Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-01-12
THE MAYoRALTY.
q Donovan the Dead" vs.. Johnson, Mayor
elect.
Argument Of the Avalanche Ring Injunction
Case.
I,hnson and the Democratic Party. forever


Courtroom was crowded by citizens anN-
iously awaiting the result of the contr9-
versy between the self-constttuted guard
ian of the public interest and the mayor
elect. At 10 o'clock, 3. M. Estes, ESQ,
I eounsel Of Mr.. Johnson, arose and al
dressed the Court, asking that the motion
10 dissolve the injunction granted by
ITudR6 Hudson be heard Immediately, on
account Of its being of great public inter
est, and as such ought not to be delayed.
II. C.. NOung. for the complainant, stated
hat Mr.. Yerger, the senior counsel, had
not arrived, and he preferred TO await his
arrival.
Chancellor Morgan remarked that the
rule of the Court established by Chancel-
Tor Smith, his predecessor, on the subject
Of ~iniunctions. was that no oral argument
would be heard on a motion TO dissolve,
but the case should be submitted on the
papers, aud this rule had been observed,
except in cases involving great public in
terest, when arguments OF counsel were
heard. The present case being q or this
1 character. the Court would relax the rule
and hear the argument Of counsel
Mr.. Yerger having arrived, Mr.. II. C.
Younger the part Of John Donovan, read
the bin, and the answer Of John Johnson
was read by Mr.. Estes.
THE answer has been heretofore pub
iished, and denied all the allegations con-
tanned in the bill, except the one charging
nat he (Johnson) had claimed British
protection during the war.
Colonel Randolph, City Solicitor, ad-
dressed the Court on behalf Of the mo
lion to dissolve the injunction, and stated
that be did not intend to detain the Court
for any length of time in the discussion of
shis case; for 70 him il seemed that the
answer fled by Mr.. Johnson was suti-
cient TO dissolve the injunction. 1t de-
MED all the allegations of the bill, and the
answer being made under oath must be
I taken as true.
Col. Randolph read the act Of Congress
Of IS02, under the provisions of which Mr..
! Johnson became a citizen Of the United
Z states bv operation of law, and cited S
Page and 9Th JOhnsOn's Reports on this
section Of the act of 1902. He denied that
a citizen, while a resident Of this country,
could throw III his allegiance. In Eng
+ land the doctrine of perpetual allegiance
was contended for as a principle. In this
I country, allegiance cannot be evaded or
renOunced while the citizen is a resident.
The answer filed by Mr.. Johnson shows
c~onclusively that Mr.. Johnson Is and has
been a citizen of the United States. He
asked that the injunction be dissolved;
the bill might remain IN Court, n the
issue of fact investigated hereafter, but
the answer is such that, to his mind, the
dissolution of the injunction must follow
As a matter Of course. He cid not regard
as necessary TO argue the question at
length, rs the papers filed IN the u
were sufficient.
II. c. Young. ESQ, for the complainant,
replied 10 Col. Randolph, and admitted
that the answer must be taken as true,
and If il had been responsive to b ale
cations OF the bill, the Injunction would
have to be dissolved; but IL seemed to
him that the answer was not so respon-
sive, and should not, therefore, be taken
-
their interTOgatOries had not been pre-
scented in the answer, nor had its absence
been accounted for. Under the act Of
Congress, the certificate Of naturalization
Of John JOhnsOn's father cannot be re-
ceived in evidence. The fact does not
appear, legally, that Mr.. JOhnsOn's father
had ever been made a citizen of the
United States. II he became 50 during
the minority of John johnson, of course
he also became a citizen by operation of
the law, but these facts have not been
presented 10 the Court.
Chancellor Morgan-Is it necessary, in
an answer, to present more evidence than
is sufficient to deny the allegations Of the
bill upon a motion to dissolve an %iniunc-
ton. Is any more evidence than a mere
denial necessary in this motion?
Mr.. Noung-In general iJ is not, but
this answer is not fully responsive to the
bill. A full denial i sufficient to dissolve
the injunction. but Mr.. Johnson presents
proof, seeking to show that his father be-
came a citizen during his John OhusOn's)
minority. be oilers, and furnishes, tins
evidence, to the Court, and the Court
must determine this controversy upon
the proof offered.
Chancellor MOrCan-The certificate Of
fered is the final naturalization paper, not
the application standardization or decla-
ration of intention.
NJ - The ~0-@sE1 .rn - ar-4ra7 h- Z
W. Russell, Clerk, etc. There is no certi-
hcste attached showing that he was a
clerk OF g Court in Ohio, and we do not
know that il Is of record-admit that the
law in England is, " once a citizen, al
ways q citizen; - but this is not the law IN
the United States. Nh. Johnson did not
elect 20 become 2 citizen Of the United
States, for he became so by no act Of his
own; but after be became Of age be
claimed British protection and repudiated
the act Of his father. II full proof Of ma
turalizatiou exists, let the gentlemen
send for il, but until he proves himself to
be a citizen the injunction ought not
T.. N. T~ssHr. Esq. for the complain
ant. disclaimed any partiZau motive eth
er on his own or on the part Of Mr.. Don
ovan. The matter is of vital Importance
to the citizens of Memphis, and we should
know that the head of our Municipal
~ "@ |L6%1@I r~~T !
and this is the only reason this bill has
been nled.
In order to dissolve the Injunction the
answer must make q full denial of the al
legations, but the answer filed by Mr..
Johnson was merely a confession and
avoidance, and not a tuLl answer.
Mr.. Nerger cOntrasted at length the in
terrogatories in the bill, and the nswer
of Mr.. Johnson to the same.
Mr.. Nerger claimed, that il was charged
in the bill that John Johnson was not a
citizen Of the United States, the answer
showed that he {Johnson) was horn in Ire
land, but new matter is introduced with
out producing the record of the same, and
he seeks 70 show that his (JohnsOn's) faith
er became a citizen Of the United States.
No Court will dissolve an Injunction upon
new matters not responsive to the charges
in the bill. There is no evidence Of his
fathers naturalization before the Court.
The record furnished by Mr.. Johnson and
the papers introduced IS not worth any
thing for such purpose. The naCuralizs-
Of a foreign born person must be
proved by two citizens. The paper offered
shows that only one citizen made such
proof. Even if the paper was regarded as
evidence-cited Brightley's Digest-no
State can change the naturalization laws.
and Mr.. johnson must show hat every
requisite has been performed, or he is not
a citizen OF the United States. The Ger
tincate Of the clerk must be certified to by
the presiding judge, and The clerk must
certify to the judges certificate before it
can be introduced as evidence.
Mr.. Nerger cOntended-that a minor
naturalized BY the act OF his father, had
a right 70 dissent from such act when he
became Of age-he not having given his
consent 70 the same-and Mr.. johnson
so dissent by swearing allegiance to
the Government Of England. He COM
in severe terms upon the &C ion Of
Mr.. Johnson during the last war, in
avoiding Confederate and Federal military
service, and making oath before Hume +.
Hill, Commissioners, &C., hat he owed
allegiance TO the British Government.
commended, also, hat Mr.. Johnson, by
this oath, had put himself outside Of the
pale Of citizenship, for he reDudiated the
Of his father when he became of age.
A more full answer is necessary ere the
injunction can be dissolved. If ire
injury would be lone to a citizen
BY di~ssolving an injunction upon mere
the Court viii not permit IL, but
Will investigate the matter upon fun
proof and hearing.
Judge Yerger concluded by asking the
Court to rescInd the dissolution OF the in
junction until the full proof can be heard
IS irreparable injury would accrue 70 the
Of Memphis by a dissolution Of the
injunction al present.
Mr.. b. NJ. Estes, for the motion to dis
iOlve the injunction, concluded the argu-
nent, and stated that he did not intend to
the case at length; he intended to
no address al hoB1GQem; be merely