Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-10-21
one OF the Commissioners of the District
can be maintained By a taxpayer.
Analogy Not Admitted.


Analogy Not Admitted.
"In the first place. the court Is unable
to agree that the analogy between an
injunction proceeding and quo war
ranto proceeding contended for exists.
Quo warranto proceedings are regulated
entirely by statute.
I'm the second place although it is
true, as contended by the relator, that
in Downing agt. Ross, l app, D. c., .oL
"a. the Court of Appeals stated:
the United States. in Champion agt.
Zabriskie. 101 L. s. COL, Tin the alb
ssnce of legislation restricting the right
to interfere in such cases to public OF
seem to be no substantial reason why
a bill by or On behalf of individual
taxpayers should not be entertained to
prevent the misuse of corporate powers.
The courts may be safely trusted to pre-
vent the abuse of their process in such
cases." yet 1t is also true that in the re-
cent case of Willard agt. Roberts, 202 L.
S. ~. 43S, the Supreme Court of the
United States dismissed bill brought By
taxpayer. and III doing so, expressly
said:
We have assumed that appellant, as a
taxpayer of the District of Columbia, can
raise the questions we have considered.
but we do not wish to be understood as
so deciding
1T cannot therefore, be said at che
present day to be the settled law that
taxpayer can maintain even a bill for i'll
junction against the Commissioners OF
the District in relation to a matter of
strictly public concern.
Moreover. in the light of the peculiar
character Of the municipal organization
Of the District of Columbia, where our
general organic law does not give to the
Commissioners the usual and ordinary
powers conferred upon municipal corpora
tons by the several states, and who are
without authority to even raise revenues
for the support of our local government
or to eXpend the same at discretion, IT
could in no event be properly said. as 1t
seems to the court, that the relator, mere
ly as citizen and taxpayer, has SUBJ
Stantial interest in the question or VINO
may occupy the Offices Of the Commits
sioners of the District of Columbia. AS
was said by the learned chief justice or
the Court of Appeals in Walter VS.. Mac
farland. y app. D. c. 1872. 1870:
The municipal organization Of the
District Of Columbia is Of q peculiar char
acter There is no general organic law
covering all of the ordinary powers usual
ly conferred throughout the several states
of the Union-no formal municipal char
ter, so to speak.
1.-The Commissioners have no authority
to raise revenues for the support of the
local government, and those raised by the
turned over to them for appropriation and
expenditure at discretion.
Contention Is Overru1ed.
by his petition. the relator, Frizzell.
bases his right to institute this suit. not
upon any interest that he claims in the
office that is not common to all other tax
payers and the general public, but simply
on the ground that, being citizen and
taxpayer of the District of Columbia, he
is an interested person within the mean
ing of the statute. For the reasons al
ready stated, both upon principle and
authority, this contention must be over
ruled.
Has the court the power to review
the action Of the President of the United
States and of the Senate in appointing
and confirming the respondent to the
office of Commissioner of the District of
Columbia. and is this action binding upon
the court?
I'm the leading case of Marbury agt
Madison, Cr., 1877, 1867, the Supreme
Court Of the United States said:
The power of nominating to the Sem
ate, and the power of appointing the
person nominated, are political powers,
to be exercised by the President, accord
Ing to his own discretion.
Hence, there could be no review by
the courts Of the exercise of such power
in any case, so long as the law imposes
no restrictions or limitations. But the
law (act of Congress approved June II,
1873. establishing q permanent form of
government for the District of Columbia)
has specifically imposed the following re-
striction upon the, appointment of the
civil Commissioners of the District OF
Columbia:
The two persons appointed from civil
life shall, at the time of their appoint
ment, be citizens of the United States,
and shall have been actual residents of
the District of Columbia for three years
next before their appointment. and have,
during that period, claimed residence no.
where else
Claims Right of Review.