jurisdiction in all cases arising under
acts OF Congress, or treaties, or the Constltu
ton, 20 matter who might be parties 10 Tue
case. In the case Of Cohen it was declded that
a suit could not be brought against the stare,
and writ of error was not suit, Out the Cou!I
decided that even if writ OF error was q suit
the pary had right to the protection OF the
aat of Congress. The expression used by baron
Rolfe 10 the casa that writ OF right might be
brought against the king was opposed 10 the
expre ssion of the other Baroos. who had used
Che words petition Of right, aud Baron Role g
EXPRESSION was doubtless ioadvertence.
Judge Hughes said that the writ ot tight
had been prosecuted in Fog land down TO- The
time of Edward II against the CroWo, ADD re-
ferred to various expressions OF tue Courts 10
support of the view.
a cocuuy ensued between couosel and court
as TO right of the subject to enforca Writ OF
right against the interests of the Crown.
Judge VIM j. Robertson, counsel fcr Gen.
Lee, addressed the Court in reply to the argu-
ment Of the Governments counsel Oh the de-
murrer to the suggestion, and SAID before pro-
eeedDg to the argument it would be proper to
notice the state OF the pleadlogs and the exact
question before the Court The demurrer ad,
nts the facts, but the application tor removal
had been filed subsequently to the order OF
removal. r.,
Judge Hughes stated that he neglected to file
the application at the time ne granteu the
order, and he would direct that the proceedings
be corrected and the application be marked as
fled as OF the date OF the order.
Judge Robertson said, 10 opening, that the
counsel on the other side said this was case
the like OF which had never been Known
before, and the speaker admitted it, for no
case could be found where the rights OF
plaintiff urder such circumstances had been
denied. Judge Robertson reviewed the title
to Arlington, and said the Governments title
is illegal and void. The plaintiff expected to
prove, if permitted. that there was ample per-
sonal property to have paid the tax; moreover,
that friend offered to pay the tax; that the
Government had bid an amount so large as to
shut off any other bidder, and that the Govern
ment had never paid cent to the tax commls
sioners. Mrs. Gen. Lee had filed her petition
to Congress, not tor the property, but tor com
pensation. Gen. Lee, her sou, had likewise
prayed Congress to authorize the Court OF
Claims to Inquire into the title, and II that
Court should determine that the Government
had no title the Court should ascertain the
value os1he property to be paid him, and he
then to make valid fee simple title to the
property. Gen. Lee has waited patiently tor
some action upon his respectful petition Tor
three years, and for some reason none had been
taken. And now it is claimed that We can go
to sovereign Congress for the protection OF our
rights. The people are sovereign. not the
Government, aud not Congress, and the co.ord!-
nate branches Of the Government arc as much
sovereign as Congress. The suit had been
brought in the only Court it could be. The
plaintiff bad failed 10 appealing Tor relief from
Congress-. 1t was useless to argue that eject.
meDt is equivalent to writ of right as the mind
Of the Court had already been turoed to the
appreciation OF that question. The bringing OF
this suit allowed the Government double ad-
through the present defendants, or the Govern
menr could have obtained an act OF Congress
allowing them to come here and defend. 10 40
analogous case of Osborne vs. tae Bank OF the
Old Dominion, the Court laid down the princl,
ple that the rights OF the foreign sovereignty
were defended, although not party to. the
record. If this suit was sustained and the
plaintiff put 10 possession against the parties
defendant, then the Government could bring a
suit to recover possession upon IT'S title, II that
title be valid Que, tie only disadvantage being
that the Government would then be pIaintIif
whereas it is now defendant. If the Attorney
General OF the United States can come here
and by mere suggestion Of & color OF title 10
the Government dismiss and discontinue this
case, then the citizen has 90 mode OF hay.
Jog his rights inquired into and protected
under the Constitution ct the land. 1t Is
admitted by counsel that It The Government
had not color Of title the suit could be
maintained, but this was DOT sufficient,
the Government must have actual title, and
got by nero claim of title stlfe inquiry and
hold on to property TO which 1t had no tltle.-
Suppose 10 case of purchase OF property by
Govcroment for fort and the granOr OF the
Government has no title, but tho title is in an.
other, can it be true that the true owners title
is Invested. The Government 10 this case would
rave color supplemented with possession, but
could it hold The property against the true
owner Suppose it was forged deed, would
the Government have the right to stop all In.
quiry by the court and throw the true owner to
hopeless petition to Congress. Such posi-
ton is monstrous. If the plaintiff in this case
General Leg can show that the title Of the
Government is void az 10 the cases supposed,
will it be maintained that he can be denied tho
barcn right Of having the title investigated
1t the Government has title its rights cannot
be impaired by investigation, but would De cs-
,ablished and confirmed. 10 this torn,as adopt.
ed by the Attorney General, tho Government
does submit to the jurisdiction of the court not.
wthstandiug their denial of the jurisdiction.
La tho case of tho Siren it was held that tho
Government, having invoked the aid of the
Court, it must submit to be compelled to do
full and complete Justice. But here the Govern
ment says it is not merely objecting, but on tho
contrary the Government Is coming into this case