The National tribune., 1894-02-08
LONG VS.. LOCHREN.
Legal Controversy Renewed by Petition for
Injunction.


Legal Controversy Renewed by Petition for
Injunction.
Tie legal controversy between Judge Loch-
rem, Commissioner OF Pensions, and Judge
Charles d. Long, of Michigan. was renewed by
the filing of petition for an injunction.
The former ease. In which Judge Bradley de-
eded that writ of mmdamus would obtain,
if Judge Lochrcn had not already restored the
pension of Ss2 per month on account OF the act
of Congress of Dec. 81 1898, and that the costs
should be paid by the Commissioner, was also
moved up another peg, motion having been
entered by Assistant Attorney General Whit
ney to carry the question before the Court OF
Appeals
Tho petition is the outcome OF Judge Loch-
ren's refusal to abide by the decision In the
Circnit Court IL is bulky document, con-
sisting of Is typewriter pages and sets forth
in full the history of the famous case up to
date. Thomas s. Hopkins, of this city, and
Fred A. Baker, Of Detroit, Mich, who argued
the petition for the writ of maudamus, appear
as solicitors.
After full exhibit of the opinion rendered
by Judge Bradley, the petition states that a
letter was received by Judge Long on JAN 8
from the Commissioner giving him 80 days
notice to show cat'se why his pension should
not be reduced to $50 per month, and to place
any proof lie wished to offer on file.
1t states further that the restoration of the
pension was not made in good faith to secure
tho relief sought for by the petition for the
writ of mandamus but that it was restored for
the purpose of preventing the advancement of
this case and 10 enable the Commissioner to
institute proceedings under the act of Dec. Il,
1893
Prior to the 23d of July, 1893 the petitioner
says that the Commissioner made an ex-parte
examination of the case and enormously and
imprOvdently decided that he was not entitled
to so high rate as S72 per month. This WAS
declared publicly. He is therefore in fear Test
tho Commissioner shall carry out his threat Of
Jan. A. He Claims that he has vested right to
the pension under the Constitution, from the
clause which guarantees that no mans property
shall be taken from him without due process
Of law.
He contends, Also that the decision of Com
missioner Tanner was conclusive, and that tho
case does not come within the meaning of the
act of Dec 81. 1893. The notice mailed to him
by the Commissioner is not in compliance with
that act, because it contains no charges or alle-
cations othor foundations that would war
rant the assertion that the decision of his pre-
deeessor was erroneous
The petitioner contends that the act was in
tended to secure TO pensioners that protection
guaranteed upier the fifth amendment, and
that the Commissioner having prejudgsd his
ease is now disqualified to pass upon it.
He holds. also, that the decision of the Su-
prone Court of the District ia conclusive upon
the question: and so long as Judge Loebren has
stated That he will not regard this decision as
binding the petitioner asks for writ of in
Junction 10 command him to desist from fur
ther proceedings i'll reviewing the case.
The petition was heard before Justice Cox, in
Equity Court. Divisions No. !, and a rule WAS
allowed on the Commissioner commanding him
to show cause Monday, Feb. 5. why the in
Iunctinu should