Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-12-10
THEARLINGTONSUIT
Decision of the Supreme Court, by Which
the Lee Heirs Recover
Their Property.
The United States Has No Right to Take
Property Without Giving an
Equivalent.


-
u,.,,,.,r..,,, p,.o...tx- a a..:.
"AshiNoipSS, uecls,on
TTA;,s9 TA: g. - H., W.angs- hr;sf r,en,;on
- - II - made !, s't;n,s n ,hs c.ss If
y 5-.;eI z snfr, -, s,-s p;ehsr5 D S,rnnU
i:-1; * =, ar-o- 80 -, Sraa--a w D -
Hfsa i, error -, ftss Cirrr;t Co1r, for ,h.
-, t<<,ct 81 V;rg;ri. Tb;s v.s
-, L-ar-,b, n or Iss - rooo,sr go.
80, ~ trsct Of 1Iol scres of land in Al.
.J.;s can,,v W. kn[r, 80 th. ArI;nn,on
.a. suu.A I:aS =, Ia for,.rss 'r ID ,hs ~,
"a es'Sse, Ge, IS I,,na7 Isso snd rurohassd
- - 77T-;, a g, 80 e. sfs snn, ~ soe oo0
NJ .,,,,,,,,,s - 49,, ,,n,,sSd tarv.z se3 ~
IT, ,I.;r,;fEs r., error sesinst ,vhopn tbe suit
80 bronsht ware Eredsr;ck K K.uf,,,ar-
pefiutendefit OF the Arlington NafionaT Gem
etery. and Capt. r. T. Sfrcng United States
army, commanding officer at Fort Whipple
These officers held possession in the name of |
the United States OF large part of the prop.
erty n controversy Epon the trial in the
court below Arturnsy General Deyeps sp-
peared in behalf of the United States, and
moved that the suit be dismissed for the rel
son that the government, as sovereign
power, could not be constltutionaiiy
sued In It's own courts without It's
own consent, and such consent in this case
had never been given. To this suggestion
and motion counsel Tor Gen. Lee demurred,
and the demurrer was sustained. The case
was then tried upon Its merits. Counsel Tor |
the defendants maintained that the pre- perty |
had been duly sold Tor taxes under the act OF |
Congress of June z, 1852, and that the Unit |
ed States mad bought IL, and that their title |
was valid. Counsel for Gen. Lee, on the |
other hand, admitted that the taxes had not
been paid, but declared that the sale was In |
valid for the reason that the tax commits
sioners had adopted general rule not to
receive taxes except from the owner OF the
property IN person, and that this practically
made it impossible for Gen. Lee, who was
then IN the confederate service, 10 pay his
taxes within the time designated. Tne court
instructed the Jury that if they believed from
the evidence that the CDmissioners had
adopted and uniformly acted upon such
rule as that referred to the sale was unau-
ihoriz and conferred no title upon the
purchasers. Under this instruction, the jury
found verdict IN favor OF Gen. Lee, and
judgment was entered accordingly. Two ap-
peals were taken from this Judgment, one IN
the name OF kaufman q StEDng, the nominal
defendants, and one In the uzme oil the United
States. The most lmportantq present.
ed here Is the question q iorlsdiction, or
In other words, the questloa whether suit can
be brought under any circumstances against
= ~-o
that governments consezs. 1nls court, In
long and carefully FePared opinion ny
Mr. Justice Miller, nolos, nrst, tnat tne
United States cannot be sued as party de-
tendant IN any court whatever, except where
Congress mas provided lor such suit second,
that the exemption Is, however, nmIted 10
suit against the Unlted states directly ana
by name, and cannot be successfully pleaded
in favor OF ofncers and agents OF the United
States when sued by private persons Tor
properly In tneir possession as sucn omcers
and sgents; tniro, tnst IA sucn cases court
| OF competent Jurisolcilon over tne psrles
before IL may inquire In'o t1e iawiuiness Oh
1 the possession Oh the United states as neio
oy sucn omcers or agents' ana give judgment
according 70 the result Oh tne inquiry; iourin,
| tnat the oin renee in lne essential features
: OIL monarcnicsi Anq IeP9oi!cAn ior" o.
goVernment Ienoers tne uec.sions OF t1e
Eoghsn COATS on TUE shDjsV' ot 1e. iist'e
yaiue, whiie numerous oecisiohs ol .nis GO court
from iUs oIgani-stou W 'ne piesees usJ e.
taDllsn the foregoing Proposiiioui nitn, tnae
5ihe constitutional provision mat no person
| shat be deprived OF lile, hDeriy, or properly
l without que process Oh law, nor private
| property taken 1or pupiic uss witnout
jHst compensation, are Intended as limlta-
lions upon the power OF tne government IN
its dealings with the citizen, and relate 10
that class OF rights whose protection Is pecu,
liarly the province oi the luaiciai prancn OIL
| the government; sixth, that In regard to the
life and liberty of the citizen, the courts
l have SO often exercised the power by viii oil
habeos corpus that there remains no question
| about their right to do go, and that they are
equally bound TO afford remedy for unlaw-
ful invasions of rights OF property by ofh-
GERS of any branch of the government; sew
euth, that the eevils which it is suggested may
| arise from interference of State or other
| courts with the exercise of powers essential
l 10 government are illusory, and are insignlh-
| cant 10 compar arison with the proposition that
| 90 relief can be granted when il is asserted
| that the United States has authorized the
| wrong; eighth, that such suits, if commenced
| elsewhere, are by existing laws always re-
| movable into court of the United States in
| which injustice to the government will
| neither be presumed or permitted; ninth, on
l the trial of the present case before the jury
| lhe title relied on by the defendants was a
| certificate OF sale of the land TO the United
| States by the commissioners under the act
| of Congress for the collection OF direct taxes,
| and the certificate was impeached because OF
The refusal OF the commissioners 10 permit the
owner to pay the tax by an agent or IN any
other way than in person. The principle
laid down in the cases OF Burnett Us Hunter
l 70 Wall 324), Tracy Us. Irwin us WAL,
549). and Atwood Us. Weems (99 q. s.. 1881,
| applies to a purchase by the United States,
as well as by private person, namely, tn.t
when the commissioners estaolsned uoi-
form rule tnat insy VIII recei.e eucn .aA = :.
from no one Dut lne oMnef ~ person, , !,
avoids lhe saie, anu .enoe; u ;a :, ,,iS ~
oi the TAX Is .h I,ao r;ah,s .oH ~ nd 4.
OF no aVAli. ,, =. Tna,;os
viduaIs sga'asw1 NV, n ~ r;ah, Il he de.
Mii1er sAy r .s s,shI;shsd Nv ,be ver.
ienoan IN eG, .S;s o.ssS 7, :. ths ,;gh,
oict oi w ioi - bon,rs,..d. . r;,hf ~
70 Posses1'o1 sSo. ,Sh;ch wasasIan from him bv
recover una. scs mnisA md d.,s;nsd by tbs s,rons
torcS a"T rS;s r;ab, ha;nc clearly establisbed
nanu Ia ,bss the conrt can proceed No
We ais ~ I..nsa II snnssr. IN At certain mill.
iurlhea: osoA.. o.;,, ,nJs- ordsr. Of the nrs..
.sry ohS n ss;-ad this estate and converted
ioenl, nav - ;,.o n,;j;t.rv for, and anothe,
one par. a,asv - =. T, "a NOT pretended. as the
mo ce ,.aa. ,h.t the nresdsnt had anv
Isse ~ n a,,,hor;ty 70 do this. or that the leg
!,si: avn. 49, e,,,ld Owe him any sucb an.
islHise ih;' oao, Douy unan nsvment of inst com.
enoiIty Ths dsfspse stands here solely
pensalo" L.aI,,s ;nnuni,y from iud;c;a
upon .ne wasvo,a vho asserts a1thorify
inquiry Oh evenyUme br.nch of ,bs Govern.
rom sne oI.,r Il .nsv he thai the exec
mem, ss..s. nose no .nch mower. and not onI,
Jsie ,b., np s1ch mower is given. but that it i