The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-03-16
THE ARLINGTON nJncrsvryr SUR



RICHMOND, Va, March l5 In the Arling-
ton oas". which was argued Mt Al"xnndria. in
the United Slrtes Circuit Court before Judge
Hughes. on the "a. ith, and jth inst. tho j ddge
rendered his decision here to-day. Gen. Cusis
Leo brought suit for cicctmcnt last year against
the occupants OF the estate IN the State Court for
Alexandria county. The cause proceeded there
TO issue, and thcrcupon was removed by Ger
torari to the Federal Court ,whcrcthc Attorney
General interviewed In behalf OF the United
States. by suggestion showing that the Govern
ment held by record title. obtained low purchase
at a tax sale in 1854. and was in possession for
public purposes raising the question whether
this suit being. In fact a suit against the Gov
eminent. could proceed. and moving to dism IS
for want OF jurisdiction. To this suggestion the
pnntlff drmurrcd ANA answered. ana the cnsn
was hcnr1 and argued at Alexandria on the
suggestion and demurrer,
The decision rendered here to-day was con-
lined to tho law lurstiohs arising in tho cnsn as
II stands upon the record Vnr Court held that
the suggestion did not 81 itself defeat the jur,s-
dlcton, but that tive Court might look Into III"
record TO discover the grounds Of the Govern
ncnt's title. and Of It's right 10 intervene. Ac-
cQrdlngly tho Court proceeded to inquire
whether the Government held tho estate in its
Inter event. whether il held the es'nte for pub
liz purposes. The cession OF the Suite iurisdic-
ton was never ohtnined-n1t even from "a"
Alexandria Government No provision ~ law
looking to establish ing tn" sovereign jurisdic-
ton Of the United States over Arlington has ever
been complied with and the Court showed from
Vattrl. Story. the Attorney Generals opinions,
and many other authorities. thnt the Govern
mon, held Arlington by private tenure.
lnpurng into the purposes for which me
estate H. ncld. II appeared that only 300 Hcree 81
the estate (which contains 100 acrcs) are used
Tor M apparently public purpose. thnt rs. the
sacred purpos" OF national cemetery. the rest
being only IN the nominal use uf the Govern
mont. being actually occupied by some 200
to pay no rent. The Judge then showed thgt ia
proceedings in rem sovereign power can pn
sued indirectly in respect to property hclu
either by sovereign or private tenure. When
ever. in the service OF mrsne process. the pos.
session IL not wr".stcd from the Government. anu
TINT. though ~ England. IN Admirnlty causes.
the consent of the Government is required To he
obtained. yet that consent Is generally given Us
II matter Of course. He showed that IN Other
suits respecting personal property. the United
states supreme Court has in many cases. i"-
ginning with Osborn agt tho United States
Bank. ruled that tuit may proceed whichever
tn" sovereign is not II defendant named in the
record. Proccciing to suits concefninR i,and.
the judge shows that the decisions Of tho Eng
lish courts which hold that rIcrtmnnt will not
lie against the Crown. Hrr not applicable in this
country; that the present alton is in the nature
o. writ ~ right, and II only cjrtmPnt III
maine. under State INV. and that the English
decisions. In holding that eJrctlncnt will not liz.
but that petition OF right will lir. really prove
cn"ding.
Coming To the final question. whether the
liza possession. in proceedings TO which the oc-
cLpHnts are parties d"fendnnt to the record. the
Judge cites u line Of cnscs from Mrigs MT.
MrCmng l9,h Cronck's Reporisl down 20 Cooley
ngt. O'Conncr. in 12;h Wallace. IN which the
United states Courts have eXrrcis.d lursli'-
ton IN Just such cns"s rs this Of Ar'ingign
with the sanction ~ the supreme Court. liz
then showed that the Supreme Courts Of Nir-
Elnia. Loulsianu. Illinois. Cal. inrniH. aud other
States hHv" supported the ruilug ui the Unltet,
States supreme Court IN the exercise Of such
jurisdiction. The judge declares tina; h. H.
bound by thrsr authorities t. hold thai tins
cause may proc", Il to Tho is-u' on H. merits
AMI 70 sustain p!nintin'- DEMURRER To- III" At.
tOrney-Genrrni = SugG"stipn. III" Judr" said
thut lr mad studied IN" Hutui i;lc, with the
more s0lictudr. from til" circumstances that the
Tux titles derived from IN" TnN Commissioners
who sold Arlington to the Government had been
prac,icaliy ovrrtnrnwn by the DECISIONS Of the
Supreme Cont in Bennett ast Hunter. In 9th
Wallnr" and Tarcy agt. Irwin. In 18th Wallace
and IN" fnts Of the Governments tenure Of
Arlington seemed to depend upon this guo s,or
OF jurisdiction. II his decision WAS wrong
however. h. WINS consoled by the reflection that
IL would doubtless he reviewed on writ d
error by the Supreme Court.