Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-01-22
THE .GRZT.S.GTG.,' C8SE.


The Ar!iac.Go case Tas resumed 10 the o.
S, Cifaui; Court thi; morning, Judge Il. w
Hughes Oh the bench.
The c?unsol for both parties. as named yes
terlay, werc present AID the space without the
bar va cfoTicd Tith spectators.
Judge Hughes, upon taking The bench
ordered the calling Of the speci,lj jury.
judge WilIoashby, for The defense, said thai
before proceeding he would read disclaimer
from s5ms Of the defendants as to the cccu-
parcy Of The property and claiming that they
were there by authority Of the Uoited States.
Judge Robertson thought the paper should
be more detuita and state who were and who
were cot. 10 occupancy OF the property.
The court asked whether the paper denied
the Actual occupancy of the land.
Judge Wilouahby said it did not. ltrested
with the pl,iutiff, to prove their case.
Judge Robertson again claimed that the dis
cIainer should be more definite.
Judge Hughes said the Act OF Assembly an
thoriz ID az aciioa 10 BIO brought against the
actual occupants Ct the land and the disclaimer
should be framed ia those very words.
! Judge WiIloughby said that all OF the par.
lies dscaimed tenarte7 whether 10 occupation
or not.
Judge Robertson said the paper ought TO
show whether or not the parties were occupants.
judge WiEiOughby said that the defendants
had throughout claimed that they we're not the
occupants Rud would SO hold to tho end.
Mr.. Psac said the defendants had not only
not disc!ained tenancy of freehold ,iu..the State
Court, bu. had even adfnlted it. The dis
claimtr should be full au uusmbiguous and the
plaintiffs had right to knox who dsclalmed.
Judge Willougbby said that be could make
it no palmer than to cay that all of the defend
ants except Syphsx, who was named, disclaimed.
Mr.. Beach said tho action Of Cjectment 10
Virginia was now purely q statutory one and
not ct common lay. liz read from the Code
pages 95S GO to sho;g tho law 90 the subject
The statute alloSs DO plea, he SSH, save that of
not guilty
The court sa5taioe! the claim that the action
was ore exclusively statutory aud saw no legal
value of the disclaimer, and did not think it the
duty Of The court 10 aIl)H irrelevant papers to
be filed. He sustained the objection of the
plaintiff and ruled out the paper.
Judge Wouphby suggested the deaths of
Robert Carter, Robert Gardner, Berj. Cole and
s. Pa.qaer, which was entered a1d the action
abatcd "a to them.
Mr.. Bcaoh read from 40 &C: passed 10 1872
iu regard to rendering the amount Of taxes and
casts, on land sold for direct lakes, and said tho
plaintiff was now prepared to make that tender.
Il was agreed between c1unsel that the rate Of
iateres, should be fixed By the Treasury De
partmcnt
District AttOraay Lewis asked that the Hit-
nea5es b. rwofL uu lh3 roTe dire, wbloh vas
ordered.
W. N. BaIkel7 Was passed. Vim. II. Smith
hnd expressed 40 opinion aud wa excused.
Walter Walton. D. I. Smith ADD j. j. Moran
We're accepted.
r. T.. FiIzhush was dis:suly related to soma
Of the parties and was excused.
II. l.. Stuart. A. T. Roberts, George Wise,
a. NJ. Ailsn, II. B. Roosa and j. w. Seucr
were accepted.
Arthur Herbert lad formed and expressed an
opinion and was excused.
john w. Green, after long series of ques.
tons aud answers, vas excused.
Beponi Wheat. Wn. y. Moore, j. H. d.
Smoot, George +. Price, John l. Febrcy and
o. +. Bagselt we're accepted making panel Of
sixteen.
Four additional talesmcn wcro then ordered
to he summoned as follows George ". Fran.
Henderson and S. x. Corbatt had bins and
were excused.
Ig0 other la!ismsn we're ordered.
h. Francis aud John Perry were acaapIel.
The process Of drawing and striking off was
then gore through with aud the Jury as GuaIly
formed was as follows w. N. Barkely, w.
Walton, Il. 3. Roosl, f. Fnrcis, &. w.
Frarcis, W. A. Moore. A. IT, Rohrts, j. H. ID.
Smoot, b. Wheat John Perry, George Wise
and j. ". Scner.
Dir. S. +. Beach opentd tor the rlaiDtif and
stated tho circumstances ucdtr which Gen. Z.
w. G. Lee claimed possession OF the Arlington
estate, us the dcVi$cc OF George w. Z. Gusts,
all Of which circumstances have been heretofore
published and arc we'll known to the readers Of
the Gaz.ttn. The title which he supposed
would ba SGT UP by the defendants would be
that The United States owed the properly
under The direct tax IaS, hut he thought they
could show that under The decisions OF the
Supreme Court, that title vas null and void.
Judge WllIouphby, for the defense, said they
expected to show that the property 10 dispute
was 10 the possession Of the United States and
became so by virtue OF q sale uuder the direct
tax law, passed in 1867 lie r,c0uolcd the
passage of that law and the action taken there.
under. Tic PROVISIONS authorizing the lax
commissioners to strike CIT properly 10 the
United States had never. been passed upon by
any court to his knowledge. The property In
dispute was bought 10 uoder that provision for
use as cemetery. The officers could not be
blamed for their aatioo. They were directed by
President Lncolo, Secretary S;auoton aud Sec
rotary Chase. These men were all lawyers
and doubtless examined the tito carefully be.
fore they ordered the purchase. Nothing could
have been more shocking TO the people Of the
country, at that time, than that tbero was
possibility that Gen. Lee or any OF his descend.
ants could evsr come in possession OF the camc-
terry Some persons thought the direct tax law
harsh. Tina. vas the case with al Tax laws.
The United States could have cop6s,ated the
property and he thought they would have been
justified therein.
Major Page rejoned for the plaintiff and said
that theg proposed TO show that not only was
the title tot properly obtilUcd, eVea under The
harsh law mentioned. but was without any
shadow of law or justice. He had nothing to
say ia objection TO the great ucn named by
Judge WiiI0ugbby, but unfortunately 90 claim
Of title had been acquired by the Govern.
neut Until 1866, Whcn Dir. Lincoln was dead and