New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-01-04
.IIteriiol. Motive
l. Alleged i'm
Cable Seizure
Brief of Postal Company De-
clares Facts Prove That
War Necessity Had Passed
Federal Ownership Plan
Governments Reply Insists
That United States Cam
not Be Brought to Court

Tho charge that the cables of the
~amrercial Cable Company and the
commercial Pacific Cable Company
ware seized b. Postmaster General
Bnrleson for interior purposes. CON
,rsrv to law. and not for the furtherng
Of national security or defence, was
amplfed in brief filed yesterday III
the United States District Court by
William L. Cook and Charles T.
Hughes. counsel for the companies.
After declaring that the companies
are entitled to know the moving
cause" of the seizure, the brief reads;
THE bills Of complaint allege that
the defendant, Burleson, proposes to
intermingle the complainants' bust
ness. goodwill staff, organizations
employees. plants and equipment with
thst of the Western Union Telegraph
Company. so that the separate identity
and business Of the compartments Will
disappear and that they may be forced
70 abandon competition and acquiesce
the uSitIItIkS Pie~ito W.
ment ownership and for the amalga-
nation of all cables.
Purpose 10 Prove 1t
1--WE beg the court not to treat
lightly this allegation. 1t is an allega-
ton That. if we are permitted the
standing in court to which we believe
we are entitled, we purpose to prove.
There was a reason after the signing
of the armistice and the ending of all
menace to our national security for a
hurried effort to take the cables, not
because of any necessity for the pur-
nose of national security or defence,
but for fear that this plan of amalga
nation and this Interior and illegal
purpose could not be carried out
facts, and the only explanation, we
believe, which does fit the facts.
THE joint resolution of July 16.
1918, does not contemplate, after the
menace to the national security or de-
fence is removed or without any real
or substantial relation to the national
security or defence in any proper
sense. that it should be made the in
strumentalty OF a destruction of COM
petition and of uniticatiOn otherwise
condemned by act OF Congress, and in
utter disregard of the rights Of these
compliments to the property which
they had built up and owned and to
the enjoyment of which they were en-
titled
The briefs filed by both sides to the
action yesterday were asked for by the
court following an argument OF d mo-
ton to dismiss the suits made by the
government before Judge Hand, on the
ground that the court had no juris-
diction because an injunction was
sought against the United States,
which may not be sued.
The compliments summarized their
stand yesterday as follows:
Congress could not constitutionally
delegate, and by the joint resolution
Of July 16. 1918, did not attempt to
delegate, arbitrary power to the Presi-
dent. The authority conferred was sub
iect to expressed limitations. Those
whose property had been seized by of
hcers asserting authority under the
act OF Congress are entitled to a u-
dicial determination of the question
whether the limits of that authority
have been exceeded.
Proclamation Predated
"The seizure took place on Novom-
Der Is, 1915 The fact that the Presi-
dents proclamation was dated Novem-
Der 2, 1913, does not preclude proof
OF the time Of actual seizure, and the
compainants are entitled 10 a judicial
determination upon the question
whether a that time the seizure
vas wrongful.
ASIDE from the question Of the ar
bitrary and Illegal character of the
seizure, 10 proper provision has been
mace Tor the payment to compliments
OF Just compensation for the posses
SION and use of the.r cables
In short. compliments property has
oeen taken By Defendant Burleson and
IS withheld b. both defendants ultra
Vires and without just compensation
ana oy virtue Of an unreasonable and
arbitrary seizure; all in violation Of
me Constitution Of the United States"
The Governments Brief
:. Inc governments brief supporting
Its argument FOR dismissal of the
suits, filed By Edward &. McClennan.
special assistant to the Attorney Cen
era, and Harold Harper, Assistant
Ihiteo states Attorney, is summed up
"First-These bills in equity are not
witnln the jurisdiction Of the District
courts Of the United States because
shey are against the United States for
injunction '''''0' '0'
Second The complainant is not en-
sitied to relief because % Congress
"a, constitutional power to authorize
~ 1a seizure OF cables in time Of war:
~ me resolution Of the Congress
s..e que provision for just compen-
npa.'oh for such seizure: (3) the
. - Is proper officer To annoint
~ ~ possession; az the war IL NOT
fh;s +ah., So) the determination that
sn .tSaS'ng OF possession il nacays .a'r's
'"e national security and $780,
ie''S IN the Presidcnt,s ueien zee
alscretion;, 80 the Prexidants 'Ie"a1le
lermlned that the necessitv ~ mas de-
me manner IN which the pye SHisls' ~
poses 10 operate these cahles uene pro
terInine the amount Of tho $50 ", 20 de-
ants, compensation, does not a 9fYnria IN
validity Of the possession takenen.e the
Suit Against Government
In reply to the cable cornpan;os,
tcnnon that the United States ON von-
nave jurisdiction in the action fo"'eS
much as neither the President nor ar
United States is sued, the government,'
brief says: ''''''''
The question whether or not ami
= against the United States is to h.
determined by substantial characte,
@nd not by itg formal title, or bv III,
o'hcials nned. Evidently this should b,
70 oecau1c the principle that tn,
ohited states cannot be sued il mo-
ohe - be get up only TO be cyaded. II
fsst> upon considerations Of public
ppiicy more Wcighty than any which
ssn be egoked against it.
The Time for geizure