The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1885-09-28
THE CIVIL SERVICE.
THE TEST SURF OF MIR. HlNoKLEY
To Abolish the ONCE of Commissioners of
tho Civil Service EefOFm-ThS Argn.
ments of the Counssl-Tho Appl.
cation of Hlucklsy Denied.

cation OK hluCkAey NoAAtds
: New YoRx, Sept. 26.-The quo warrant
proceedings Of James A. Hinckley agains
Dorman B. Eaton, Leroy D. Thoman an'
John NJ. Gregory, Civil Service Commits
siouers, came up before Judge Wallace il
tho U. s. Circuit Court this morning
HinckIey asks leave to begin an action t
remove the Commissioners and abolish
the Commission, on the ground Of uncon
stitutionality. The court room was crowd
cd with friends and enemies OF civil ser
i. yico reform. United States District At
torney Dorsheimer and Dorman B. Eaton
appeared for the Commissioners, while
Morris S. Miller represented Mr.. Hinck.
lev. In opening, Mr.. DoIsheimer 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 cali OF the regular calendar. -= =
Mr.. Miller, when HinCkley's case was
called, demanded to know who would ap-
pear for the dtfsndants.
~ appear for thess defendants, " said
the District Attorney, "and by direction
OF the President OF the United States"
Mr.. Miller objected to the Commission.
era being represented by Government
official, as the United States has
not any real status in the case.
Mr.. Dorsheimer thea moved the Court
to decide whether or not the argument
should be confined to constitutional jurs
diction OF the Court. He said he was in
struosed to say that he and tue Attorney
General were prepared 10 defend the con-
stitutionality OF the act appointing the
Commissioners. Judge Wallace sustained
the motion.
MR.. DoRsHEINER's ARGUMENT.
In his argument, Mr.. Dorsheimer said:
"Ths relator is citizen WHO seeks the
rbolishuent of the Office Of Commissioners
Of Civil Service Reform, because the COM
missioners, by the powers conferred upon
them, usurped the rights OF the President
to the appointing power. The petitioner
has no standing iu court because the right
to quo rlrrdntO writ only applies TO the
usurpation OF soVereigu rights and the
United States alone could bring such an
action In the U. S. Courts, and then only
through its appointed officers. Neither
had the relator or his attorneys been depu-
tizsd by the Attorney General to recon-
mend such an action, and the United States
alone had the right to test the Corstitu-
tioua!ity ofthe acc providing for the CON.
mission. The rule, as he stated II, he raid,
was fully demonstrated in the case Of
Wallace against Anderson, the question
| iq dispute being Ss to which Of the two
was entitled to public office. The writ Of
quo warranto, as applied for by the plain
/ tlf, was denied by the Chief Justice of the
United States on the ground that the
United States alone could sne Tor such
writ, and then only through legally ap'
pointed officers. To bring the aGtion
properly he maintained, the relator
should have applied TO the Executive and
to the judicial authority.
HESpxLEY's COUNSEL.
Inreply, Counselor Miller Contended on
behalf of the relator Hinckley that his
client had the statutory right 10 apply for
the writ, for the citizen created the Con-
stitution, and my client, as citizsn, has
the right to avail hiuseli to all its benefits,
The District Attorney attempts to smother
the petition, though the relator has the
right to apply for redress either to the exc
cutive, legislative or oriudical bodies. "The
Attorney General" he said, sis here rep
resenling the President Of the United
States, but represent his master, q citizen
OF the United States. demand the right
to be heard, and ii am not entitled to a
writ OF quo werranto, then it is the buAi.
ness OF the Court to find me q remedy, for
my client is entitled to petition for right,
NV argument is almost out CT order, but
that is caused by the vigorous aud unex-
pected attack made upon me by the other
side, for it was intention TO argue the
whole question at once"
Judge Wallace-Itis conceded you have
the right to petition. Contine yourself to
give me authorities.
Mr.. 3Iiller-DoI understand your Honor
wants me to commence my argRment all
over again?
"The Commission" he continued, "ex.
ercissd unwarranted powers, and was di-
rectly opp tsei to the rights OF citizens.
Judge Wallace-T can't sit here aud
listen to arguments on abstract proposi.
tons. The discussion must be closed.
When you applied for the writ I presumed
there would be some authorities produced,
but you have not submitted any. think
it is time to close the discussion. There
is only one case which could give you q
basis Tor your application, and that was an
application in the State Court OF Aassa-
chusetts, and was denied. l must also
deny your application. +