Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1885-09-27
THE REFORM TEST OFF.
The Great Trial of the Civil Service
Law in New York.
Some Arguments Before Judge
WallaCs.
Dorsheimsr Claims The Plaintiff Has
No Standing in Court
And ihe:Iudss Denies the Applica'
tion for a Quo Marranto Writ.

tAt - -
NV Yoak, ssptembse 2sT6s quo
warranto proceedings Of james A. Hinckiey
against Dormsn B. Eaton. Leroy D. Tho
man, and John NJ Gregory Civil Service
Commissioners, came up before Judge Wal
lace in the Ur;ted States Circuit Court this
morning. H.nckley asks leave to begin an
action to remove the Commissioners and
abolish the Commission on the ground Of
unconstitutionality. The cour. room was
crowded with friends and enemies Of civil
service reform. United States District At
torrey Dorsheimer and Dormsn B. Eaton
appeared for the Commissioners, while Nor
ris 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 Henckleys case was
called, demanded to know who appeared
for The defendants.
4 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
being represented by Government official,
20 the United States has not any real status
in the case.
Mr. Dosheimer then moved the court to
1ecide whether or rot the argument should
be cor fined on'y to constitutional jurisdic
ion of the court He said he WAS instructed
say that he and the Attorney General
sere prepared to defend the constitutionality
Of the act appointing the Commissioners.
Judge Wallace sustained the motion.
PIaintiH Has No Standing.
In his argument Mr. Dorsheimer said
The relator is citizen who seeks the abol
ishment of the Office Of Commissioners oi
Civil Service Reform, because the Commits
siopers, by the powers conferred upon them
usurped the rights Of the President to the
appointing power. The petitioner has no
standing in court because the right to quo
warraDto writ only applied to the usurpa
ton Of sovereign rights, aud the United
States alone could bring such an action In
the United States Courts, and then only
through its appointed officers.
Neither had the relstor or his attorneys
been deputized by the Attorney General
to recommend such an action, and the
United States alone had the right to test
the constitutionslity 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 dispute being as to which OF
he two WAS entitled to public office.
The writ Of quo wsrrsnto as applied for by
he plaintiff, was denied by the Chief Jus
ice 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,
70 bring the action properly, he main
tanned the relator should have applied Ia
the executive and the Judicial authority.
In reply Counsellor Miller contended on
behalf Of the relator, Hinckley, that his eli
ent had the sslutory right to apply for the
writ, for the citizen created the Constitution,
and my client, as citizen, has the right to
avail himself Of all its benefits.
THE District Attorney attempts to smoth
er the petition, though the relator has the
right to apply for redress either to the Elk
ecutive, Legislative or Judicial bodies. The
Attorney Genera" he SAID, ia here repre-
entipg the President Of the United States
but represent his mashr a citizen Of this
| United States. demand the right to be
heard, and # am not entitled 10 writ o
quo warranto, then it is the business Of the
Court 10 find me a remedy for my client is
entitled 10 p tition for right. Ny argument
| s ain ost OFT OF order, but that is caused
By the vigorous and unexpected attack upon
me by the other side, Tor il was my inten
ton TO argue the whole qu' stion at once.
Judge Willisms-It ia conceded thai
you have the right to petition. Confne
yourself to giving me authorities"
Mr.. Miller-"Do ] understand Your
Honor wants me TO commence my srgu
ment all over sgsinY'
Judge WalIace-"Ohl no." Laughter
TIE commission" Mr.. Miller continued
exercised unwarrsnted powers, and was
directly opposed to the rights of citizens"
Application Denied.
Judge Wsllace-I cant sit here and
listen to arguments on abstract proposi
tons. The discussion must be closed
When you applied for the writ, | presumed
here would be some authorities produced
but you have not submitted any. think il
is time TO close the discussion. There il
only one case which could give you o basis
Tor your application. and that was an appli
cation in the State Court Of Massachusetts
aud was denied. j must also deny your sp
plicstion.