Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-10-03
REPLY TOK KALbFUS
IN NMANDAMUSS SUIT
District Commissioners Ex-
plain Why Assistant AS
SCISSOR Was Dismissed.
MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE
is ALLEGED AGAINST HIM
Charge Made That He Disobeyed
Observation-Disclosures Newman
Answers Attack on Title,

Alleging that Samuel T. kalbfus, dis
charged member of the board OF assist
ant assessors. was guilty of malfeasance
In office, violated a direct order Of his
superiors to refrain from speculation in
real estate, and by under-assessment of
his own real estate holdings pei S)etuated
a fraud on the other property owners of
the District and deprived the District OF
Columbia of revenue due It," the District
Commissioners today filed answer in the
mandamus proceeding brought by Mr..
Kalbfus In the District Supreme Court
The answer is also signed by Mark
Brooke, acting engineer commissioner at
the time of the expulsion from office of
Mr.. Kalbfus. and by the District of
Columbia, a municipal corporation.
The answer filed today is in accordance
Corporation Counsel Thomas and At
torney Frank ]. Hogan. Mr.. Thomas
agreed to withdraw a plea in abatement
filed by him against hte mandamus
proceeding because Of the existence of a
petition for certiorari instituted by
counsel for Mr. Kalbfus. Mr.. Hogan
also dropped a motion to strike out the
plea in abatement and asking for a
permeptory mandamus.
The name of Mr.. Thomas does not
appear on the answer just filed, as he
has rendered his resignation of the Of
flee of corporation counsel and is not
expected to participate in the hearing oi
the Kalbfus matter. Assistant Corpora
ton Counsel Roger J. Whfteford appears
on the pleading as the sole represent.
ative of the legal department of the
District in the case. The hearing on the
mandamus writ will not occur before
next Friday, and probably not until q
later date.
+ Contention of Commissioners.
For the defendants Mr.. Whiteford II
the answer contends that Mr.. kalbfu!
never was a de jure assessor and denies
the claim Of Mr.. Kalbfus that he stlii is
member of the board of assistant asses
sors. The point is made that Mr.. kalp
fus subscribed to an oath of office befor'
H. H. Darneille, then assessor OF the Dls
trict. and not before notary pupnc o.
other officer having authority TO aominls
ter oaths BY this oversight he was oni!
de facto assistant assessor, II u
claimed, and as such Is not entitieo 10 LIZ
relief asked by mandamus.
The writ of mandamus is not the onl.
remedy open to Mr.. kalbtps, it Is urged
the law having provided another mean
by which to test the validity OF the ac
ton of the Commissioners which is caiie
in question, the defendants assert. Inc.
are silent. however. as to what this rem
edy is.
The jurisdiction Of the District Suprem
Court to entertain the petition OF Mr.
Kalbfus is also attacked by the answe
Of the District authorities. Ihey aiiee'
that the power to remove meihoeI "
the permanent board or assistant asseS
nia oil
istratiye AS such, 1t is claimed, ex
elusive power reposes in the Doard 0! Dis
trict Commissioners, and thelr acts d
such board in the premises are not re-
viewable by the court.
Mr.. Kalbfus is also accused OF no
coming into court with clean hands, II
that he has sought to determine COL
laterally the right and title or ChFeI Z
Newman as a member OF the Doaru VI
District Commissioners. 1t is aiso al
legged that the issuance of writ or man
mus in this case will be without bene-
ficial results to Mr.. Kalbfus and VIII no'
promote the substantial ends OF justice.
Newman Defends Title.
A supplemental answer is MADE py VI
iyer P. Newman to the attack on his
eligibility and the legality of his appoint
mont as a District Commissioner MI.
Newman says he was and is duly and
legally qualified for and was lawfully ap-
no;nted. commissioned and sworn as a
lawful Commissioner of the District OF
Columbia. and did at the date OF filing
the petition and now does duly exercise
the movers and perform the duties of the
said office, and objects to the jurisdiction
of this honorable court to entertain So
much of the petition in tbs cause nieo
against him which denominates MIN as
alleged Commissioner. nor does ne HE
this, his answer, in this proceeding as
alleged Commissioner Of the District OF
COLUMBIA, but as the Lawful commissioner
of the District of Columbia.
"And for further answer this respond
ent says that the relator cannot raise
nor try in this cause the question OF
whether this respondent was ineHsipie
to this office or whether his appointmen;
thereto was and is void, or whether ne
usurps. intrudes into and unlawfully holds
and exercises within said DisQ1ct or Co
lumbia the said public ONCE. or Wnetner
his acts as an alleged Commissioners OF
the District of Columbia are nun ana voio
and without validity in law. or whether
there is no board Of Commissioners of
the District of Columbia, and was not
when petitioner was removed from office,
and can be no quorum thereon.
Declared to Be Impertinent.
Further answering such allegations as
to his qualifications and appointment as
Commissioner Of the District of Colum-
bia, respondent says that the said ale
cations of said petition are impertinen u.
and scandalous. unjust. unfounded, either
in fact or in law, and Intentionally in
sulting and wrongful. and tend without
necessity or legal excuse therefor TO
impair and enormously and mtsehievods,S $
injure this respondent az ssCommtssioner
of the District of Columbia, enc to in
lure the public service or the District of
Columbia and to discredit the acts of its
Commissioners in the enforcement of the
laws, and further says that the said al
legations as to the qualifications and
legality of the appointment Of this re-
spondent constitute an attempt on the
part of the relator to try the title or
respondents office in proceeding which
Continued on Thirteenth Page.)