The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1878-03-16
TnE ARLINGTON ESTATE.
Judge Hughes Readers Deeisisn Ia
the sui of General Cus,is lee foE the
iiso'meni 81 she Occupants Of the


the sui of General Cus'is Lee fos the
Iiso,meni of the Occupants OF the
tsiaia
luonMogD, Va, March 10. la tho
Arlington case, whioh was argued Al
Alexandria la the United States cir.
cut court, before Judge Hughes, on
the second, fourth ana hflh instanlp,
the Judge rendered u decision here to-
day, General CusIis Lee brought
suit Cor eJeoImenI, last year, against
the ocoupault of the estate In the state
court IN Alexandria county, Tht
cause proceeded there 10 the issue, nnd
lhefuupon w.H removed by oerIiorali
10 the federal court, where lheallofurl
general lulpryrned IN behalf of the
Uui ~ States bY a nulgesliol, Show
ihg That lhe government had by the
fecora TILE obtained by purchase ~
~ tax sale IN 1891, aud was ia possessiuu
Tor puUllo purpuats, rAlslug The qurp'
lion whether IhH suit, being Ia tact
bull against The government, COulu
proceed, aud moving IN dismiss lol
want OF Jurisdiolion. 10 This sugges
lion the plaintiff demurred aud an.
swored, aud the case was heard nud
argued At Alexandria, on the sugges-
non and demurrer, TIE deelsion reu,
deItd here 10 day was confined
to the law questions arising In
The case, W the suit stands on
the record, Tho court had held
the suggestion did not Itself defeat the
Jurisdiction, but the court might look
into the record 10 discover the grounds
OF the governments title, aud OF ils
right to intervene accordingly. The
court proceeded to inquire whether
the government had the estate In liz
sovereign or IN III private character,
and Ia the latter event, whether II
held the estate tor public purposes.
The ceBslon OF the state Jurisdiction
was never obtained, not even from the
Alexandria governments No provision
OF law looking 10 Che establishing OF
the sovereign jurisdiction OF the
United States over Arlington has
ever been complied with, and
the court showed, from the ut.
torney generals opinions, aud many
other authorities, That the gov.
eminent held Arlington by private
tenure. On inquiry into the purposes
for which the estate is held, 1t appeared |
that only two hundred acres OF the Us.
tate, which contains sixteen hundred |
acres, are used for All apparently public
that Is, the sacred purpose OF
a national cemetery, the rest being
only in The nominal use OF the govern.
meni, being actually occupied by some
twenty poor people, who would show, |
from the records, TO pay no rent The
Judge then proceeds to examine wheth-
Or "a sovereign power can be sued indl
rectly In respect to property held,
either 10y sovereign or private tenure,
and shows that in the proceedings this
can DO done in this country,
whenever in the service OF mesRc pro
ocSS the possession is not wrested from
.he governments and that though In
In admiralty causes, the con
sent Of the government IL required to
be obtained, yet that consent ID gener-
Ally given as "A matter OF course. He
shows in other suits respecting per
ional property the United States suS
lreme court has, in many cases, begin
mig with Osborne Va. United States
)ank, ruled that n suit may proceed
the sovereign IL not de.
namely, In record proceed.
ngs, to n euit concerning land. The
ndge shows that the decision OF the
English courts, which hold that
Ajectments will not be valid
against the crown, are not ap.
llcabie In this country; that
he present action is iu the nature of
4 writ Of right, and is ouly M eject.
nent In name under state law, and
hat the English decisions, in holding
hat ejectment can uot be valid, but that
\ petition Of right will be really prove
hat the crown may be sued by Judicial
Coming to the final
question, whcthtr the government
nay be Indirectly sued for lands In It's
in proceedings to which
he occupants ore parties or defendants
o the record, the judge cites line of
Eases from Aeigs VIZ. McCluug, NiAth
Jrouches' Reports, down to Cooley vs.
DConnor, in Twelfth Wallace Reports,
u which the United States courts have
exercised jurisdiction In just such
eases as this of Arlington, where the
sanction of the supreme courts of Vir
yinia, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado and
other states have supported the ruling
Of the United States supreme court in
the exercise OF such jurisdiction. The
udgs declares that he is bound by
these authorities 20 hold that this
rsuse may proceed to the issue on It's
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
nn,nr,n i.ainnnra uhn anlh Arlinrfnn In