Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1878-03-04

lien Cd property as against the Government, yet
a party might maintain the action where the
suit was Tor tho whole property. No sufficient
reason had been shown for this distinction and
it was not vel! founded There could be no
difference 10 right of party to sue for the
whole property, and for part Of it, and the
case had settled the principle that the suit TO
enforce the lien could not be maintained. 1t
was claimed that the u. S. was a foreign
sovereignty to Virginia yet it had been decided
that suit affecting the rights ofa foreign SOW
eregnly would not be entertained by the Courts.
The case Of Osborne vs. the Bank Of the u.
S. rests upon the principle that If the money
which was the subject of controversy had been
paid into tho treasury Of the State Of Ohio
there would have been no adequate remedy at
law, and therefore the suggestion made 10 that
case did not prevail. That case is not incon.
sistcnt with the position OF tho Government in
this case because the mere suggestion of tho
interest CT the Government ought not and will
not abate the suit, but if that Interest be coup
led with an actual possession and user by the
Government then the suggestion will abate the
suit, though the Government be DOT party,
In all or nearly all OF the cases cited by counsel
for tho plaintiff the question OF possession by
the government oil the property which was the
SuC|eCt VI nLiEutlOu ulu uUl aIiSc, auu Tue uo-
cslons were based upon other principles.
10 England by recent statute, % and ~
Victoria, petitions of Right had been regulated
by Parliament, and the petition is required to
be flee! with the Secretary Of State, to be pre-.
scented to the Queen, who can in her judgment
issue the Royal fiat that us.ico be done, and
the Oacen can and has refused permission 10
prose cutc the petition Of Right and tho subject
is without redress.
Oar sovereign is the Congress Of the u. S.,
and We have the petition Of Right which is the
right To petition Congress, and Congress docs
say in most cases let Right be done. 1t has
been said that this involved a dcspotsm, but il
it was, it was the dcspotism Of the people,
Thomas Jefferson, who was good authority up.
on he subject OF despoIism, said that the u.
s. was not amcnabc to civil process 10 the cale
| bratcd LIVINGSTON contest. Senator Lamar had
recently made statement subscribing to this
doctrine, Ard it was generally conceded every.
| where that the principle was sound. In several
decisions cited by the plaintiffs 10 the State
courts the parties themselves have ondeavored
| TO raise this question, but the courts have held
| that they cann)t raise the question or take ad.
vantage of the rights Of the Government, be.
cause ii that we're allowed the rights Of the
Government might be- decided without being
sued But here the u. S. incrposes for itself,
and there is no case in contradiction to the
principle contended for.
Upon the conclusion Of Judge Willoughby s
argument i. r. Page, esq, asked that the
court adjourn until 10 morrow. Judge Robert.
son and himself we're both somewhat indisposed
and Tic argument could not DO concluded by
| Judge Robertson to day.
Judge Hughes adjourned the court until lC
o'clock to morrow, when Judge Robertson viii
conclude the argument for the plaintiff, and the
case be- given to the Court.