The Evening critic., 1882-12-05
THE ARLINGTON ESTATE.

INC Hh6iNOsO Wv 80 'nh6f
Decision of the United states su.
premc Court--Thc Heirs of Mrs.
GeueYaiI Lee Gain Their Inherit
aucc.
WASHINGTON, Dec. IA decision was ron.
the Arlington case, Affirming the judgment of
the court below, awarding tho estate 10 tho
heirs OF General Robert b. hoe's wife. AZ is
well known, the Arlington estate, comprising
como 1,500 acrcs In Alexandria County Vir-
ginia, opposite Washington, was sold for
taxes under the act Of Juno z, 1862, and pur.
chneed by tho United States for S26, 800. The
amount OF tax due was s02.07. After tho
death OF General Loo aud his wife suit was
brought IN the United states District Court by
Frederick kaufman, superintendent OF tho
Arlington Cemetery, aud Captain Strong, com.
manding officer ut Fort Whipple, tenants In
possession, for the recovery OF tho estate. At.
rney-deneral Doyons appeared for ting do
PENDANTS on behalf OF tho Government, and
moved that tho suit DO dismissed for the rea-
son that the Government as sovereign power
could not be sued IN Its own courts without ITS
own consent, which had not boon granted by
Congress-. 10 this tho counsel for General
Lee demurrcd, and tho demurrer was sis.
taiped. The case was then tried on Its morite.
1t was shown that the commissioners had
adopted n rule not 70 receive any taxes except
from the owner in person, and as General Leo
was then In the Confederate army II was I'M
possible for him TO pay his taxos within tho
time designated. The court instructed tho
Jury that II they believed that tho tax COM
missioners had adopted and uniformly acted
upon such rule, thon tho sale was invalid
and conveyed no title TO tho purchaser. Tho
verdict was In favor OF General Lee, and tho
case went TO the supreme Court. Justice Miller
in delivering the opinion OF the court to-day said
that tho most important question presented Is
whether suit can be brought undor any cir
cumstancos against the Government OF the
United States without that Governments con-
cent. 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 ex-
the United States directly and by name, and
cannot be successfully pleaded In favor OF
officers and agents OF the United Statos when
sued by private persons for property In their
possession as such officers and agents; third,
that In such cases court OF competent jurls'
diction over the partes before 1t may inquire
Into the lawfulness OF the possession OF tho
United States as held by such orficer5 or
agents, and give judgment according TO the
result OF the inquiry.
The Court further holds that tho constItu-
tionnl provisions that no person shall be de-
priyed OF life, liberty or property without due
process OF law, nor private property taken for
public use, without Just compensations, are
intended as limitations upon the power of the
Government In Its dealings with the citizen,
and relate to the class OF rights whose protoc.
tion is peculiarly the province OF the Judicial
branch OF the Government. The courts are
bound TO afford n remedy for unlawful lnya'
sions of rights OF property by officers OF any
branch OF the Government
Speaking OF the rights Of individuals as
against the Government, Justice Miller says
"What is the right OF the defendant In orroi
as established by the verdict OF the Jury In
this case? 1t is the right to possession OF his
homestead. right TO recover that which has
been taken from him by force and violence
and detained by tho strong hand. This right
being clearly established, we are told that the
court can proceed no further, because 1t ap.
pears that certain military officers acting I'M
der orders OF the President nave seized this
estate and converted one part of IL Into mill
tary fort and another into cemetery. 1t 1;
not pretended, as the case now stands, thai
the President had any lawful authority to
do this or that tho Legislative
body could give him any such authority OK
defense stands here solely upon tho absolute
immunity from judicial inquiry OF every one
who asserts authority from the Executive
branch Of the Government, however clear II
may be made that the Executive possesses no
such power, and not only that no such power "a
given, but that 1t is absolutely prohibited,
both TO the executive and the legislative, &c
deprive any one of life, liberty or property
property without Just compensation. Nc
man In this country Is so high that he IL
above the law. No officer OF the law may
set that law at defiance with impunity. AL
tho officers Of the Government-from the high
est to the lowest-are creatures OF the law, aud
are bound to obey it."
In conclusions, 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. Jus
tice Gray read long dissenting opinion
which was concurred In by Chief Justice
Waite ana Justices Bradley and Woods. The
United States Will now endeavor to acquire
q valid title to the Arlington estate, either by
direct purchase from the Leo heirs or by in
direct method OF condemnation proceedings
Wash. Cor Bqit0. Sun.