Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-09-27
CIyIL-sERvICE SUIT.
mr.. 8rvcxLRY is SHUT OFF,


y,s,, w.ises Dsn,ss siis R'eaess for Leave
20 res,s suit 70 Abolish the c'v''-ss'v'e'
csmm,ssIss.
Nrw YORK, September 26.-Ins
opo-rarranto proceedings Of James A.
Hinckley against Dormsn b. Eaton
Ieyov i. Thoman, and John NJ. Gre
gory' Civil-Service Commissioners, came
mn before Judge Wallace IN tae
limited States Circuit Court this morn
;nr. Hinckley asked leave to begin
an action to remove the commissioners
and abolish the commission on tue
ground of unconstitutionality. Inc
court.room was crowded with friends
and enemies Of civil-seryice reform.
United States District Attorney Dor
sheimer and Dorman B. Eaton appeared
for the commissioners, while Morris ).
Miller represented Mr.. Hinckley. In
opepipe Mr. Dorsheimer said that the
case was an important one, and as an
the parties interested were present he
thought il should be disposed OF. Judge
Wallace decided to hear the motion al
ter the call of the regular calendar.
Mr.. Miller, when Hinckley's case was
called, demanded TO know who appear
ed for the defendants. 81 appear LOT
ALI these DEFENDANTS said the District
Attorney, sand by direction OF the
President of the United States" MI.
Miller objected to the commissioners
being represented by Government OH
cial. 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 Acknowledgement
were prepared to defend the constitu-
tionality of the act appointing the COM
missioners. Judge Wallace sustained
the motion.
In his argument Mr.. Dorsheimer
said 1.-The relator is citizen who
seeks the adjustment of the office OF
commissioner of civil-seryice reform
because the commissioners, by the pow
ers conferred upon them, usurped the
rights Of the President to the appoint
iog power. The petitioner has no stand
ing in court because the right to quo
uarranto writ only applied to the usur-
patton Of sovereign rights, and the
United States alone could bring such
nm action in the United States courts,
and then only through its appointed
officers. Neither had the relator or his
attorneys been deputized by the Attor-
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 dis
pute being as to which Of the two was
entitled to a public Office. The writ OF
quo rdrrGnto as applied for by the
plaintiff was denied by the Chief JUS
tice of the Supreme Court of the United
States. on the ground that the United
States alone could sue for such a 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"
In reply Counsellor Miller contended,
on behalf 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 himself of all
of itgbenefits. The District Attorney
appeM@ to smother the petition,
although the relator had the right
to apply for redress either to
the executive, legislative, or judicial
bodies. 1.-The Attorney-General,"
he said, sis here representing the Pres
ident of the United States, but | repre-
sent his master, citizen of these
United States. demand the right to
be heard, and if | am not entitled to a
writ Of quo TGrranto, then 1t is the
business Of the court to find me rem
edy, for my client is entitled to a petit
ton 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 ques-
ton at once"
Judge Wallace ;" 1t is conceded that
you have the right to petition. Con-
fine yourself to giving me authorities"
The Commission, continued Mr.. Mil
Ter, exercised unwarranted powers and
was directly opposed to the rights Of
citizens.
Judge Wallace a: 81 can't sit here
and listen to arguments on abstract
propositions. This discussion must be
closed. When you applied for the
writ | presumed 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 but one case which could give
you basis for your application, and
that was an application in the State
court of Massachusetts, and was de-
MED. must also deny your applica
| tion,n