The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-26
A MIXED CASE.

A Washington dispatch says that the
Supreme Court has ordered a rehearing
in the Long pension case. The court
does not often grant a rehearing, even
on application, and lei an order on its
own motion is almost without precedent.
1t is virtually a confession that the
court wants further light on the subject,
and in this case it is not surprising,
for the case is in a curious legal tangle.
Judge Longs pension was suspended
on June 20, 1898. by order of the Com
missioner. The Judge found it out a
month later. and in the following Oc-
tober he instituted suit in the District
of Columbia courts asking for a man.
Pensions to restore his name to the
rolls. On Dec. %, 1893. Congress passed
a law providing that thirty days notice
must be given pensioners before they
were cut off. A few days later the
Commissioner restored Judge Longs
name to the rolls for the purpose. APP
parently, Of starting on a new effort to
cut IL eff. But the mandamus suit was
still pending. and in January, 1894, the
judge of the District Court handed down
an exhaustive opinion holding in favor
of the Commissioner on the technical
point hat as Judge Longs name had
already been restored to the pension
roll no mandamus was necessary. On
every other point involving the merits
of the case the court ruled in favor of
Judge Long, but on the main point his
suit failed. His attorneys Immediately
applied before another judge Of the
same court for an injunction restrain
ing the COMMISSIONS from further in
terfering with the Long pension. The
court declined to grant a temporary in
junction, and in the meantime the Com
missioner, without waiting for a de-
cision ON the merits of the case. sus-
pended Long again without giving the
full thirty days notice required by law,
inasmuch as he did not allow for the
time consumed by the notice in its
transit through the mails. 1t was sew
eral months before the motion for an
injunction was decided, and when the
decision came 1t was almost exactly the
reverse of the previous one in the man.
oAAAd SoSC. III ohC NooC fHC
court decided the technical point OF the
insuficiency of the notice in Judge
Longs favor, but on every other point
decided in favor of the Commissioner.
Then Judge Longs attorneys made an
other application before the former
judge for a mandamus to compel the
restoration of his name to the pension
list, and the motion was granted and
the writ ordered to issue. The Com
missioner of Pensions carried the case
! to the District Court of Appeals. which
reversed the decision of the lower court.
| Thus the highest courts of the District
had rendered four elaborate opinions.
| two of which confirmed Judge Longs
| contention on the main points and the
other two sustained the Commissioner.
| From the last decision Judge Long APP
pealed to the Supreme Court, which.
| after having heard the case once, now,
| OF its own motion. orders a ~rehearing.
The rehearing has been set for next
| Oct. 10, and the decision can hardly be
| expected before the last of November,
which will be three years from the be-
| ginning OF the suit. The case is a test
one involving not only the question OF
the vested rights OF pensioners, but the
broader and more important question of
the right Of one administrative officer
! to review and reverse the action Of q