The Indianapolis journal., 1885-09-27

THE CIYIL-sERvICE COMMISSION.
Judge Wallace Refuses Mr. Hinckley's Appli.
cation for a Writ of Quo Warranto.

NEW YORK, Sept. 26-The quo warranto pro-
ceedings of James A. Hnckley against Dorman
B. Eaton, Leroy D. Thoman and John M. Greg
ory, Civi-service Commissioners, came UP before
Judge Wallace, 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 uncon-
stituronality The courtroom was crowded
with friends and enemies of civil-service reform.
United States District Attorney Dorsheimer
and Dormap B. Eaton appeared for the Commis-
sioners. 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
it should be disposed Of
Judge Wallace decided to hear the motion after
the call Of the regular calendar.
Mr.. Miller when Hnckley's case was called,
demanded to know who appeared for the de-
PENDANTS.
II appear for all these defendants" said the
District Attorney. 'and by direction of the
President of the United States"
Mr.. Miller objected to the Commissioners be-
ing represented by 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 the constitutional jurisdiction of the
court. He said he was instructed to say that he
and the Attorney general were prepared to de-
fend the constitutonality of the act appointing
the Commissioners
Judge Wallace sustained the motion.
In his argument Mr. Dorsheimer said 1.-THE
relator is citizen who seeks the adjustment of
the Offices of Commissioners of Civil-service Re-
FORM because the Commissioners. by the powers
conferred upon them. usurped the rights of the
President to the appointing power. The petit
toner has no standing in court because the right
to a quo warranto writ only applies to the usur-
patton of sovereign rights. and the United States
alone could bring such an action i'm the United
States courts, and then only through its ap-
pointed officers. Neither had the relator or his
attorneys been deputized by the Attorney gem
eral to recommend such an action, and the
United States alone had the right to test the
constitutionality Of the act providing for the
commission The rule was fully demonstrated in
the case of Wallace against Anderson, the ques-
tion il dispute being AS to which of the two was
entitled to a public Office. The writ of quo war
ranto. as applied for 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 the relator should have ap-
piled to the executive and to the judicial au
thorlty."
In reply, counselor Miller contended, on be-
half of relator Hinckley, that his client had the
statutory right to apply for the writ. for the cit
izen created the Constitution. and my client.
as citizen has the right to avail hmfelf of all
its benefits. The district attorney attempts to
smother the petition, though the relator has
the right to apply for redress either
to the executive, legislative or judicial bodies.
The Attorney general is here representing the
President of the United States, but represent
his master, citizen of the United States.
demand the right to be heard, and if am not
entitled to writ of quo warranto then it is the
business of the court to find me a remedy, for
my client is entitled to petition for right. My
argument is almost out of order. but that is
caused by the vigorous and unexpected attack
made upon me by the other side for it was my
intention to argue the whole question at once"
Judge Wallace-It is conceded that you have
the right to petition. Confine yourself to giving
me authorities.
Mr.. Miller-Do understand that your Honor
wants me to commence my argument ali over
again.
Judge Waliace-Oh, no.
Mr.. Miller-The commission exercised unwar-
ranted power and was directly opposed to the
rights of citizens.
Judge Wallace can't sit here and listen to
arguments on abstract propositions. The discus
sion must be closed When you applied for the
writ presumed there would be some authorities
produced, but you have not submitted any.
think 1t is time to close the discussion. There
is only one case which could give you a basis for
your application, and that was an application in
the State of Massachusetts. and was denied.
must also deny your application.