Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-06-05
GoeaI ann DsrsonaI.
An Important Question was brought 10 the


consideration Of the Circuit Court for the District
of Columbia, on Saturday last-on the petition OF
a naturalized foreigner, named Thomas J. Gruen.
BY the charter of the city. of Washington the
privilege of voting is restricted TO every free
white male citizen of the United States, Of lawful
age, who shall have resided in Washington forone
year next preceding the day Of election" and shall
have been assessed on the books of the Corpora
ton for the year ending the thrly-frst day Of De-
cember next preceding the day Of election, and
who shall have paid all taxes legally assessed and
due on personal property when legally required 10
pay the same, AID no other person
Gruen was naturazed during the last month";
and, proceeding TO the City Register, offered TO pay
the school tax but that officer refused TO register
his name on the lists and returns, conceiving that
he was not the thirty-frst Of December last, in
such political condition as would justify the
try; in other words, that he was not at that time
"a citizen OF the United States" 10 which the
clause of the charter, above referred to, applies.
The relator joined issue with the register; and his
petition to the court was, that rule be issued on
William j. McCormick, the register, TO show cause
why mandamns should not issue, demanding him
TO inscribe the name of the relaor on the lists and
certify thesame TO the commissioners of elections,
that he might be enabled 10 vote.
Both parties were represented by some of the
best talent at the bar; Messrs. Lawrence and Car
Isle appearing for Gruen and Messrs. Bradley and
Thomas E. Scott for the Corporation.
On the one part, il was contended that as Gruen
was, on the thirly-frst of December last, an alien,
and not "a citizen of the United Sletes, al the first
mentioned period, his name could not properly be
registered the lists and returns. The city char
ter required the person claiming to vote to have
resided here, as :" citizen Of the United States"
one year next preceding the election"
On the other part, it was insisted that as this was
simply of construction of law passed by
an American Congress, to be executed by Ameri.
officers That the naturalized citizen must
not only be citizen at the time he shall offer to
vote, but must have been citizen year preced-
ing the election, was forced construction. II
was in violation of the plain language of the law
itself. There was no reason for il in public policy,
and would require large Interpolation in the sta
tute 10 arrive at such conclusion. 1t was alto
ge,her personal and not political residence
just as much as qualification respecting age was
personal and not political qualification. There
was not in the charter of 1913 any distinction be-
tween native citizen and naturalized citizen
That charter was older than SAM and it was trust
ed il would much longer survive. 1t was new
notion and sheer deusion.
Yesterday morning. the Court pronounced its
decision in the case, to the effect, that the list of
the assessors, having passed from the custody of
the register is now in possession of the commits
sioners of elections, who are quasi judges there
FORE the court could not interfere with them. For
the reasons which were set forth at length by the
court, the application for the writ of mandamus 10
issue dismissed.
The effect of the decision was, 10 leave 10 the
Commissioners TO determine whether persons
naturalized since the 31st of December last should
be entitled to vote. The commissioners have
decided adversely to their claims, and the conse
quence is the ruling out OF one hundred and thirty
eight naturazed voters which action, we learn,
will form the basis Of suit against the commits
sioner of election.