Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-12-05

now holds In the early part ofthe war Ar
lington was in the hands Of the confeder-
ates for short time, and during the first
months of the war the people of the
District were fearful that it would be forth
fed. BY the advance Of the federal forces in
Virginia, however, the estate came within
the union lines, and within the grounds adj
joining the mansion national cemetery was
established, the bodies being inferred in
long lines on a level piece of ground south
west of the house. This portion of the cs-
tate was first ofall fenced in, but since then
the wall has been built, and the place has
also been greatly beautificd There were
inferred here during the war nearly $4,000
Union soldiers, about $50 confederates, and
about 200 contlabands. The remains of
over 1000 soldiers, gathered on the field at
Bull Run and OH the route to the Rappahan-
mock, are placed under the monument to
'Thc Unknown Since the war numbers
of the bodies have been removed, and at
this time there remain in round figures
probably $1,000 in this "City of the Dead"
On portion of the estate occupied as
fort during the war the government has
established what was originally Fort Whip
pie, now Fort Meyer, where Capt 4. P
Strong, one of the defendants, commands.
Other portions Of the estate are occupied by
quite village known as Freedman's
village, having been settled by the contra
bands who came through the lines At Mr..
Curtis death he owned about 200 slaves,
some so being on Arlington place, and there
are Today number Of those freedmen still
living OH the place.
Under the act Of Congress Of June eth
1862, for the collection Of direct taxes, and
in accordance with the proclamation of
President Lincoln, dated January 9Th, 1861,
the Arlington property was sold to the
United States for the sum of S2G, 800 by John
Hawxhurst, Gillet f. Watson and a. Law
renee Foster, U. S. direct tax commissioners
for Virginia. The amount of tax was but
S9201.
In February, 1872, Mrs. Lee, by her
counsel, Mr.. F. l.. Smith, of Alexandria,
presented memorial to the Senate through
Senator Johnston, concluding:
Your petitioner aud her son. G. w. GUSTS Lee,
the owner of the reverSon,) are willing to avoid
however, all litigation OH the subject and TO have
| an amicabc settlement of this mrtter. With this
in view. they now offer to the government of the
United States. through your honorable bodies
that upon the receipt Of 100000 they will exc
cute and deliver such necessary releases and cou-
veyances as may be adjudsed sufficient to sanction
| ana quiet Any claim which the government may
now have by making a legal and valid title to the
property
No report was eyer made on this me-
mortal. Mrs. Lee died in November. 1873,
and George Washington Gusts Lee took an
estate in remainder in Arlington, On April
9Th, 1874, the latter presented, through
senator Johnston, a memorial making the
SANG proposal his mother had submitted
and it was referred to the judiciary commit
tee, with u bill for the purpose.
No report having been made OH this petit
ton the suit was brought in the courts.
Justice Miller in delivering tho opiA-
ion Of the court yesterday said that the most
important question presented is whether
suit can be brought under any crcumstan-
ces against the government Of the United
States without that governments consent.
The court holds, FIRST, that the United States
cannot be sued as party defendant in any
court whatever except where Congress has
provided for such suits; second, that this
exemption is, however. limited to suit
name, und cannot he successfully pleaded
in favor of officers and agents of The United
States when sued by private persons for
property in their possession as such officers
and agents; third, that in such cases a court
OF competent jurisdiction over the parties
before 1t may inquire into the lawfillness of
the possession Of the United States ms held
by such officers or agents, and give Judge.
ment according to the result of the inquiry.
The court further holds that the constitu.
tlonal provisions that no person shall be de-
PriVeu OF LIE, liberty or property without
due process of law, nor private property
taken for public use, without Just compen-
satlon, are intended as limitations upon the
power of the government in its dealings
with the citizen, and relate to the class OF
rights whose protection is peculiarly the
province of the judicial branch of the gov
.ernment. The courts are bound to afford a
remedy for unlawful invasions of rights of
property by officers of any branch of the
government
Speaking of the rights of individuals as
against the government, Justice Miller saws
what is the right of the defendant in error
as established by the verdict of the Jury in
TINS case? 1t is the right to possession of
his homestead. A right to recover that
which has been taken from him bv force
and violence and detained by the strong
hand. This right being clearly established
we are told that the court eau proceed no
further because it appears that certain mill
tary officers, acting under orders ofthe Pres
ident, have seized this estate and converted
one part of it into military fort and another
into cemetery. 1t is not pretended as the
case now stands, that the President had any
lawful authority to do this, or that
the legislative body could give him any
such authority except upon payment of Just
compensation. The defense stands here
solely upon the absolute immunity from
judicial inquiry of every one who asserts
authority from the executive branch of the
government, however clear it may be made
that the executive possesses no such power
and not only that no such power is given, |
but that it is absolutely prohibited,
both to the executive and the leg.
lsiatire, to deprive any one Of life liberty or
property without due process of law, or to
take private property without just compen
sation. No man in this country is. so high
That he sabove the law. No officer of the
law may set that law at defiance with impu-
nifty. All the officers of the government
from the highest to the lowest-are crea-
lures of the law, and are bound to obey it."
In conclusion Justice Miller SAYS that the
Circuit Court was competent to decide the
issues in this case; that no error has been
found, and that the Judgment is affirmed