The Washington times., 1913-09-23
THE STAR NEEDS A LAWYER.

more or less involved in the case of Assessor
Oyster, The Times suspected that it needed diff
ferent lawyer to advise it. But at the present stage
of the Stars hounderings feel moved to apologize
to the legal profession. The Star doesn't need a
different lawyer to straighten it out. 1t merely
needs lawyer. ~->
Whether Mr. Oyster is actually eligible to be an
assistant has nothing to do with the question
whether he is de facto assistant assessor. He
might be an unnaturalized native of Senegambia,
Saskatchewan or Mars; and yet having been properly
appointed, commissioned sworn, and in physical pos
session of the office, performing its duties, he would
be de facto official The Star persists in assum-
ing that if he is not qualified to be de jure assessor
he cannot be de facto assessor 1t has given very
respectable definition of de jure official but has
insisted that if he fails to meet that definition he
cannot be, or ever have been, de facto assessor
That is where the Star is wrong. For the sake of
argument, may concede that Mr.. Oyster may
finally be held to be ineligible for the assessorshp
by reason of having voted in Pennsylvania He may
be removed from the office. But that will have moth
ing whatever to do with his de facto performance.
Despite that he will have been de facto assessor
during his actual incumbency, and his acts will have
been valid This is the point that contemporary
either cannot or will not see
The Star has been citing cases with an abandon
oEy paralleled by the unintellgence with which it
has been discussing them. Let US see if the Star
can understand the planest in the books on the
very point here in, controversy.
The Star has insisted that man who votes else
where is not resident here; therefore that Oyster,
having voted in Pennsylvania, is not resident here,
and consequently ineligible for the office he is hold
ing.
In United States VS.. Nardelo, decided by the Dis
trict Court of Appeals and reported in 9Th Mackey
$685. the contention was over the residence of man
sitting on jury in murder case. Let the Star
keep in mind here that it WAS a murder case,
wherein life and liberty-by some people esteemed
quite as highly the tax levy-were involved A |
man drawn for jury service, served, and helped
convict the defendant. When the case went up it
was alleged that this juror had his home in Virginia,
not the District that his parents lived there that he
returned there when out of employment elsewhere;
that he voted there; that for fifteen years he had
spent his vacations there. On the other side it
shown that excepting two weeks in each year he
had resided in Washington, acting as agent for
Virginia corporation; that mis- only residence in
Washington was agent for that corporation; that
he had married, and had present intention
of leaving the employ of the said Virginia corpora
ton.
Note how exactly this parallels the Oyster case.
For fory-seven years Oyster has resided here. He
has gone home to Pennsylvania to vote exactly the
juror went back to Virginia to vote.
But Oysters is stronger from this on
Oyster didn't 60 back to Pennsylvania when unem-
ployed. He has not been employed by Pennsyl-
vania institution. He has married and raised a
family-rght here. Observe, then, what the Court
of Appeals said about the jurors eligibility and see
if Oyster is eligible to be regarded as resident of
this District:
Held: That he a competent juror within the
provision of section S12 of the revised statutes of the
District of Columbia, which requires jurors to be resi-
dents Of the District of Columbia
The court proceeds to an Illuminating discussion
of residence, domice, citizenship voting, ct cetera
which is commended to the consideration of our
lwlnking contemporary.
That decision, be it observed again, was in a
murder case. 1t was personal. not mere property
right that involved If there had been an illegal
Juror the verdict would have been invalidated There
can be no such thing de facto juryman.
Yet the decision Of the Court of Appeals was :
accepted as final! The never went to the 5
Supreme Court of the United States |,
= Why not?
Because every lawyer knew that the Court Of i
Appeals right. t
We suspect very strongly that the Star relies on
he case of Downs VS.. Downs, % D. c. Appeals, 3s8
# it is keeping that case up its sleeve we invite it a
o describe the case and show its pertinency If it
will do so, The Times will most pleasdrably give Il d
mother lesson in legal eIementals o
Adopting the Suggestion. T