The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1882-12-30
A RIGHTEOUS DECISION.

supreme court decided what is known |
as the Arlington case The particulars
are rs follows:
On the 7th of June, 1862, General
Robert E. Lee, then the owner of what /
is known as the Arlington estate, in
Alexandria county, Va, embracing
l,l00 acres and improvements, was
in command of the Confederate array,
in Virginia. Under an act Of Congress
of that date, this property was sold for
taxes. Tie taxes delinquent were $92-
OF. Payment was rendered by Lees
agent, but the Tax Commissioners de-
eided that they could not receive
the amount from anyone but Lee him
self, who, being in the rebel army,
could not personally appear and pay.
Under this decision the estate was sold
for taxes, the United States becoming
the purchaser, for $26,S00. The Gov
ernment, so coming into possession, con-
verted the land into soldiers ceme-
terry, and appointed two commissioners
to hold and manage il. These com mis-
sieners are Kaufman, Superintendent
of the cemetery, and Capt Strong,
Commander at Fort Whipple. After
the war Lee brought suit in the United
States Circuit Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia for recovery Of the
property. Attorney-General Devens
appeared for the United States, and
moved a dismissal of the suit on the
ground that the United States, being
a Sovereign Power, cannot be sued in
| its own court without its consent. The
plaintiff demurred, on the ground that
suit was not brought against the Unit
ed States, but against its two agents in
possession of the property. The circuit
court sustained this demurrer, and the
trial went on upon its merits. Lees
counsel admitted that the property
had been sold for taxes, but they in
sisted that the decision of the tax
commissioner not to accept payment
of the taxes from any one but Lee was
| unlawful. The court ruled ip favor of
this plea, and gave judgment for Lee.
From this judgment, On error, the
cause went up to the United States su-
preme court. whose Judgment now is
that the property was wron ngfully with
held from Lee and his heirs, that It's
possession by virtue of the tax sale
was equivalent to confscation, and
that the government could not consti-
tutional!y confiscate the property Of
man who had never been tried and con-
victed of crime which carries confs-
cation as part of its penalty. Justice
Miller delivered the opinion OF ma
jority of the court, the Chief Justice
and Justices Woods, Gray and Brad,
ley dissenting. Justice Gray wrote an
elaborate opinion, but as it is not pub
lished his views cannot be further
stated than as dissenting from the ma
;ority. 1t is not possible to restore
the Arlington estate to the heirs of
| General Lee, as one part Of it is ocou-
| pied by the bodies Of tens Of thousands
| Of soldiers killed in the war; while a
United States fortihcation covers an
other part, but the government will be
obliged under this Judgment to pay
them ajust compensation for it, what
ever that may be.
| We are proud of the fact that the
supreme court of the United States,
though most of the members are Re
publicans, can decide law case with
out political prejudice. When the Ju-
dietary becomes corrupt there is nc
hope for personal liberty except by
revolution.