Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-19
The Attorney Generals 0pin-
ion on the Case.
GOVERNMENTS POWER
CAN UNDOUBTEDLY TAKE POSSES
SION OF THE VESSEL.
Statutes Giving Authority Are Quoted
Question Of Propriety Of Force
Not Considered.

ion of Attorney General Knox as to the
unfinished cruiser Galveston. which was
submitted by him to the President and con-
sidered at the cabinet meeting this morn
ing: -
WASHINGTON. d. c., June 10. 1su5.
The President.
Sir: Your reference under date of June
II of letter of the Secretary of the Navy
to you. dated June IL, raises the question
of the right and power of the United states
to take immediate and complete possession.
for all purposes, of vessels of the United
States in course of completion under con-
tracts with shipbuilders. when there mas
been a breach of contract by the latter.
The question at present actually anects
three vessels, and might at any time IN
volve any or all public vessels under con-
structon by private parties. The subject
is. therefore of vital Importance In respect
to national and sovereign interests
Facts in the Case.
The particular and immediate case pre-
scented is that of the cruiser Galveston. The
facts are these: Under the act of March 3.
1899. authorizing the construction Of six
protected cruisers the Navy Department
made a contract with the VIM. r. Trigg
Company of Richmond. Va. for the con-
struction of the cruiser named.
The contract provided, among other
things. that as the work progressed the
ments made; that the government lien
should be paramount; that upon failure Of
the company to go forward with the work.
the Secretary of the Navy might declare
the contract forfeited; that in the event OF
such failure and forfeiture of the contract,
and after certain administrative proceed
ings title to the vessel at any stage of the
work should vest in the United States; and
that the residue should be surrendered by
the company, that the government
might proceed forthwith to it's completion.
The company has gone into the hands of
receiver under state laws; subsequently the
contract was duly declared forfeited. and
the United States took possession of the
vessel by it's officers, and it is now proposed
to launch her on or about the 18th instant
preparatory to completion by the United
States. The amount of the payments made
under the contract is $69S 514 45.
1t appears that certain lien claimants and
material men object to this course; that
they challenge the exclusiveness of the gov
eminent title and the priority of its lien.
and insist on the receivers possession and
the jurisdiction of the state tribunal. The
question of law is whether the United
States is legally entitled to proceed as pro-
posed
1t is unnecessary to consider the author
tiles defining certain qualifications upon the
doctrine of government exemption from
suit, or validating liens under some circum-
stances against property owned or claimed
by the government. Such authorities do
not seem to me to be applicable to the
present situation. Nor is 1t necessary to
advert to the express recognition by this
contract of the paramount title and lien
of the government and the explicit provi-
sion for surrender by the company in the
contingency which has happened-prOvi-
sions creating conditions and covenants
which, it would seem, devolve upon and
bind the receiver on principle and author
tty. especially in view of his endeavors to
adopt the contract and continue work
hereunder. 1t may be remarked that in
this way the receiver appears to, have rati-
fed the contract. If. indeed, his ratification
were essential to the government right to
efectuate complete possession under the
plain and specific terms of the instrument.
Governed by Statute
But l do not need to consider these points,
because, in. my opinion. the case is ruled
by section 1858 of the Revised Statutes,
which enacts:
Whenever any property owned or held by
the United States. or in which the United
States have or claim an interest. shall in
any judicial proceeding under the laws of
any state. district or territory, be seized,
arrested attached or held for the security
or satisfaction of any claim made against
such property the Secretary of the Treas
ury. in his discretion. may direct the
licitor of the treasury to cause a stipu-
lation to be entered into by the proper
district attorney for the discharge of such
property from such seizure. arrest, attach
ment, or preceding. to the effect that upon
such discharge the person asserting the
claim against such property shall become
entitled to all the benefits of this and the
following section. Nothing herein contain
ed shall. however. be considered as rec
ognizing or concedng any right to enforce
by seizure. arrest. attachment or any H.
dicial process any claim against any Drop
erty of the United States. or against any
property held. owned. employed by he
United States. or by any department there
of, for any public use. as waving any
objection to any proceeding Instituted to
enforce any such claim.
Section 3IJ4 provides that in all cases
where such stipulation is entered and the
property discharged. and final Judgment Is
given affirming the claim adverse to the
government for which the proceedings Wer,,
instituted the person In interest shall be
entitled to such rights as he would have
had In case possession of the property had
not been changed: and thereupon. If the.
claim Is for the payment of money which
is found by said final Judgment to b. dine
the amount shall be paid out of TIL, trsas-
ury.
The law thus provides that whenever the
United States owns or holds property or
claims an interest therein, and judicial pro-
ceedings in any court seek to attach and
retain the same. the government may stipu-
late to discharge from the seizure and ar
rest, and thereuDon adverse claims are
fully protected. The right of a party in !
ordinary litigation to release of property !
from attachment upon giving bond for |
indemnity is fundamental That doctrine |