In  charging  the  jury  the  court  stated  that  the  United  States  Dis¬
trict  Attorney  had  suggested  in  writing  that  the  property  in  contro¬
versy,  the  title  and  possession  of  which  were  the  subjects  of  this  liti¬
gation,  was  and  for  many  years  had  been  in  the  possession  of  the
United  States  through  its  officers  and  agents;  that  it  was  held  for
public  uses  in  connection  with  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  the
Great  Lakes;  that  the  nominal  defendant  had  no  personal  interest  in
the  matter;  that  his  physical  possession  of  the  premises  was  in  his
official  capacity  and  in  law  the  possession  of  the  United  States;  that
the  United  States  had  always  held  title  to  the  said  land,  and  now  holds
possession  under  its  claim  of  title;  that  this  action  was  in  effect  an
action  against  the  United  States  Government,  which  in  its  sovereign
capacity  could  not  be  sued;  and  for  these  reasons  the  District  Attorney
asked  that  all  proceedings  be  stayed  and  the  suit  dismissed.
A  verdict  for  the  defendant  was  directed  on  the  ground  that,  in
legal  effect,  the  action  was  against  the  United  States  and  that  a  judg¬
ment  for  the  plaintiff  would  be  one  against  the  Government  and  its
property.
In  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  the  failure  of  the  trial  court  to
charge  the  jury  as  requested  by  the  plaintiff,  and  the  direction  to  the
jury  to  return  a  verdict  for  the  defendant,  were  assigned  for  error.
