The sun., 1897-03-14
CHICAGO LAKE FRONT CASE.
Secretary Bii-s yacatcs Judge Lamereux's
Deci.Ion and order = New TriAI.

WASHINGTON. March l3.-Secretary Bliss to-
day vacated and annullcd the orders and pro-
cecdings in the Chicago lake front cases and
directed a new trial before the Commissioner OF
the General Land Oiiice within thirty days. The
reason for this action was that Land Commits
sioncr Lamoreuy gave ont copy Of his deci
SION In the case To one party three days before
the time act by himself for final announcement.
which was In violation OF secretary Francis's
orders. The full text OF Secretary Bliss ruling
follows:
To th> Commissioner OF the General Land OTce.
SIR: Il having been made known to that there ts
in your oc- what purports to bc opinion. signed.
In the matter " the application Of Matthias Benner
and Harvey VI. Ia Toilette 10 locate Mckee scrip
what Is known the lake front % chicago, nj.
and that copy Of said paper has been delivered to
ot the parties N the controversy btor, its
ditlon ami promulsaiion. IN fragrant dlsresard Of
risht and justice, In violation of the express
ORDER Of my predecessor and the usual and
Just rules u procedure now, Therefore in
the exercise ~ the discretion ami author.
ity conferred upon me by law direct you to order
r~hear,ns OF su'b application At such time you
may designate, not later than thirty days from the
date hereof. ami to Immediately notify all parties
Interest OF this order and OF the time nIed for
hearing.
All order. and nrts Of your department heretofore
msis or loae IN the matter " such Application
hcrby r-cnded vacated and Anngll-d TO the end has
said arlliatinu may ~ h~lri de noyO and and
equal Justice done between the psrtes. Nrry respect
fully. tpKNEiIUs y. Bliss, secretary.
On Feb. 90 Secretary Francis directed that tho
judgment IN the case be- suspended until the fur
thsr order pf Ai- dsuartment. This order has
been published. The secretary was thereafter
informed that no decision hNd been rendered.
Npne was found IN the proper Office Of the land
department. and none appears on the letter
press book. whore all decisions are required 10
Dc copied prior 10 pronunciation. Ia response TO
a telegram from the A--iStaut Attorney General,
asking Commissioner lamoreuN II he had
given out copy OF his opinion in the lake front
case, u 80. when and to whom, Mr.. LamoreuS
replied:
TN the eoth Isisned opinion and h,d a number Of
curi-~ made the day 10 ~ given 10 the press
The cd which date had announced that the decision
would D. PROMULGATED Que ~ the copies. on tho
IL Ntsr tue decision should be promulgated, but
In 10 - u-i unt promu!saton. This a. lone
cation. >. ". LAsoREIK.
Although il does not appear to whom the copy
Wa given. yet a. Mr.. L-iinorruE did not Dis
close the name ~ the person, although requested
"a party, IL Z. 20 be- presumed that such party
was not without Interest in the contrOy er-y,
Moreover h":urs the department was advised
that any decision had been signed counsel for
b" promulgated. knowledge of the opinion -
Therefore traaenhlc TO them.
The .mpropr.rty uf giving ont copy OF An un.
promulgated decision 10 one Of tho parties To \
C8atruvrT-y in ad vance u the dag set for it, for
nal AnEoUnr"Wenf u too obvious To require
comment. Mr Ltmo7euN says that he gave
tine anrointct by himself for its promnlgltion
in The usual and proper way. Neither faith nor
credit can attach TO an opinion under such cir
Cgm-tauCc-. since II was never properly hled.
new trial. The date for the new inquiry i
April ).