Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-03-16
FIIc ARLINGTON Case.

Tie decision Of Judge Hughes, ii the Ar
yesterday, would. il lrirted 10 Tic GsE,ttc,
| fitl W the entire sccood ADD thiid pages 0! The
rapcr TO the exclusion CT all other matter, and
| that, of course, would DOT b. ,cIlshed by cur
| general readcrs.
The decision was confined 10 tho law questions
arising in the case As it stslds upon The record
The Court held that the suggestion did not Of it
self defeat the jurisdiction, but that the Court
might look into the record 10 discover the
grounds CT the Governments title and Of Its
| right to intervene Accordingly, the Court pro.
ceeded to inquire whether tho Government held
tho title in lis sovereign Or in private charac-
ter. and in the latter event whether 1t held the
estate for public purposes. The session Of the
| Stste jurisdiction was lever or.slned not even
| from tho Alexandria government. No proV-
sion of law looking to estsbli:hng the sovereign
| jurisdiction of the United States over Arlington
has ever been complied with, and the Court
| showed from Fat!el. Story, the Attorney Cen
| erals opinions and many other authorities, that
the Government hold Arlington by private ten.
ure Inquiring into the purposes for which the
estate is held, it appeared that onl twent7 acres
| CT tho estate (Which cOuans eleven hundred
scres) are used for An apparently public
| purpose; that is, the sacred purpose OF nation
al cemetery the rest being only In the nominal
use Of the Government, being actually occupied
by some two hundred poor people, who would
seem from the record to pay no rent.
ejudge then proceeds to examine whether
q sovereign power can be sued Indirectly in ros
poet to property held either by sovereign or
private tenure He shows that in proceedings
in rem this can be done ii this country, when.
over in the service of mesne process the posses.
sion is not wrested from the Government. and
that though in England in admiralty causes
tho consent Of the Government is required to Da
obtained, yet that consent is generally given rs
q matter Of course. Ho shows that in other
suits respecting personal property tho United
States Supreme Court has in many cases, beginn-
ing with Osborn vs.. the United States Bank, rul-
ed that suit may proceed whenever the soVerei gn
is not q defendant named IN the record. Pro-
ceeding to suits concerning land the Judge
i shows that tho decisions Of Eneliah courts which
hold that electments will not lies against the
crown are not applicable IN this country that
the present action is in the nature OF writ OF light
and is only ejectment in name under tho State
law, and that the English decisions in holding
that cjectment will not lie, but that a petition Of
right will lie, really prove that the crown may
be sued byjudical proceedings. Coming to tho
final question, whether the Government may be
indirectly sued for lands in its possession ia pro-
| ceodngs 10 which the occupants are parties de-
PENDANT TO the record the Judge cites line OF
cases, from Meigs vs.. McCluny (9:h Crouch's
Reports) down TO Cooley vs. OConner, il II
Wallace, in which the United States courts have
exercised jurisdiction in ust such cases as this Of
Arlington with the sanction Of the Supreme
Court. He then shows that the Supreme Courts
of Virnnia, Louisiana, Illinois, California 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 TO hold that this
cause may proceed TO the issue on its merits, and
to sustain plaintiffs demurrer TO thu Attorney
| Generals suggestion. The Judge said that he
| l had ind r1 In "
| cude from the circumstance that ali tho tax
, titles derived from the Tax Commissioners who
sold Arlington TO the Government had been
| practically overthrow By tho decisions OK the
Supreme Court in Bennett vs.. Hunter in oh
Wallace, and lacey vs.. Irwin. 10 18Th Wallace,
J and the fate Of the Governments tenure Ct Ar
, lington seemed TO depend upon this question OF
jurisdiction. il his decision was wrong, how
, ever he WAS consoled by the reelection that it
would doubtlo3s, be reviewed on wit OF error
by the Supreme Court.
e. 4 o. CANAL.-ln The Mar, laGl State
Senate, yesterday, the Baltimore sun says,
Senator Dennis created profound sensation by
declaring open war against the Chesapeake
aud Clio Canal and its paramount iGhuence,
not only 10 Maryland politics, but 10 its control
OF the business interests Of the people OF the
r State, aud especially Of the city Of Baltimore.
II: asked now the canal c,ula to be 10 this
, matter, and Whist it had to do with settle.
mcpt Of the affairs Of the Baltimore aud Ohio
Railroad? 1t was because the Canal Company
holds ROVER in this State and 10 this Senate
which makes my settlement Impossible without
benefits being provided and conferred upon II.
| Sensation.
} He said he saw no connection whatever be.
tween this settlement and the canal company,
, but that power pe1vadcs this Senate and the
House OF Delegates. 1t pctVades the nolltics
of this State; it makes and uDmakes United
States Senators, Governors and other State
officers, Igreat sensation, and Voc to the as
f. pirant to any position who stands IN its way.
What claim, he asked, has it on the State 10
cause the State to cripple its own right arm,
which is daily aud hourly working for the 10
tercst OF every citizen Of this State, and max.
, ing Maryland and the city OF Baltimore power.
rul He then reviewed the cana, and showed
, how money had been sunk in it by millions
from the time it was first thought OF uotil the
present day, and said that its future was the
} hammer and tho auctioncer's block. and the
purchaser may be that other corporation, the
Pennsylvania railroad.
Mr.. Dennis advocated substitute OF his own
az the basis Of settlement and opposed the
, bill. While he was speaking Mr.. Gormau.
, who is the president of the caual company, sat
90 the opposite side OF the chamber, cold and
, self possessed, and half the time amused. Ooca
, he smiled and it attracted the notice Of Mr.
Dennis. Mr.. German was, of course. the oh
, served Of all observers, and his cooncss was iu
striking contrast with the imprisoned fcrvol
of his opposite. When Mr.. German bcgau
bis speech expectation was on tiptoc Lie
gave cold steel in return.
CoLoRED MEN FOR LIBERIA.-During the
last two months applications scckiug aid tc
reach the frccdmen's land Of promise have
been received by the Liberia Colonization So
cicty from over forty places 10 every State il
the IInion. manv OF the applicants offering tC