Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-09-27
GETS NO WRIT.
..,,vARRANTO STEPS OPEN TO
rsrE GOVERNMENT ONLY.

~ W hfAt+FA---
rt.bt 20 Test the ConstitutiOnality
peovtding for the Commission
~ ExciusiVelY in the United
.os-Nr. Miller Makes Lively Plea
for His Luent.
<rx YORK. Sept. 26.-The quo war
Fl ..s5 p-occedihgs OF James A. Hlnokley
.,-t Dorman b. Eaton, Leroy d. Tho
and John NJ. Gregory, Civil Service
,,....r,.s ,loners, came up before Judge
wallace ia the United Statet Circuit
# co,ri ,ajs morning. Mr. Hinckley asked
- 10 BEGIN action to remove the COM
..1.sioners and abolish the commission
M the ground Of unconstitutionality
ID ,ha oorrt room was crowded with friends
n ..d enemies Of ciyil service reform.
r..,.d States District Attorney DOrshei-
n .r apd DoImRn i. Eaton appeared for
.I.. commissioners, while Morris 8. Miller
.,r4sented Mr.. hinckley. In opening,
M Dorsheimer said that the case was an
y ,oportant one, and as all the parties in
Fl ,.rasted were present, he thought that it
s1ouM be disposed Of. Judge Wallace
aecfded to hear the motion after the call
ot the regular calendar.
THE COUNSEL OF THE DEFENDANTS.
Mr. Nme,. when Mr. Hinckley's case
81 was called, demanded 10 know who ap-
reared for tae Defendants. IL appear tor
Nj IN these deieudants.' said the District
# ATTORNEY. "and by direction Of the Presi-
IA dapt OF the United States"
Mr. Miller objected to the commission
s~s being represented by government
,HafaI as the United States had not any
real status ln the case.
Mr. U0rsheimer then moved the court
10 decide whether or not argument should
he confined only to the constitutional ju-
1 rjsdicton of the court. He said that he
Was instructed to say that he and the
b Attorney General were prepared to de-
lend the constitutiOnality of the act APP
pointing the commission.
judge Wallace sustained the motion.
In his argument Mr.. Dorsheimer said
The relator is a citizen who seeks the
b adjustment of the office of commission
81 ers for civil service reform, because the
commissioners, by the powers conferred
upon them, ursurp the rights of the PFesi-
dent to the appointing power.
THE PETITION WITHOUT STANDING.
The petition has no standing in court,
because tbs right to a quo warrantO writ
only applies to the usurpatiOn OF sovereign
8 rights, and tne United states alone could
brng such action in United States Courts,
and then only through its appointed
otieers Neither had the relatOr or his
attorneys been deputized by the Attorney
General to commence such action, and
tle United States alone had the right to
test the cOnstitutionality of providing
Tor The commission. The rule, as
be stated il, he said, was full
* lg demonstrated in the case of
81 Wallace against Anderson, the question in
dispute being as to which Of the TWO WAS
entitled TO public office. Tne writ of quo
warrant, as applied FOR by the plaintiff
was denied by the Chief Justice of the
B Supreme Court OF the United States on the
b ground thas the United States only could
sue for such a writ, and then only
q through its legally appointed officers. To
bring the action properly he maintained
tnat the TelatOr should have applied to the
executive and to the Iudical authority.
CLAIMS OF THE RELAToR.
Counsel Miller cOntended on behalf
# oitherc.arr, Mr.. Hinckley, that his client
had sla'U ary right to apply for the writ,
b for citizens created the constitution, "and
my client, as citizen, has the right to
avail himself OF all its benefits" The dis
lHet attorney, he said, appeared to smOth-
er the petition, although the relatOr had
l6e right TO apply for redress either TO eX-
ecutVe, Legislative or judicial bodies.
"IDe Attorney General" he said, sis here
representing the President OF the United
States cut l represent bis master--a citi-
zea Of the United States. l demand the
fislt to be heard, and If am net entitled
l0a writ Of gUO }cGFTGRtO, then it is the
business OF the court 10 find me remedy,
lor my client Is entitled to petition for his
tights
DRIFT OF THE ARGUMENT.
My argument is almost out OF order,
OUT mat is caused by the vigorous and
unexpected attack made upon me by the
o1Aer side, for it was my intention to
"Isue the whole question at once"
Judge Wallaee-''lt is conceded thai
you have The right to petition; confne
yourself To giving me- authorities.V
Ar' huler-"DO l understand that
your honor wants me TO commence my
argument all over again?"
1Uuge w Nallace-"Oh, no." Laughter.
iue COmmissi0n," continued Dir.
liief' exercised unwarranted powers,
. '.e was directly opposed TO the rights Of
TIE APPLICATION DENIED.
Judge Wallace: 81 cannot sit here aud
'',.L 70 arguments or abstract PROPOSE
tvyn'' lnls discussion must be closed.
leA you applied for the writ presumed
1'ic would ne some authorities present
WI WI 'ne arguments, but you have not
''Al lttd any. ! think It is time TO close
p uisc1tsi0n. There is only one case
tllCA could ylYe you basis for your ap-
t-"."u and mat was an application in
wy 9taie Court OF Massachusetts, and
oie,ti.d,,l,'.gi must also deny your ap-