The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-05-10
STINGY OLD GOVERNMENT
MADE TO RE
sPoNsIBILITY ON STATE.
Attorney General Taylor Files a Brief
i'm a Suit To Quiet Title-some
Old History.

On a point of great legal interest, In
volving the construction of the Constitu-
ton. Attorney General Taylor is fighting
a suit of the United States in the Circuit
Court TO quiet titles TO the land on which
the present postoffice now stands. The
point at issue is one which has been OF
absorbing interest TO j~urists for many
s-w the United States govern
ment can bring suit against a State In any
federal court outside the Supreme Court OF
the United States. Mr.. Taylor holds the
opinion that no State can be sued outside
the Supreme Court by the government and
that the ''postoffice case" a. il is commonly
known. does not lie within the jurisdiction
of the Federal Circuit Court in Indianap-
oils. The brief of the State Of Indiana was
filed by the attorney general yesterday
with Judge Baker and the outcome of Mr..
Taylor's plea to- jurisdiction will be awaited
with interest.
The case in court is that Of the United
States against the city of indianapolis, the
State Of Indiana. the Western Paving and
Supply Company, the Minnehaha Granite
Company. A. Buethe. Wldaig & Derkiman.
+. T. Sheehan, Fuehring Brothers. Indian
apolis Sweeping Company. j. r. Kenning-
ton and J. +. Reeder. Most OF the defend
ants, as contractors for Improvement Work,
hold assessment liens against the govern
ment, and the State of Indiana is brought
into the suit by having one OF these liens
assigned to il by a contractor. by "A law
passed several years ago and repealed by
the last Legislature, Indiana relieved the
federal government Of the burden or pay
ing Improvement assessments. and II was
under that law that the State in taking up
contractors claims becomes a defendant
Mr.. Taylor drew the bill 10 repeal the law
tor the reason that he held there was no
cause why the United States should be re-
lieved of the burden of paying for improve
ments affecting its own property or why
that burden should be placed on the State.
In resisting the suit Mr.. Taylor denies
the State of Indiana I'm any court save the
Supreme Court. He takes exception on
two grounds. First, the defendant is a
sovereign State, which has at no time con-
scented TO be sued; second. the defendant.
as one of the United States. cannot be sued
in this court, but the Supreme Court OF the
United States has. under the Constitution
and judiciary act, exclusive Jurisdiction or
suits to which States are parties.
MUST CIV CONSENT.
In making his first point Mr.. Taylor
points out that the defendant cannot be
sued without its consent except as TO such
matters as were contemplated by the i'm
piled consent in that clause OF the Con-
stitution which extends the judicial power
TO "all cases in law and equity arising un-
der this Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties made or which shall
be made under their authority; 10 all cases
affecting ambassadors. other public minis
tiers and %consuls; 10 all cases or admiralty
and maratime Jurisdiction; 10 controversies
to which the United States shall be a
party; 10 controversies between two or
more States; between a State and citizens
Of another State; between citizens OF differ
ent States; between citizens of the same
State claiming lands under grants OF differ
ent States, and between a State or the cit
liens thereof and foreign states, citizens
or subjects"
by no stretch OF the imagination" said
Mr.. Taylor, "can the words. to cOntrover-
sizes between two OF more States; between
a State and citizens OF another State, be
construed into a consent TO be sued by the
United States, the federal government be-
ing neither a State I'm the sense I'm which
the word is used in the clause quoted. nor
a citizen or citizens OF another state. II
would only be an extraordinarily liberal
construction that a general right granted
To the Nation TO bring suit In its own
courts could be held 10 imply "A general
consent that a State might be sued BY a
Nation"
Mr.. TAYLOR. i'm making the plea tina the
United States should not be relieved Of the
burden OF Improvement assessments
against the property. said; 1T has been re-
peatedly held that where the United States
has retained, purchased or acquired prop
erty I'm the limits Of the States without the
consent Of the Legislature. the rights and
remedies in relation 10 such property are
such as apply TO other land owners in the
state. The United States held the land in
controversy not in a sovereign or govern
mental capacity. but simply as would any
other land owner. Its rights and remedies
as 10 such land would be In no wise differ
ent from those OF other land owners. This
Is simply a question In which the govern
ment has no higher right than any ether
land owner.
1T is a poor rule that will not work both
ways. for IL the United States can quiet
title 10 these measly Improvement liens. the
State. on its part. has the same right TO
foreclose liens against the federal govern
: ment."
with a number Of citations from the au-
thorities Mr.. Taylor submitted his plea that
the Circuit Court has no jurisdiction b the
case.
In discussing the case Mr.. Taylor said:
1t il absurd for the United States govern
ment. rich and powerful "a IL Is. 20 seek 10
compel Indiana TO pay these Improvement
liens. When ~ spends millions reckessly
on river and harbor improvements, II Is
curious that such small things should te de-
manded with tenacity. ! don't think 10 Is
right in any sense OF the word. Such suits
are beneath the dignity OF the United
States or OF the State OF indiana