The Portland daily press., 1885-09-28
THE CIVIL SERVICE.
Hearing In the Action to Abolish the
Commission.
Judge Wallace Denies the Application
forEa Quo Warranto Writ.

NEW YORK, Sept 26.-Two warrants, the pro-
eeedings of James A. Hinckley against Dorman
b. Eaton, Leroy ID. Thorn and John M. Gregory,
clVli service commissioners, came up before Judge
wallace in the United States circuit court in New
YORK this morning. Hinckley asked leave to be-
gin an action to remove the commissioners and
aDonSh the commission on the ground of uncon-
Stltutionalty. The court room was crowded with
friends and enemies of civil service reform,
Dornan b: Eaton appeared for the commission
erS, while Morris s. Miller represented Hinckley,
IL IN opening, Mr. Dorshemer said that the case
was an important one, and as all parties interest
ea were present he thought it should be disposed
Judge Wallace decided to hear the motion after
the call OF the regular calandar.
Miller Wnen Hlnckley'S case was called, de-
nlanded TO know who appeared for the defend
ants.
II appear for all these defendants said the dis
trlct attorney and by the direction of the Presi-
dent of the United States"
Miller objected to the commissioners being rep
resented by government official as the United
states had not any real status in the case
Mi Doasnemer tnem moved the court to decide
to the constitutional Jurisdiction of the court. He
sala ne was instructed to say that he and the at
toIney general were prepared to defend the con-
SionerS.
Judge Wallace sustained the motion.
IN his argumentMr. Dorsheimer said:
Inc relator Is a citizen who seeks the abolish
ment OF the offices of the commissioners of civil
service reform because the commissioners by pow
ers conferred upon them usurped the rights OF the
PRESIDENT to the appointing power. The petitioner
has no standing in the court because the right to
gao a0Gqr09t0 writ only applied to usurpation of
sovereign rights, and the Uuited States alone
could bring such an action in United States conrts
and then only through its appointed officers.
Neither had the reator nor his attorneys been al-
thorized by the attorney general to begin such an
action and the United States alone has the right
to test the constitutionality of the act providing
for the commission. The rule as he stated it, Mr..
Dorsheimer said, was fully demonstrated in the
case of Wallace against Anderson, the question
In dispute being as to which of the two entit-
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 q writ and then only through
legally appointed officers To bring the action
property, he maintained that the relator should
have applied to executive and not sto judicial an
hOrity.
In reply Counsellor Miller contended, on behalf
of Relat0r Hnckley, that his client had statutory
right to apply for the writ forsctizens created the
constitution and as citizen he had right to
avail himself of all its benefits. The commission
he continued exercised unwarranted powers and
was directly opposed to the rights of the citi-
zens.
Judge Wallace then said
| can't sit here and listen to the arguments on
closed. When you applied for the writ pre-
sumed there would be some authorities produced
on the argument but you have not submitted any
think it 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 court OF Massachusetts, and it was denied
must also deny your application.