Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1885-10-01
rnr orrr1 snnyIor oxar.
Testing lfs conssifntionaiity In the
Circuit Comrs.

sonshuA SUI GouasttutsoM&ttfy IN the
Circuit Comrs.
| New YoRK, Sept. &c. -Sghe quo warrnnto
proceedings of james A. HinclSley against
Dorinan b. Eaton, Leroy ID. Thoman and
John NJ. Gregory, Civil Service commits
sioners, came up before Judge Wallace
in the United States circuit court this
morning. Hinckley asked leave to begin
IN 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 Attorney
Dorsheimer and Dorman b. Eaton ap-
peared for the COMMISSIONER while
Morris 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 II should be disposed
OF. Judge Wallace decided to hear the
motion after the call of the regular
| calendar.
Mr.. Miller, when Hinckley's case was
called, demanded to know who appeared
for the defendant.
II appear for all those defendants,n
said the district attorney, ''and by the
direction of the President OF the United
States."
/ Mr.. Miller objeotedt to the commissioners
being represented by q government official
as the United States has not any real
status IN the case.
Mr.. Dorsheimer then moved the court
TO decide whether or not the argument
should be confined only TO constitutional
lurishcton OF the court he said he was
instructed 10 say TINT ne and the attorney
general were prepared TO defend the con-
sututonaiity OF the act appointing the
commissioners
SuaRe Waiiace sustained the motion.
,, IN nus argument Mr.. Dorsheimer said /;
me Ielator Is citizen who seeks the
apo mi OF the once OF commissioners
OF Oivil service reform because tho COM
missioners ny inc powers conferred upon
snem usuIped the rights OF tho
rresiuent 10 the appointing power.
me peuuoner mas no stand
ing IN court because the right TO quo
warran'o writ only applied to the usurpa.
son OF sovereign rights, and the United
1u'Ves none oouiu DrinB such an action IN
the onited states courts, and then only
.nIougn lts appointed ofncers. Neither
9l'a .he relator OF his attorneys been
uePu.izeu ny tne attorney general 70 COM
hence sucn aouoh ana the United states
NM the Iignt 70 test tne constitutionniity
or tne hst proViuhg ior the commission.
inc RUE as ne stated II, no said,
ws runy demonstrated IN the case
mMihce VI: ANDERSON the question IN
dispute being MS to which of the two
was entitied 70 pupic once. The writ
0, quo warrahto, as applied Tor by the
pnintih, was denied by the ohief Justice
Vi inc supreme court OF the United
ou.tes nione could sue ior such
VIII, ana tneh only through legally ap-
pointed olhcers. 10 prihg the action
properly ne maintained INIT the relntor
should nave appiied 10 the executive and
10 the judicial authorities"
III reply counsellor Miller commended
IN penali OF the reiator, Hlnckley. TINT
ms cilent nad the statutory right to apply
Tor the writ, Tor the citizen created the
constitution ana my client as citizen
mas the right to ayali himself OF all its
Dement'S. Inc district attorney appeared
70 smother the petltion, though tho reator
ma u right 10 Apply Tor redress either TO
uhe executive legislature or Judicial bodies.
Inc Attorhey-deherni, he said, rs
mere representing the President Of the
United States but represent his rasler,a
cltizen OF the United States. l demand
the right to lie heard, and IL am not
| entitled TO a writ OF quo whfranto, then
IL is tho business OF the court to find ME