Perth Amboy evening news., 1920-08-03
Act In Courts to
Curb Uncle Sam

Cartwright. 1890, by the Washing
ton Gfar1

now and then some discontented
citizen, Directing to the way in
which the laws are administered by
an executive, Is seized with the idea
of appealing to the courts TO COM
pei the ofhcial to construe and carry
out the law according 10 the as
contented citizens view Of its con-
structlon and application. He pro-
ceeds ito have the law" on the
oficial and to that end usually ap-
plies to one of the higher courts In
the District of Columbia for an in
junction to restrain or a mandamus
10 force the stubborn Official to the
course desired by the applicant.
These efforts in recent years have
taken a wide range, from the an
dertaking of q $1,000 clerk in a de-
partment to resist dismissal to the
latest incident. the petition Of a
Chicago lawyer to the supreme
court of the District OF Columbia to
require Secretary Colby to declare
officially that & state of peace exists
between the United States and Ger
many.
The court dismissed the petition
following a practically unbroken
line Of p~recedents established in the
local courts in instances of efforts
OF the citizenry to bring pressure TO
bear upon administrative officers of
the government In the execution of
their official duties. In this partic-
ular case the court 'repudiated the
contention of the plaintiff that
there was a power of sovereignty
above the constitution which left an
inherent right in congress as the
representative of the people to act
independently of the President Of
- TTa 0~ raAfara nf
great exigency.
In the large number of cases
brought in the local courts TO COM
pei officials to reverse their decisions
and actions, or Ato act and decide
along certain lines, the courts have
shown uniformly an indisposition to
interfere in the administrative du-
ties and responsibilities Of an exec
utive officer. The layman, reading
between the lines of many of the
decisions prior { % this latest. might
discern what he would estimate to
be a common-sense attitude of the
court; that in governmental affairs
there must be some one Who has
the last say" some n to decide
and to act, and that unless an OBJ
vious and fragrant violation of the
law is shown a clear misapplication
vi AIl0 6lalGkE8f hC SOoAN9
willing to override the executive au-
thority.
Needless to a there are no in
stances of bare-faced violation of
the plain letter of the law by exec
utive officers. The only questions
have been of construction, and the
executive authority has been upheld
almost invariably in it's construction
of statutes and of administrative
duties. Very frequently the disap-
pointed litigants may have felt that
the courts were partial to the gov
eminent and that the plain citizen
was at a Disadvantage, but there has
been a remarkable similarity
through the years In the attitude OF
the courts toward cases of this kind.
II Is an old and familiar COM
plant in Washington that the peo-
pie get the worst of it in dealing
with the government authorities. AS
a matter of fact, experience has
shown that it is rather difficult to
contend with the government, not
because the government is dishon-
est, or oficials unworthy, but from
the plain, human nature trait in
men to uphold the service they r
When men take public Office they
subscribe to an oath to perform
faithfully their duties which in
their Individual cases is carry out
certain welf-defined policies or to
administer the expenditure of gov
eminent money in a specified way.
departure from policy or a diversion
OF the monies is looked upon natur-
ally as "agin the government" in the
particular instance, and the officials
are bent upon protecting their own
demesne from invasion.
The average government official,
it is often complained, would rath-
err say no than yes to a proposition"
There may be some truth in the
charge. II we could realize fully
how great is the pressure brought
to bear upon officials for favors, for
deviation from the strict letter of
the law, for liberalization of con-
struction of the law to fit an indi-
vidual case, it could better be APP
preciated how officials gradually
contract the habit Of negation.
Every man who has ever had a
claim against the government can
testify to the difficulty in getting
favorable action out of Uncle Sam.
Some of these old claimants will
tell you that at every step In the
proceedings the official on guard
there seemed to be imbued with the
idea that it was his duty to prevent
the claimant going any further.
That Is the way 1t seemed to him,
doubtless. The fact, perhaps, was
that the official was resting under
the obligation devolving upon him
TO see to it that the claimant proved
his right to redress.
But there is no question that II is
like getting blood from a turnip to
get anything back from Uncle Sam
or get anything out of him to which
there is no a clear title mandatory
by statute. The committee reports
OF congress, the briefs in the court
of claims, the pigeon holes of law
yers' Offices in the national capital,
are stacked with testimony of this
effect. II you 1--WE your Uncle Sam
uel a dollar, be sure he will get it.
If you think he owes. you a dollar,
you have got to prove 1t. and prove
it perhaps more than once, and hold
on Until you force it out Of him.