Washington Times
Print
Comment (0)
E-Mail
Report
Contributed by barbara-dave
Description: Grant Memorial Page 1
Date: January 2 1908Newspaper published in: Washington, D. C., USA
Washington Times January 2, 1908 Grant Memorial Page 1
GRANT MEMORIAL CAN BE ERECTED ON ORIGINAL SITE
Justice Gould Dismisses Suit to Prevent Removal of Historic Trees.
Says “Sentimental Loss” Should Have No Place in Court of Equity.
Justice GOULD today declined to interfere with the plans of the Grant Memorial Commission to establish the Grant Memorial in the Botanic Garden. He denied the petition for injunction of Attorney Conrad H. SYME, who protested against the proposed action of the commission, on the ground that it would destroy certain “historic trees.” Mr. SYME probably will enter an appeal.
The court prefaced its decision by saying that the plaintiff was met with the insurmountable objection to his plea that he had no right for the relief sought, because the injury alleged was one he shared with the public at large and not by himself. The court, Justice GOULD said, could not entertain such a prayer unless the plaintiff specified and proved specific injury.
No Sentiment in Court.
He briefly reviewed the petition, stating that Attorney SYME, as a citizen and taxpayer, wished to enjoin the Memorial Commission from erecting a monument in the garden, contending that such action, would entail a loss upon the citizens of the United States, “both from a sentimental; and financial standpoint.” The financial injuries had not been proven, the court held, and Justice GOULD said courts of equity had nothing to do with “sentimental standpoints,” if such existed.
Justice GOULD cited a number of authorities and decisions from other jurisdictions in support of his ruling. Continuing, he said:
“Tested by these principles, this bill of complaint cannot be maintained. It contains no allegations that the plaintiff pays any taxes to the United States, or that, if he did, such taxes would be increased by the proposed action of the commission. It sets up no property interest whatever of plaintiff that would be affected by such action.
Loss Is Alleged.
“It does state that the destruction of the trees in question will entail a loss upon the citizens of the United States ‘both from a sentimental and financial standpoint and upon your complainant as a taxpayer and taxable inhabitant of the United States.’
“Courts of equity, as stated by Chief Justice FULLER, deal only with civil and property rights and have no facility for preventing ‘loss from a sentimental standpoint,’ whatever that may be.
“From the allegations in the bill, it is clear that whatever loss may be suffered from a financial standpoint, differs in no respect from that which will be suffered by every other taxable inhabitant of the United States. Nor does the bill afford the court any opportunity for concluding that from a financial standpoint the action of the commission will result in any loss.
Cannot See the Argument.
“Assuming that the plaintiff is a taxpayer, it is impossible to conclude from the face of this record that his financial obligations will be increased by the location of the memorial to General GRANT in the Botanic Garden, rather than in some other locality.
“For these reasons the bill will be dismissed.”
As he concluded his decision, Justice GOULD informed Attorney Stuart McNAMARA, representing the Commission and the Government, that while his action was intended as an option, he was so confident that his position was correct that he would sign a formal order denying the injunction and finally dismissing the case. Mr. McNAMARA was asked to prepare an order to this effect, and all further action, if taken by the plaintiff, must be before the Court of Appeals.
To Appeal as a Test.
Mr. SYME, when acquainted with the text of the decision, said that he would probably note an appeal. He contended that any citizen had a right to apply for an injunction proceedings when he was cognizant of a palpable violation of the law, as he alleges in this instance, and said his appeal would be for the purpose of testing this question.
The present case, he said, had never had a parallel in either England or America. Mr. SYME said it now remained for Congress to either permit or refuse to allow the destruction of the trees.