The Dallas weekly herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1885, 1878-03-23
THE ARLIsaroS ESTATE.

Jsage nashea Re.asss Deesssss sn
the sass Of 6esesaI Cassss lee f.v sse
fieesmess nj the Oeeop.nis or sse
Estate.
RICHMOND, Va, March l5.-In the
Arlington case, which was argued al
Alexandria In the United States cir
cult court, before Judge Hughes, on
the second. fourth and fifth inslants.
the judge rendered decision here to-
day. General CustIs Lee brought q
suit for ejectment. last year, against
the occupants of the estate in the state
court for Alexandria county. The
cause proceeded there to the issue, and
thereupon was removed 10y certiorHri
to the federal court. where the attorney
general htervened In behalf of the
United States by suggestion, show
Ing that the government had by the
record title obtained by purchase nj
tax sale in lS84, and was in possession
Tor public purposes. raising the ques-
ton whether this suit, being in fact a
suit against the government, could
proceed. and moving to dismiss for
want of jurisdiction. To this sugees-
ton the plaintiff demurred and An.
swered, and the ease WAS heard and
argued ut Alexandria. on the sugges.
ton and demurrer. The decision ren>
dered here to-day was confined
TO the law questions arising In
The Case, rs the suit stands on
the record. The court had held
the suggestion did not itself defeat the
jurisdiction, but the court might look
into the record to discover the grounds
OF the governments title, and OF its
right 10 Intervene accordingly. The
court proceeded TO inquire whether
the government had the estate in its
sovereign or IN its private character,
and in the latter event, whether AZ
held the estate Tor putlic purposes.
ihe cecsion of the state Jurisdiction
was never obtained, not even from the
Alexandria government. No provision
OF law looking TO the establishing OF
the sovereign Jurisdiction Of the
United States over Arlington has
ever been complied with, and
the court showed, from the Al.
toraey generals opinions, and many
AllthnrrlrGa bal
eminent held Arlington by private
tenure. On inquiry into the purposes
for which the estate is held, IL appeared
that only two hundred acres OF the es.
tate, which contains sixteen hundred
acres, are used for al apparently public
purpose, that Is, the sacred purpose OF
q national cemetery, the rest being
only in the nominal Use of the govern
ment, being actually occupied by some
twenty poor people, who would show,
from the records, to pay no rent. The
judge then proceeds To examine " heih-
er a sovereign power can be sued indi-
rectly In respect to property held,
either by sovereign or private tenure,
and shows that in the proceedings this
can be done in this country,
whenever in the service OF mesae pro-
cess the possession is not wrested from
| the government, and that though In
England, In admiralty causes, the con.
sent Of the government Is required to
be obtained, yet that consent is gener.
ally given as a matter OF course, He
shows In other suits respecting per.
soDai property the United States su,
prsme court has, in many cases, begin.
ming with Osborne VS.. United States
bank, ruled that suit may proceed
whenever the sovereign 10 not de.
fsndant, namely, In record proceed.
ings, to suit concerning land. The
judge shows that the decision Of the
English courts, which hold that
| ejectments will not be valid
against the crown, are not ap-
plicable In this country; that
the present action is In the nature Of
writ OF right, and Is only an elect
ment In name under state law, and
that the English decisions, in holding
that ejectment can not be valid, but that
petition of right will be really prove
that the crown may be sued by judicial
proceedings. Coming to the final
question, whether the government
may be indirectly sued for lands In Its
possession, in proceedings to which
the occupants are parties or defendants
to the record, the judge cites line OF
cases from Meigs VS.. McClung, NiHth
CroIches' Reports, down to Cooley vs..
OConnor, In Twelfth Wallace Reports,
| in which the United States courts have
exercised Jurisdiction In Just such
| cases as tins of Arlington, where the
sanction of the supreme courts of Viz
Einia, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado and
other states have supported the ruling
OF the United States supreme court in
the exercise OF such jurisdiction. The
judge declares that he Is bound by
these authorities 70 hold that this
cause may proceed to the Issue on its
| merits, and to sustain the plaintiffs
demurrer to the attorney generals
suggestion. The judge said that he
| had studied the authorities with the
more solicitude from the circumstances
that all the tax titles derived from tax
commissioners who sold Arlington To
the government, had been practically
overthrow by the decisions of the
supreme court in Bennett vs.. Hunter.
In Ninth Wallace, aud Tracey VS.. r.
win, In Eighteenth Wallace, and the
fate Of the governments tenure Of Ar
iington seemed to depend upon this
suggestion of Jurisdiction. If his de-
cision was wrong, however, he wac
consoied by the reflection that 1t could
doubtless be reviewed on writ Of error
by the supreme court.
O'Donovan Rssss Thsessessd 60 Re
0Obbed.
New YORK, March l6.-ODonovau
Rossa, who has been engaged to lecture
on Irish liberty aud English life at