The herald., 1898-10-04
RIGHTS OF vfTfRANS
ARGUMENTS ON THE DEMURRER
HEARD EN- BANJO
AND SUBMITTED ON BRIEF
Inmates Of Soldiers Home Not Resi-
dents Of the State Because Gov
ernment Owns the Property


Arguments on the demurrer to the suit
brought by Abbot Kinney against county
Clerk Newlin and five veterans OF the SOL
diers' home, for the purpose OF having the
latters' names stricken from the register Oh
Los Angeles county, were made oe1ore
Judges Allen, Clark, Shaw and York, sit
ting en- banc in Department six yesterday.
Judge Van Dyke was invited to be pres
ent, but owing to the fact that he Is cam
didate for Office on the supreme bench ana
would be affected by the decision, ne was
compelled to decline. John d. Pope ap-
peared for plaintiff, and Attorneys Flint
and Baker represented the defendants.
Attorney Flint read the demurrer, which
states that the complaint Is uncertain Tor
the reason that 1t cannot be ascertained
how or in what manner the land upon
which the Soldiers home Is located was
ceded by the state to the government, nor
how or in what manner the government
of the United States has acquired ex-
elusive Jurisdiction and control over the
lands and buildings. 1t was stated that
the complaint Is further uncertain for the
reason that 1t cannot be ascertained how
or In what manner the land and premises
occupied for the home is held IN trust for
the government, nor can the nature OF the
trust be ascertained from the complaint
The third allegation states that the COM
plant is ambiguous. for the reason that
It may be understood from some of its
allegations that the government OF the
United States acquired exclusive Jurfsdic-
tion over the land occupied by the home
by reason of the alleged conveyance there
of to the corporation known as the Nation
al Home for Disabled Soldiers, or that by
special legislative act of the state of CAL
ifornia, jurisdiction Of the land and prem
ises was ceded to the national government
Mr.. Flint stated that the first point to
be considered was whether or not the
United States government had sole and ex-
elusive jurisdiction over the land He
contended that there was nothing in the
complaint that went to show this, and the
action was therefore without merit.
Mr. Pope here interrupted Mr.. Flint to
state that the omission of the word ex-
elusive was an oversight, and that with
counsers permission he would add the
word to the complaint. This was granted.
AS to Jurisdiction, defendants attorneys
claimed that under section 81, Political
code, which provides that the legislature
consents to the purchase or condemnation
by the United States of any tract of land
within the state for the purpose of erect
ling forts, magazines. docks and other
buildings, the home would not come, be-
cause the land was neither ceded to, pur-
chased or condemned by the United States.
Congress can exercise exclusive legislation
only over places when they are purchased
by the United States with the consent Of
the legislature Of the state. This only
applies to forts, docks, etc. 1t was also
claimed that the acts of March 81, 1891 and
March 2. 1897. do not apply to the Santa
Monica home, because the home was built
and was never ceded to the United States
government, and therefore the United
States government is not the owner.
The defendants went even further. They
contended that the Home for Disabled
Soldiers is a separate corporation, just the
same as a railroad. Mr.. Pope said this
was unreasonable, and asked why the
property was not subject to taxation. "Is
1t anything but a department. an arm of
the government, and the board of mama
gers but servants of the United States?"
said he. "They simply hold them in trust.
but they have no individual rights, as the
gov vernment owns the property"
"Itwas further argued that the home is
q federal reservation" said Mr. Flint, "or
the federal money spent on the home Is
spent in violation of the revised statutes.
This Is not true for reasons, the chief
among them being that the consent of the
California legislature has never been
given"
Plaintiffs attorneys claimed that the
land was given by Mrs. Arcadia de Baker
and Senator Jones to the home without
compensation. He alleged that the giving
under the code was the same as purchase,
but this was denied by the defendant who
held that the supreme court had overruled
such a decision.
In referring to the residences Of the SOL
diers, it was alleged that the inmates of
the home under the constitution do not
gain or lose a residence except in not be-
ing residents of their home state more than
one year prior to an election. A case was
cited from the Ohio courts in which the
conditions were very similar, the court
refusing to allow the inmates of the home
to vote
Arguments were commenced at the late
hour of 8. Is, which necessitated time limit
of less than an hour on each side. At the
close of court both attorneys stated that
they had presented only about half of
their evidence and references, and asked
that the matter be submitted on briefs.