The record-union., 1892-04-08
CHIEF RODGERS CITIZENSHIP.
Acknowledgement Hart Regards 1t as
lndisputabIe,
And Refuses to Allow Drew to Bring
Suit in the Name of the People
to Gust Him.

deprive him of the Office to which the
people of this city elected him last month.
Attorney General Hart yesterday re-
fused the application of w. f. Drew, ex-
Chief of Police, for permission to use the
name of the people of the State in his pro-
posed suit to GUST Rodgers from Office.
When the matter was called up yester-
day r. r. Devlin, counsel for Rodgers,
read an affidavit by the latter denying
each and every allegation madein Drew's
complaint on which the application to
the Attorney-Ge neral was based. In
general terms, stripped of all legal VERDI
age, Rodgers alleged that he was citizen
of the United States, and of the State of
California and city of Sacramento at the
time of the recent election.
Mr.. Devlin said that if any person had
q right to contest the eligibility of Rod
gers to the Office of Chief of Police, it was
ID. w. Higgins, who received the next
highest vote to Rodgers; and il the inell-
gibility Of Rodgers should be established,
Higgins would be entitled to the office.
He said that, IN a certain event, he might
move an amendment TO DTews COM
plant, substituting Higgins name Tor
that of the eX-Chief as relator.
Mr.. Brusie then filed an affidavit with
General Hart, on behalf OF Rodgers, set
ting forth the facts concerning his birth
and arrival in this country.
A discussion here ensued regarding the
date of Rodgers birth. Attorney Cen
eral Hart said that ii it could be shown
that Rodgers was born after August 80,
1850, then it would be apparent that he
became citizen by virtue Of his fathers
naturalization, in 1878. If the date of his
birth could not be determined nearer than
one year, then that point became mate
rial one in the matter at issue.
II Rodgers citizenship could not thus
be made apparent, then the question
would arise how long before his father re-
ceived his final naturalization papers
were the first ones taken out? 1t may
have been ten years prior thereto, and, If
possible, this point should be established.
Then would follow the question as to
whether or not Rodgers could be made a
citizen by virtue of being minor when
his father took out his first naturalization
papers; and lastly, whether or not the
subsequent marriage of Rodgers mother,
while he was still a minor, made him q
citizen.
Mr.. Brusie argued that it deyolved
upon Drew to prove the allegations in his
complaint, or disprove the denials OF
Rodgers.
General Hart then asked Rodgers a
number of questions, eliciting these facts:
That Rodgers had no recollection of any
country other than the United States;
that his earliest recollection was of being
on ship-board; that the next thing he
could recall was his being in Sacramento;
that he voted when is years old; that he
registered in 1871: that he had lived here
continuously since his arrival, and that
he had been in the care and keeping OF
his mother during his minority.
General Hart read from a decision in
hot similar IN
show that an action could be brought to
determine the right Of person to hold a
certain office, even thong he was, pTinad
facie, duly elected and qualified, and that
there must be a method of contesting the
validity of certificate Of election. In
deed, there was another course open to
the contestant beside that taken by him.
He said he would hold, for the purposes
of the matter under consideration, that
the mother of Rodgers was married to a
citizen while he (Rodgersl was minor
and in her care. NOW, what would be
the effect of that ?'' he inquired.
When it was shown (as it had been by
a telegram concerning the record of a
mortgage transactionl that Rodgers
father was in Alameda in 1854, was it not
probable that he intended to become a
citizen, and therefore likely that he soon
afterward declared his intention by TAX
ing out his first papers?
1n0 duuGu budL he
would hear arguments on these points,
and then determine the matter of the APP
plication before him. 1t was his impress
sion that the naturalization of the mother,
by marriage, made her son citizen but
whether to the extent of emitting him to
vote he was not yet prepared to say.
Messrs. Johnson and Jones, counsel for
Drew, wanted TO question Rodgers on
various points, but Messrs. Deylin and
Brusie objected, on the ground that it was
not the time nor place to put him on the
witness stand, and General Hart sus-
tanned their objection.
A recess was then taken until 1:3O
O'clock.
MR.. JoHNsoN's ARGUMENT,
At the afternoon hearing Grove L.
Johnson deIiV cred an earnest argument
alleging many reasons why he thought
the application OF Drew should be granted
He brought many theories to bear upon
the question of Rodgers citizenship.
naturalization and registration. Mr..
Johnson cited from many cases and the
codes, and left little unsaid by which his
stand could be strengthened.
He said that, to sum up, many import
tant points relating to citizenship and
naturalization would be brought IN in
the suit, and that such cause would be
of general benefit, and would hurt no
body. Considerable stress was laid upon
AAlt dllGRdllOn VI -. JONES IllSlI EOuUHfS
took the office by force and violence. and
he dwelt upon the claim that it was the
duty of the Attorney General TO allow
the suit to be brought in the peoples
name upon this ground alone.
a WRONG PROCEDURE.
Jud c. Brusie, counsel for RODGERS.
confined his argument to a reply to the
three or four propositions named by
General Hart on the preceding day. In
n. ~ ,.,1yQ II
challenging Rodgers qualifications
should be by doing so under Section I'LL
OF the Code of Civil Procedure, without
application for the assistance OF the At
tOrney-General.
THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE.
r. 7. Deyhn followed, also holding that
Drew or any one else might contest
Rodgers qualifications or his election in
the courts without doing so in the name
OF the people. and reiterated that the pro
visions OF Section III of the Code al
Civil Procedure offered every remedy fol
his complaint. During Mr.. DeVlin's ar
gument General Hart said:
"AIr. Devlin, excuse the interruption,
but | would like you to say how STRONG
you think q case ought to be to warrant
the allowance OF the use of the name OF
the people,"
Mr.. Devlin replied: ''Strong enough to
warrant the belief that the suit would
win, sir.''
He then continued at length, citing va
rious cases and rulings of courts in sup
port OF the suf1iciency of Rodgers quail
hcations.
THAT INVADING ARMY.
Charles L. Jones ended the discussion
of the matter in brief address. in which
he insisted that Rodgers took the office
by force. Referring 10 the answer to the
petition, he thought it an insult to the
Attorney General To presume to outline
his decision or influence his opinion in