Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1878-03-20
The Arlington Estate.
INFORMANT DECISION OF JUDGE
HUGHES.

DECISION OF JUDGE
HUGHES.
In the Arlington case, which was
argued at Alexandria i'll the United
States Circuit Court, before Judge |
Hughes, on the I'd, 4th and 5 rnstants, the
Judge rendered his decision yesterday.
Gen. Gusts Lee brought ejectment
last year against the occupants OF the
estate III the State court OF Alexandria
county. The case pro ;eeded there to
issue, and thereupon was removed by
certiorari to the Federal Court, where
the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Of the Unlted
States interviewed III DehalfOf the United
States by suggestion, showing that the
Government neld, by record utle, OBJ
tanned by purchase alta tax sale IN 1914
ard was III possession -or public pur'
poses; raising the question whether this
suit, being III fact suit against the Gov
ernment, could proceed, aud moving to
dismiss Tor want vi jurisdiction. To this
suggestion the plaintiff dcmurred aud
answered, and the case was heard aud
argued at Alexandria on the suggestion
aud the demurrer.
The decision rendered here yesterday
was confined 10 law questions arising III
the case rs IL stands upon the record
The court held that the suggestion did
Not OF itself defeat the jurisdiction, but
that the court might look luto the record
~ discover the grounds OF the Govern
ment's title and gifts right to intervene.
Accordingly, the court proceeded To
inquire whether the Government held
the estate III It's sovereign, or in q phi
vate character; and, III the latter event,
whether il held The estate Tor public pur-
poses.
The cession Of State jurisdiction was
never obtained, not even from the
Alexandria government. NOproylsions
Of law looking to establishing the
soyereing jurisdiction OF the United
States over Arlington has been complied
with and the court showed from
Vattel, Story, the Attorney Generals
opinion and many other authorities, that
the Government held Arlington by pd-
yate tenure. Enquirlng into the pur-
poses for which the estate Is held, 1t APP
peared that only two hundred acres Cf
The estate (Which contain eleven hum
dred acres) are used for an apparently
public purpose; that is to say, the sacred
purpose oia national cemetery, the rest
being only III the nominal use OF the
Government, being actually occupied by
some two hundred poor people, who
would seem from the record TO pay mol
rent.
The Judge then proceeds to examine
whether sovereign power can be sued
indirectly in respect to property held.
either by sovereign or private tenure.
He shows hat i'll proceedings mTem
this can be done in this country when |
ever, III the service Oi mesne process. |
the possession is not wrcstcd from the |
Government, and that though in Eng |
land in admiralty causes the consent oil
the Government is required 10 be OBJ
tanned; yet that consent Is generally |
given, as ii matter o! course. He shows |
that IN other suits respecting personal
property, the United States supreme
Court has IN many cases. beglnnin-
with Osborn Is. the United States |
Bank, ruled that The sun may proceed
whenever the sovereign Is not a deien- !
dant named in the record.
Proceeding 10 suits concerning land. |
the Judge shows that the decisions OF
The English courts, which hold thai
ejectment will not lie against tn,
Crown, arc not applicable IN this coun-
try that the plesent action is in the
turc of writ OF right, and is onl,
Ojectment in name under the State law
and that the Eugllsh decisions, in hold
M that ejcctment will not lie, but that
Petition Of Right will lie, really prove
that the Crown may be sued by judicial
proceedings.
Coming, then, to the final question
VIII ther the Government may be i'll
directly sued iOr landSin its possession.
III proceedings to which the occupants
are parties defendant to the record, I'll,
Judge cites line of cases from Melg>
os. McClung, 9th Cranch's reports,
down to Cooley rs. O'COnner, IN l2th
Wallace, in which the United States
courts have exercised jurisdiction III
Just such cases rs this OF Arlington.
with the sanction of the Supreme Court.
He then shows that the Supreme Courts
Of Virginia, LOUISIANA, Illinois, Caliior-
MA, and other States have supported
the rulings Of the United States Supreme
Court in the exercises Of such jurlsdlc
ton. The Judge declares that he Is
bound by these authorities 10 hold that
this cause may proceed to issue on th'
merits, and to sgslan the plaintiffs
demurrer to the Attorney Generals
suggestion.
The Judge said that he had studied
the authorities with more sOllcllude.
from the circumstance that all the tan
titles derived from tie tax commission
ers who sold Arlington to the Govern
ment mad been practically Oyerthrowh
by the decisions OF the Supreme Cour
in Bennett rs. Hunter, in 9th Wallace.
and lacey rs, Irwin, in 18th Wallace
aud that the fate Of the Governments
tenure Of Arlington seemed TO depen
upon this question Of jurisdiction. Ii
Ills decision was wrong, however, h'
was consoed by the reflection that It
would doubtless be reviewed on writ OF
error by the Supreme Court.