New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-09-27
THE COURTS.
,, crv,r. SERVICE COMMISSION CASE.

THE CIVIL Service CoMMiooioN oA'D'
,,cr DENIES THE APPLICATION FOR
soD' WRIT OF QUO wARRANTo.
-. wallace in spite of illness that was manifest
sorance. called yesterday in the United States
-. conrt the calendar, which the application IN
$50 of Hinckley against Eaton and others had
'"o The anplication was made by James A.
u,r.sIev and 40 order was granted few weeks ago
,,~a.t;no Dorman B. Eaton, Leroy B. Thoman, and
- NJ Gresory the commissioners under the Civil
sv,ce act to show cause why writ OF quo warranto
.houd not issue against them to show by what right
~ authority they exercise the powers which they are
alleged to have exercised
Dorman b. Eaton the chairman Of the Civil Service
Commission sat near the ctAttorney while the
argument was being made and busly scanned papers
prepared ndefenceof the ghtof the commissioners 70
act United States Distrct-Attorney Dorsheimer and
Assistant District-Attorney Samuel q. Clarke ap-
reared for the commissioners Judge Wallace ut over
most of the motions for two weeks account OF his III
ness but agreed to hear the argument In thus proceed
81 8. Miller. the counsel for Mr.. Hinckley was about
70 proceec to argue the application, when MI.
Dorsheimer rose and said that ne hed prehm,nary
apce as counsel for the Commissioners OF the District
Attorney but Mr.. Dmsheimer proceeded lie nrst
made preliminary suggestion TO the Court, statihg
that the bringing of the s had not been authorized
by the Attorney General himself and that the court
had power to proceed in the case he ssd
appears specially for the deendans
in these proceedings for the sole purpose OF opposing
the application OF the relaor The law oncers OF tne
Government do not raise this preliminary question Dc
cause thew have any doubt OF the constltuti0naty OF
the law On the other hand they have the most
earnest belief in the validity of the law and make THIS
objection only because Of the gravity OF the precedent
that would be set il such proceedings were allowed.
He then proceeded to argue on the point th0s preny
stated: Mr. Hincley should have applied TO tue eA-
ecutye instead of the judicial branch oil the Govern
ment for leave bring this suit The law vests inc
discretion of determining whether such SUIT sn9h De
brought IN the Attorney General and the Persldent
and II would be usurpaon the part OF the court
itself for il to TO exercise such discretion ne
arpued that quo warrant0 proceedings coulu DC
brought only by the United States and that the Ight
rested with the Attorney General or President 10 con-
sent or to refuse to have the proceedings begun ne
ouoted cases in which his rule seemed to have been
land down by the Supreme Court aud quo warranto
proceedings had been set aside because brought with
ont the authority OF the Government lie protested
AGAINST These anomalous and unheard OF proceed,
inpsu and then stated 10 few sentences tnat ne ud
not believe that the constitutionaty OF the law could
be successfully attacked it simply liked the qua-
cations of appointees to office in tho same way that
other laws provided that the Secretary OF the treasury
should not be actively engaged IN trade or commerce
or that District JUDGES should reside IN the districts
for which they are appointed.
Mr. Miller said that he had been somewhat sur
prised by this argument OF the District Attorney. He
referred several times to the sacrcdness OF the right OF
Judge Wallace interrupted him to say; You have
said before Have you any authorities Tor TINS
Plenty of them" saia Mr.. Miller, but he did not
prodnce any that seemed to affect the judge Judge
Wallace finally said do not lind any cases IN when
has been granted. L will deny the application Tor
writ and you may argue further on appeal"