OCR Text |
Show The Great Civil Service Suit. New Yobk, Sept. 26. The quo warranto proceedings of James A. Hinckley against Dorman B. Eaton, Leroy D. Thoman and John M. Gregory, the Civil Service Commissioners, Commis-sioners, came up before Judge Wallace in the United States Circuit Court this morning. morn-ing. Hinckley asked leave to begin an action to remove the Commissioners and abolish the Commission, on tho ground of unconstitutionality. The court-room was crowded with friends and enemies of Civil Service reform. United States District Attorney At-torney Dorsheimer and Dorman B. Eaton appeared for the Commissioners, while Morris Mor-ris S. Miller represented Hinckley. In opening, Dorsheimer said the case was an important one, and as all the parties interested in-terested were present, he thought it should be disposed of. Judge Wallace decided to hear the motion after the call of the regular calendar. Miller, when Hinckley's case was called, demanded to know who appeared for all those defendants, and was answered tho District Attorney, and by direction of the President of the United States. Miller objected to the Commissioners being represented by a government official. Dorsheimer then moved the Court to decide whether or not the argument should be confined con-fined only to the constitutional jurisdiction of the Court. He said he was instructed to say that he and the Attorney-General were prepared to defend the constitutionality of the act appointing the Commission. Judge Wallace sustained the motion. In his argument Dorsheimer said: "The relator is a citizen who seeks the abolishment of the office of the Commissioners of the Civil Service Reform, because the commissioners, by the powers conferred upon them usurped the rights of the President to the appointing power. The petitioner has no standing in court, because the right to quo warranto writ only applies to the usurpation of sovereign rights, and the United States alone could bring such an action in the United States courts, and then only through its appointed officers. Neither had the relator re-lator or his attorneys been deputized by the Attorney-General to reoommend such an action, ac-tion, and the United States alone had the right to test the constitutionality of the act providing for the commission. To bring the action properly he maintained the relator re-lator should have applied to the executive and not to judicial authority. In reply, Counsellor Miller contended on behalf of relator Hinckley, that his client had the statutory right to apply for the writ, for the citizen created the Constitution, and his client as a citizen had the right to avail himself of all its benefits. At the conclusion conclu-sion of the argument the court denied the petition for the writ. |