The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-06-23
WILL GRINNAN RECEDE q
1t is Boped and Believed by the Ad'
ministration That He Will, Thus
Avoiding Any Clash at Rich
mond---Omcials Say
Little.
(By the Associated Press.)

by the ASSOtldltu 1IcSS.J
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 decision of
gard the decision of the court of Virginia
and seize the incomplete gunboat Calves
ton at tine Trigg Snip yards IN Richmond.
Attorney General Knox presented a care
fully prepared opinion on the subject
strongly affirming the right of the gov
eminent to disregard the injunction grant
ed yesterday in the Virginia court, which
forhids the resumption of work on the
Galveston pending Il settlement of the
claim of the sub-contractors who have not
been paid for material furnished.
Ia his opinion, addressed to the Presi.
dent, Attorney General Knox states that
the letter of Secretary Moody raises the
question of the right and power Of the
United States to take immediate and COM
rlcte possession for all purposes, of vessels
OF the United States IN course of COM
pletlon under contracts with shlpbuildcrs
when there has been a breach OF contract
with the latter. The question, he says
actually affects three vessels at present
and might at any time involve any or ell
public vessels under construction by PRIV
ate parties. For this reason he declares
the subject of vital Importance in re-
speet to national and sovereign interests.
Attorney General Knox recitcs the terms
of the contract with the Trigg Company.
which contains an express recognition OF
the paramount title and lien Of the gov
eminent. and after quoting at length
statutes bearing on the subject Of attach
mPntS 9OlrpSAf Drnnortu in urh1oh tho
United States has or claims an interest:
"The right Of a party in ordinary liti-
cation to a release of property from at
tachment upon giving a bond for indemni-
ty is fundamental. The doctrine was
recognized in the debate on the act OF
1864. 1t manifestly applies with greater
force and reason IN a case affecting the
government as parenS patrlae. than where
the interests of private iitigations alone
are involved. The statute enables the
government. although not a party, nor in
general subject to be made such, to in
tervene without prejudice and to invoke
that doctrine.
1T is especially significant that section
1858, which IS. OF course A part of the
supreme law Of the land and binding
throughout the Union, expressly refuses
to recognize any right whatever to seize
or attach property of the United States,
or property held, owned or employed by It.
Quite apart from the statute. and because
of the nature Of the case, it is impossi-
bic. on primary grounds to yield assent
at all to the idea that any instrument
tality Of the governmental this case an
fundamentally of prime importance-may
be taken into custody and held under any
adverse authority whatever. This view
applies. in my judgment, whether the ad-
verse custody should assume to attach
upon the lnstrumentality as a completed
thing. or upon one in process Of creation.
While, however, it is not to be doubt
ed Tor an instant that the United States
Is entitled to the ~undisputed possession
and control of its property and Of proper
ty IN which it is interested to the extent Of
that interest, and that this posses
sion and control are exempt from the
process OF every court, yet, Congress, by
the act of 1864. provided an orderly and
peaceful solution of controversies that
may arise between parties claiming ad-
verse to the United States, under the
terms OF which the utmost rights Of all
claimants are preserved without the func-
TONS OF the government being in the
slightest degree disturbed
1t Will be observed. however, that
thIS act Is not mandatory in its provis-
IONS, and that In a palpable case of I'M
proper interference with the govern
ments rights the strong executive arm
may be relied upon for the protection OF
It's sovereignty, the language OF the act
peins that the secretary of the treasury
may III his discretion cause such stIpula-
ton to be entered. This is a case in
winch l think that discretion should be
exercised.
The nature and necessities of the sub
Ject. the sovereign claim and interest.
the object to be gained, the words of the
statute. its fair inferences and clear re
seryations, all convince me beyond doubt
ti'at the stipulation to be entered into
- an engagement on behalf of the United
'tateS, which shall be addressed to and
Hed with the particular court, under
i'"eTVe OF submission to the juIlSdlc-
Il'h' WhereupOn discharge of the proper
y as matter of course would follow, and
ADVERSE claimants would nave the op-
Ioftunlty OF establishing, in accordance
Win the law. their respective claims
against the bond of indemnity thus pro
ylded.
from another point of view a GER
,'Ih analogy Is furnished by the laws re
"1hg TO the removal of causes, under
"n'ch' When the various statutory rea-
'"'7t, d petition Tor remova WIFI
'"'iAnt security makes it the duty Of
0'ate court to proceed no further IN
s' cause, and in effect Gusts it's jurls.
ho0on and confers jurisdiction upor
lhe Federal Court. So. here. I can
"t doubt that the stipulation, wher
meSehted and entered into as the en-
9'~einent of the United States vii
op,lale forthwith TO discharge the prop
ny and free it from the state juris-
S:ion' that the Chancery court of Vlr
- upon the entry of this instru
'"' ana consideration of the law nov