Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1878-03-22
ARLINGTON.

Gen. custIs Less SHIt for lie P~OOSssslsa-
Declslsa Of UalIsa stSlsS CIreSIt ledge
IaHshss 10 Regard to CSFtaIa Law
Polats.
RICHMOND, March l5.-In the Ar
lingtOn case which was argued at Al
exsndria 10 the United States Circuit
Court, before Judge Hughes, on the
%, 4,h and 8 h insts., the Judge rem.
dered q decisun here. Gen. Gusts Lee
brought suit Tor ejectmsnt last year
against the occupants Of the estate IN
the Slate Court tor Alexandria county.
| The cause proceeded there to issuP, aud
lhereupon was removed by certiorari
10 the Federal Court, where the Aitor.
ney General interviewed 10 behalf of
the United States BY a suggestion
showing that the Government had by
r cord title obtained by purchase Ut 10
by tex sales In 1851 and vac In posses
sion tor public purposes, raising the
question whether this auit, being In fact
q suit against the Government, could
proceed, aud moving to dismisS for
want OF Jurisdiction. To this sugges-
ton the plaintiff demurred aud made
answer, aud the case waa heard aud
argued al Alexandria on suggestion
and demurrer. The decision rendered
here to-day was confined TO tha Law
questions arising 10 the 90 az II
stands on record. The Court held
that the suggestion did not itself
defeat Jurisdiction, but the Court might
look into the record to discover the
grounds Of the Governments title and
Of lie right TO intervene accordingly.
The Court proceeded to inquire
whether the Government had the ca
tate Ia lie sovereign or priva . charac'
ter, and In the latter event, whether II
held the e.tate for public purposes, The
eetsiOn OF State Jurisdiction was never
obtained, even from the Alexandria
Government, no provision If law look
ing to the establishing The sovereign
juIi.dic'ion Of the United SiAteA over
Arlington has evdr been complied with,
and tue Court showed from Vatiell,
Story, the Attorney GenerApA opin-
ions, and muuy authorities that the
GOvernmrn' h, Id Arlington BY private
tenure. From Inquiry into the pur.
poses for which the estAte Is held, Il ap
pears that only two hundred acres of
the estate, which contains 100 acres,
are used for An apparently pub.
lie purpose-thAts The sacred pur-
pose Of g National Cemetery the
rest being only In nominal use Of The
Government, being actually occupied
by come twenty people who, Il would
seem from the record, paid no rent.
The Judge then proceeds TO examine
whether 9 sovereign power q be sued
indirectly in respect 10 property held
} either by sovereign or private tenure
he shows that proceedings In this can
DO done 10 this country whenever Ia
service OF mesne process the possession
10 not wreSted from the Government,
and that, though In England, In Ad'
miTalty causes, the consent Of the Gov
ernment is required TO be obtained, gel
that consent is generally given as q
MISTER Of course. He shows that Ii
other suits respecting personal prop
erty, the U. 8. Supreme Court has
In many cases, beginning with
Osborne We. U. s. Bank, ruled that sui
may proceed when the sovereign is no
Q defendant, viz. A: In record proceed
3 ings to suit concerning land. Tit
Judge shows that decisions OF Eoglisk
a Courts, which hold that ejeclments car
not be against the Grown, are not ap
plicable In this country. The presen
action is In the nature Of q writ, and Il
!, only eiectmeut in name. Under Statl
q law, and English decisions, in holding
that ejectment will not be, but petition
of right will be, really prove that lht
Crown may be sued BY judicial pro
r ceedings. Coming 10 the fna
. question, whether the Government
n may be indirectly sued for lands II
lie possession Ia proceeding TO which
the occupants are parties defendant L
record, the Judge cites q line o
cases from Meigs vs. McClung, 9tl
Crouch's reports, down TO Cooley Va
1 O'Counor, In 18th Wallace, In Whicl
United States Courts have exercised
jurisdiction In Just such cases as this o
d Arlington, With the sanction OF the Su.
prone Court. He then shows the Su
! preme Courts OF Maryland, Louisiana
: Illinois, California, aud other Stale
/ have supported the ruling of United
:, States Courts In the exercise of sncl
: Jurisdiction. The Judge declares be |
bound by these authorities to hold tina
0 this cause may proceed to the issue Of
lie merits, and sustains PLAINTIFF de
D murrer TO the AttOrney-General'
suggestion. The Judge said b,
had studied the authorities will
the more sOlicitude from tn
b circumstance that oil the tax title
derived from the Tax Commissioners
who cold Arlington TO the Govern
ment, had been practically overthrow
by decisions OF the Supreme Court II
d Bennett Vs. Hunter, 0 Wallace, aud til,
8 fate of the Governments tenure Of Ar
lington seemed to depend on this sug
gestiOn of jurisdiction. II his decision
k was wrong, however, he was cOusoieC
e by the reflection that 1t would doubt
less be reviewed on a writ Of error b.
n the Supreme Court.