Democratic Sentinel, Volume 13, Number 9, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 March 1889 — A JUDICIAL DECISION. [ARTICLE]

A JUDICIAL DECISION.

THE RIGHTS OF A SITIJECT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSIDERED. A Proposition Lslil Down That the Government Cnn He Sued—ln Reeuguitlo'i ol the Adoption of the National Constitution, etc. [Son Francisco (Cal.) special.] In tlie United States Circuit Court in this city Judge Sawyer rendered an important decision. By this decision tho demurrer of the United States in the case of The Southern Pacific Hailroad Company vs. The United States is overruled and a proposition laid down that the United States can be sued by a subject. The Southern Pacific Company brought suit against tho Government in the Circuit Court under an act of Congress March 3, 1887, entitled, “An act to provide for bringing suits against the Government of the United States." It set up a claim to a tract of laud against the United States, and asked that its title to the land bo established in tho petitioner Ly decree of the court. The lauds are odd numbered, Section A lying in the limits of landß granted by the United States to the company by an act approved July, 1866. The petitioner 'claims the acts alleged, if true, show the lands were subject to grant and that the petitioner has performed all the necessary conditions. Its right to a patent is shown, yet the proper officers refuse to issue one as required by law, and the petitioner prays that it may be’ adjudged entitled to a patent and have such further relief as may be agreeable to equity. Tho United States demurs to this proposition on the ground that the court lias no jurisdiction in such a suit and that tho United States cannot be sued in such case. Tho Court then says : “In this case tho claim is founded upon a statute of tho United States and upon statutory contract, and that tlie value of the matter in dispute exceeds .*I,O,XJ and is less than 810,000. If tlie matters alleged, then, constitute a title claim within the meaning of the term as used in the statute the United States is suable thereon 111 this court, and this court has jurisdiction over It concurrent with court claims. After careful consideration of the matter I am satisfied that they do constitute a claim within the meaning of tho act. The statute is remedial, and remedial statutes are to bo liberally construed.”