Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-09-26
MR.. HINCKLEY SHUT OFF.

=, AINCALE OFF.
Judge Wallace Denies His Request for
Leave to Begin Suit to Abolish the
Civil Service Commission.
NEW YORK, Sept. 26.-The quo warranto pro-
ceedings of James A. Hinckley against Dorman
B. Eaton, Leroy ID. Thoman and John NJ. Greg
DRY, civil service commissioners, came up be-
court this morning. Hinckley asked leave to
begin an action to remove the commissioners
ano aSash the sa ON the ground Of
crowded with friends and enemies Of civil ser.
vice reform. United States District Attorney
the commissioners while Morris s. Miller repre-
sented Mr.. Hinckley. In opening Mr.. Dor
sheimer said that the case was an important
ent he thought it should be disposed Of Judge
Wallace decided to hear the motion after the
call Of the regular calendar
demanded to know who appeared for the defen-
daat s. ~ appear tor all these defendants :"
United
objected to the commissioners being represent
ed by a government official ,as the United States
has not any real status in the case. Mr.. Dor
sheimer then moved the court to decide
whether or not the argument should be con-
fined only to the constitutional jurisdiction of
that he and the Attorney General were pre-
pared to defend the constitutionality of the act
appointing the commissioners. Judge Wallace
MR.. DORSHEIMERS ARGUMENT.
In his argument MIR. Dorsheimer said: 1.-THE
Of the Office of commissioner of civil service re-
form because the commissioners, by the powers
conferred upon them, usurped the rights OF the
TONER has no standing in court because the
right to g quo warrento writ only applied to the
usurpation of sovereign rights and the United
United States courts, and then only through
its appointed officers. Neither had the relator
ney General to commence such action, and the
United States alone had the right to test the
constitutiOnality of the act providing for the
commission. The rule as he stated it, he 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 public
by the plaintiff was denied by the Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of the United States, on
the ground that the United States alone could
sue for such writ, and then only through
legally appointed officers. To bring the
action properly he maintained that the relator
should have applied to the executive and not
to the judicial authority"
COUNSELLOR MILLER's REPLY.
In reply counsellor Miller commended on be-
halt of the relator Hinckley, that his client had
the statutatory right to apply for the writ, for
the citizen created the constitution, and my
client as a citizen has a right to avail him.
self of all OF its benefits. The district
attorney appeared to smother the petition,
although the relator had the right to apply
lOr feQreSS either 10 the executive, legislative,
or judicial bodies. 1.-The Attorney General
he said, sis here representing the President of
the United States, but l represent his master,
a citizen of these United States. 1 de-
mand the right to be heard, and if
l am not entitled TO writ Of quo warranto, then
it is the business of the court to find me a rem
edy, for my client Is entitled to q petition for
right. My arguments almost out of order, but
that is caused by the vigorous and expected at
tack made upon me by the other side, for 1t was
my intention to argue the whole question at
once"
Judge Wallace: "It is conceded that you have
the right to petition. Confne yourself to CIV
Ing me authorities"
The commission, continued Mr.. Miller, exer-
cised unwarranted powers and was directly OPP
posed to the rights of citizens.
JUDGE WALLACE STOPS THE ARGUMENT.
Judge Wallace: 81 can't sit here and listen to
arguments on abstract propositions. This dis
cusson must be closed. When you applied for
the writ presumed there would be some au-
thorities produced on the argument but you
have not submitted any. think it is time to
close the discussion. There is but one case which
could give you a basis tor your application, and
that was an application in the state court Of
Massachusetts, and was denied. must also
deny your application"