Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1885-09-28
The REFORM TEST OFF.
The Great Trial of the Civil Service
Law in New York.

New YORK, September 26.-The quo
Warranto proceedings OF James A. Hinckley
against Dorman B. Eaton, Leroy D. Tho.
man, and John NJ. Gregory, Civil Service
Commissioners, came up before Judge Wal
lace in the United States Circuit Court this
morning. Hinckley asks leave to begin an
action to remove the Commissioners and
abolish the Commission, on the ground Of
unconstitutionality. The court room was
crowded with friends and enemies Of civil
~service reform. United States District At,
torney Dorsheimer and Dorman B. Eaton
appeared fer the Commissioners, while Nor.
ris S. Miller represented Mr.. Hinckley.
In opening, Mr. Dorsheimer said that the
case was an important one and as all the
parties interested were present, he thought
it should be disposed OF. Judge Wallace
decided to hear the motion after the call OF
the regular calendar.
Mr.. Miller, when Henckley's case was
called, demanded to know who appeared
for the defendants.
Il appear for all these defendants" said
tie District Attorney, "and by direction OF
the President Of the United States"
Mr.. Miller objected to the Commissioners
being represented by a Government official,
SIS the United States has not any real status
il the case.
Mr.. Do:Sheimer then moved the court to
decide whether or rot the argument should
be confined only to constitutional jurisdic
ton ofthe court. He said he was instructed
to say that he and the Attorney General
were prepared to defend the co~nstitutiouality
Of the act appointing the Commissioners.
Judge Wallace sustained the motion.
Plaintir Has No Standing.
In his argument Mr.. Dorsheimer said:
The relator is O citizen who seeks the abol.
ishment of the Office of Commissioner Of
Civil Service Reform, because the Commits
%sioners, by the powers conferred upon them,
usurped the rights of the President to the
appointing power. The petitioner has no
standing in court because the right to a quo
warranto writ only applied to the usurpa.
ton Of sovereign rights, and the United
States alone could bring such an action in
the United States Courts, and then only
through it's appointed officers"
Neither had the relator or his attorneys
been deputized by the Attorney General
10 recommend such an action, and the
United States alone had the right TO test
the coEstitutiOnality Of the act providing
Tor the commission. The rule, as he stated
il, be said, was fully demonstrated in the
case Of Wallace against Anderson, the
question in dispute being as to which OF
The two WAS entitled to q public office,
The writ Of quo wsrrapto as applied for by
| he plaintiff, vas denied by the Chief Jus
| tice Of the Supreme Court OF the United
States on the ground that the United States
alone could sue for such a writ, and then
only through legally appointed officers
70 bring the action properly, he main.
tanned, the relator should have applied to
the executive and the judicial authority.
In reply Counsellor Miller contended on
behalf Of the r%elator, Hinckley, that his eli
ent had the statutory right to apply for the
writ, for the citizen created the Constitution,
and my client, as a citizen, has the right to
avail himself OF all its benefits.
The District Attorney attempts TO smoth-
er the petition, though the rclator has the
| right to apply for redress either to the Ex-
| e~cutive, Legislative or judicial bodies. The
| Attorney General" he said, is here repre-
| senting the President Of the United States,
| but | represent his master, a citizen OF this
| United States. | demand the right 10 be
| heard, and if | am not entitled to q writ OF
| quo warranto, then ii is the business OF the
| Court TO find me q remedy, for my client ID
entitled to petition for right. My argument
is almost out OF order, but that is caused
by the vigorous and unexpected attack upon
| me by the other side, Tor it was my inten-
ton to argue the whole question at once. y
Judge Williams 1t is conceded that
you have the right to petition; Confine
yourself to giving me authorities.
Mr.. Miller-'Do l understand Your
Honor wants me TO commence my argu'
ment all over again.
Judge Wallace-"Oh' no." Laughter.
The commission Mr.. Miller continued,
exercised unwarranted powers, and was
directly opposed to the rights Of citizens.
Application Denied.
Judge Wallace-"I cant sit here and
listen TO arguments on abstract PROPOSE
ions. The discussion must be closed.
When you applied for the writ, | presumed
here would be some authorities produced,
put you have not submitted any. think it
: time 10 close the discussion. There is
only one case which could give you a basis
'or your application. and that was an Hpplt-
cation in the State Court Of Massachusetts,
ard was denied. Unjust also deny your ap-
s..--