, 1881-03-24
Yesterdays Proceedings In the
Case Of tho University.
Possible Conflict Between tho Federal
and State Judiciary.
lud,e Jameson liearing Testimony In
the Casc of the Roth Estate,
Which Is Claimed by Two Widows-soro
Inserpsting Developments.


nnny against tho University Ut Ch!cnRo md 9th
rtJ, lie said that 1T lsiB Stephen A. Douglas
wns the uwnrr Ut trnct Ut land which h0 pr,,-
uo,cd 10 convey to certain parties fer n instftt-
lin ur Irnrnit,g. Tho cuntrnct WIS made. be.
tween hin, ard Mr.. Burroughs, who represented
thu Institution. OH tho I'd day of Anftl, 1851. The
ccuvcyuncc WIS u ht nlndo OIL ccttaln conll.
ttun. which vert expressed l11 tho cnntract tic.
tween nltn uild Burroughs, nnonx which wcro
that there should bu n building erected on tho
property, nud That u certnin amount OF tnuney
should be contributed. On tho 10th Gf
November. lSdU+ Mr.. burroughs reprt-
scurrd TINT ho wns unable to comply
with the conditions uf tho grant. and nskcd fnr
All extension NJ tho t!mo frotn SIR. IouRns, DUR
lug which certain things wero to 10 done. Une
Of such conditions wns that tho Foundation 0f
tho building WIS III bu lnd. a memorandum
wis ncc"rd4ny'y naado i'y alr. Douglas hy which
be extended tho time for laylng tho foundation
Of INC University Until tho lst day OF May, and
also for expanding tho first sum OF 81 ,CDu unt!
tho lst day of October, 1871, Though tho conli.
tons tcmllnrd In t,ili force. There wns clause
In tho memorandum uf agreement TINT tho title
Of the land should forever rcnnln In tho Uni
ycruty, aud that no purt should over be sold or
aIicnntgd ur used fur ,.ny u,her purpose whit.
ever. d.. burroughs subsequently trallaftrrod
University, u,ld on tho auth of Junua-
4 ,s; tho ss'sGtays Hssaea ,n AZ act
s 'h IT Asus5 s Mr oxas s"vcyea
tho land which WIS thu subject Ut tho e"ntract
CsnsS ss nbsoae
y. without nry condition or qualification III any
WY: There was no condition named in RUG
ugrccmrnt bctwten htil! aud Dr, hnrruuRhn
1uu University tnYk posscsxton ot tbv prnperty.
bad sI,lrc rcn currcd on with mnru Or loss atic-
cess. III February, 1876. tho university exc
satea nortE,tEe ,r tr''sl.dsca s.! T. tho un!on
i @ tSo Il cirea!t GeaSt d 70; COX GoSa.y by BY
sss eaeS n s arson n o'hss aya ;as
and ex;ollc!o ONO Of the Regents. and
lsuao n. Arnoid. aas'thor lsosctt. for e..e
thG l,uurl Of Trustees to- tho tnslrunce CON-
puny !nopurnttvc and voIsl. on tho groiiad nt tho
Sansss fs"sS I" NV ~ j. 1 Ts raysr e ho III I'll
IN tie state Cnart cuse WINS that tho defendants
be reatratned froM attempting to forecinsc tho
declared void. and tho cloud IN tho tisIo re.
moved, On tho sanc day. tho lBth of February,
IL iii Unqh Il sbo ta Ess1 csnrt .o ass.Ss e. ILL.,
oJ trs,st .eca, a,li ehurK'ng tnt the University.
is o!!icers. and ase1lts mad cnnspret to tlotoAt
tcd on tho snnls day. bur no service 0r process
was hn' until tho t,rxt tshy, when servlcc WIS
tad on tho defendants n tho toreclosure suit
process II, tho State Court sult wns not served
until at1er2 1'cluck Ut thu an.nc 1Ny.
closure Bult first, nnd ths question was whether
tho Federal Court thereby obtained Jurisdiction
ot tho c'se fur tho PURPOSE contemplated by tho
b-nntuely: to forCci0sn tho trslst-docd. nt-
though 1t might b. that tho bill was tllcd III tho
BtNte Court urst on the spalc tlay. The rule was
iake, Jurisdiction Ut tho party depended TN tho
servico of tho process upun tho party. 1t might
M oc TINT ptrty might cn!nlncnce suit
IL did tut tnkc Gucet h9 against the defendant,
howsacycr long tho PROCESS might remnln in tho
tho liins II was served on tho deroMiant. Tha
process or the Feiernl Court being first eerscd
Sn seG md s' nq aaa mspa
question. aud gave tho right to NO On anu fore
close tito trnat-dccd. Thurc was sts,c ovdence
pnrt OF tho plaintiff In tho foreclosure cnse 10
ootan sgryISe rat Tint m!Kit bo n';t at the
aavo to determine, tho right according 10
spe pluintlE h.l,l l,eun more dltigctit than tho
,thof, how could court deprive Il Of the opn!-
;ies 9r preference to which u might bo entitled:
Tho Federal Ctnlrt, thon. hnvinK acquired, would
eatalu Jurisdiction for the purpose i,a,ncd III tho
,ii!-nhmcly: Of forclo4ihs the trust-dccd, and
After iho twa biiis wcro iIca. the Company
eano intn the Federal Court aud filed q supple
mental ne o! alleging the f.ot q tug isgatioi, n
nIc1 cross Bill for tho protection OF Kny Inter
H. u frs 81 .ho 'pa
of tho University to kuep tho a9roosaens,
TIC property has reverted 70 the heirs
ps tho donor: It WIS undoubtedly an embur-
rnssny subject Ut iitluuton. There heluK two
snta brought tn two Jurisdictions, involving 10 4
was m e.s'narrassinx iatssr 10 .le;srns s What
Mns , the tr!!o Euso " tho subject. nus Il must
lcEltIMRtely ilt.wGl trnEl the subject matter In