The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1903-06-23

Washington. June 19.-The time Of the
cabinet meeting today was consumed
in large part by the consideration OF
the legal questions involved in the de-
iciSiOn of the United States government
to disregard the decision of the court
Iof Virginia and seize the incomplete
lgunboat Galveston at the Trigg ship
yards in Richmond. Attorney General
Knox presented a carefully prepared
IOpinion on the subject strongly affirm
ling the right of the government to dis
regard the injunction granted yester-
day in the Virginia our which for
Galveston, pending a settlement Of the
Iclaim uf the Sub-cOntractorS. who have
mot been paid for material furnished.
In his opinion in the letter addressed
to the president, Attorney General Knox
Estates that the letter Of Secretary
MOODY raises the question of the right
land power of the United States to take
Immediate and complete possession for
Iall purposes, of vessels of the United
Estates in course of completion under
contracts with shipbullders when there
-AbS" 'NNAA l. III NoIIll ~ Will LIZ
latter. The question. he says, actually
laffects three vessels at present, and
might at any time involve any or all
public vessels under construction by
private parties. For his reason ne de-
Iclares the subject one Of vital impor-
Itance in respect to national anu sover-
leigh interests. Attorney General Knox
I%recites the terms of the contract with
the Trigg Company. which contains an
express recognition of the paramount
title and lien of the government. and
latter quoting at length statutes bear
ling on the subject OF attachments
against property in which the United
Estates nave or claim an interest, says:
The right of q party in ordinary It'll
igation TO a release of property from at
Itachment upon giving a bond for in
Idemnity is fundamental. That doctrine
Twas recognized IN the debate on the act
Iof 1864. 1t manfestly applies with great
Ter force and reason in a case affecting
the government as parenS patriae. thar
where the interests of private htiga-
ltiOns alone are involved. The statute
IenableS the government, although not
a party, 0 in general subject to b.
made such, to intervene without pre-
iJudice and to invoke that doctrine.
1T is especially significant that Sec
ton 3.153. which is. of course. a part u
the supreme law Of the land and bind
ing throughout the union. expressly re-
fuses to recognize any right whatever
to seize or attach property of the Unit
ed States or property held, owned OF
employed by it. Quite apart from the
statute, and because of the nature OF
THE case. il is impossible, on primary
~lgroundS to WELD assent at all to tht
idea that any fundamentally OF the
governmental his case an instrI-
mentality OF prime importanca-may De
Ira EaY into n11StH1N n01 hold 11n1ar n ~
adverse authority whatever. This view
iapplieS. in my judgment. whether the
adverse custody should assume To at,
Itach upon the ins~trumentality as a com
jpletSd thing or upon n in process Of
Icreation.
While. however. it is not to b.
doubted for a that the CniteG
Estates is entitled to the undisturbeC
possession and control of its property
land of property IN which il is inter.
Tested to the extent of that interest. AND
THAT this possession and control are eX.
Tempt from the process of every court
iyet, congress-. by the act of 1864, pro
Ivided an orderly and peaceful solution
lOf controversies that may arise between
ipartieS claiming adverse to the UNITED
Estates. under the terms of which thu
utmost rights of all claimants are IRE
tserved without the functions of tht
government being in the slightest de
gree disturbed.
"Ir VII he observed. however. thai
this act IS nOt mandatory in its prOvis'
ions and that in a palpable case Of i'm
lprOper interference with the govern
ImenJ's rights. the strong executive arm
may be relied upon for the protection
IOf ITS sovereignty. the language of tn
IaCt being hat the secretary of n
TREASURY may in his discretion cause
Isuch stipulation - be entered. This i:
a case in which l think that discretion
lShOuld be exercised.
The nature and necessities of tn
isubject. h sovereign claim and inter
lest. the object to be gained. the word!
IOf the statute, its fair differences anC
iClear reservations. all convince me be
lyond doubt that the stipulation to b.
Ientered into is IN engagement on be
half of the United States which shall
be addressed TO and filed with the par
I~ticular court under proper reserve O
submission to the jurisdiction. where"
upon discharge of the property as mat.
tier of course would follow. and adverse
claimants would have the opportunit!
IOf establishing in accordance with thu
law their respective claims against tn
bond Of indemnity thus provided.
From another point of view a GER
tain analogy is furnished by the laws
Irelating 70 the removal of causes. un
de- which. when the various statutory
IreaSons exist. a petition for remova
with sufficient security makes it the
duty OF the state TO proceed nc
further in the cause. and in effect oust
its jurisdiction and confers jurisdiction
upon the federal court. So. here, l can
not doubt hal the stipulation. wneT
presented and entered into as the en-
jgagement OF the United States. vii
IOperate forthwith to discharge the
property and free it from the state iur.
isdictlon hat the chancery court OF
Virginia. upon the entry of this instru.
ment and certain of the law now in
Ivoked. will take whatever action may
be necessary or desirable to CONFORM 1t:
records to the supreme law and to pre-.
went any clash of authority"
In concluding his opinion the attor.
ney general says: