Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1870-01-12

ing. we puDnbn IL W iui. LUG ipJunc-
ton 10 dissolved and Mr.. Johnson will
take his seat tomorrow as Mayor Of
Memphis Colonel e. NJ. Yerger and
Colonel II. c. Young were counsel for
the petitioner, Colonel John Donovan,
while Mr.. John johnson was represented
by B. M. Estes and Mr.. Randolph, City
Attorney. The petitioner can take an
appeal; but his counsel stated that they
had not decided. This, however, will
not interfere with Mr.. johnson entering
on the duties Of bis office.
Donovan vs.. johnson.
John Donovan, a citizen of Tennessee,
Giles this bill to restrain John johnson
from assn ming and exercising the func-
tons of Mayor of the city of Memphis.
under the new charter OF the city, and
alleges that the said Johnson is ineligible
TO toe Office bv reason of his not being
citizen of the United States and the State
of Tennessee. Upon this bill was issued
an iriunction, according to its prayer.
johnson files bis answer to said bill,
and now comes before the Court and
asks that the injunction be dissolved.
The question is, shall the injunction be
dissolved and the defendant be permitted
TO assume and exercise the functions Of
Mayor Of the city of Memphis No
question is made as to the Jurisdiction Of
the Chancery Court in exercising its
restraining power in this case. Conced-
ing the jurisdiction, shall the power be
exercisedf
There is no controversy either as TO the
legality Of the election or as to the num-
Der of votes polled for Johnson; and it is
conceded that he ia the regularly elected
Mayor of the city, provided he is eligible
to the office. =
But it is commended and so charged in
the bill that johnson, at the date of his
election and at the present time, is q
subject of Great Britain, and not citizen
of the United States and State of Ten
nessee.
The bill charger substantially these
facts, and addresses to the defendant five
distinct interrogatories. First, as to when
and where be was born; second, when and
at what age he came to America, etc. !;
third, whether his father was of native
or of foreign birth, whether he came to
this country and was naturalized, when
and where, ETC., and what evidence he
(defendant) had of the fact, and calls
upon him TO produce the evidence;
fourth, whether he (defendant) was ever
naturslized, etc.; fifth, whether or not
he (defendant) ever claimed to be sub
ject of Great Britain, when and where,
etc
The defendant denies generally the
allegations of the bill as to his ineligi-
bility for the Office of Mayor, and that he
is q subject of Great Britain, and
procseds 10 answer in detail the inter-
rogatories propounded by complainants.
he states his age at the time of his
father immigration TO the United States,
where be landed, and where he has re-
sided since his removal to this country
states in response to third interrogatory
that his father was foreigner, and that
he was nsturs!;y ed under the act of Con-
gress Of 1902, etc.
have been thus particular in giving
the allegations of the bill with the inter
rogations, and the answer of the defend
ant, that we may see whether the answer
ia responsive to the bill, and whether il
denies these allegations. Ii the answer
is not responsive to the bill or confesses
and avoids, it does not present such
case as will permit the court to dissolve
an Injunction.
have examined the bill and answer
with great care, and think that the an
swer is responsive to the bill, and that
the allegations of the bill have been
denied so far as the question OF citizen
ship 10 involved, growing out OF the
naturalization of defendants father.
The defendant in response to the
demand tor the complainant for the evi-
dence of his fathers naturaliz alton, has
produced certificate from the Clerk of
the Court of Common Pleas Of Colum-
biana county, Ohio, which purports to be
a COPY of the record of that court, in
which Thomas johnson, the father of the
defendant, is shown to have been natural
lied under the act of Congress of 1902
This certificate is objected to upon sew.
eral grounds. First, that it is not pro-
perly authenticated secondly, that it
shows upon its face that only one citizen
testified as to Johnson's residence OF
five years 10 the United States previous
to his naturalization.
For the purpose of the dissolution of
this Injunction / think the filing of this
certificate was not necessary, but it was
proper to be fled as it was called for by
the complainant. ss he demanded the
exhibition of whatever evidence defend
ant had OF his fathers naturaliz alton. |
do not think the second objection well
taken. The act of Congress requires
that the term of residence, ETC., shall be
proven by citizens. 1t does not specify
the number, but the word is in the plural.
Citizens in the act is used as distin-
guished from foreigners, and the act re-
ouires that these facts shall be proven
by citizens and not by foreigners;
besides, the court that performed this
deed was q court Of competent jurisdic-
ton, and all the Prescriptions are in its
favor as TO the validity Of its acts.
There can be no doubt that up to the
29.h Of May, 1863, the defendant John
SOM was citizen Of the United States
and State of TENNESSEE that having emf
grated 10 this country While minor with
bis father, and his father having been
naturalized, by the act of Congress of
1902. he was invested with ell the rights
of citizenship. The further question
arises, Has be Invested himself Of those
rights The bill charges tlst some time
in 1868. defendant claimed the protection
of the British government, and by that
means forfeited all rights as citizen he
may heretofore have acquired.
The defendant, in answer TO this allie
CATION, sets forth the act that he did, and
exhibits the evidence of the same. This
answer and the exhibit is specifically
called for by the fifth interrogatory Of
comuiaiusrtr bill, and is itself respon-