Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-09-02

| the granting of leave to flle'' a petition
for the allowance of a writ in quo war
ranto to test the eligibility Of Mr.. New
| man to hold the office Of civil Com
missioner.
The application for a writ in quo
| warranto was then formally made by
William J. Frizzell. a taxpayer. through
Attorneys Joseph w. Bailey, former
United States Senator from Texas;
Arthur A. Berney. former United States
attorney: william J. Neale and James
N. England. on behalf of the home
rule committee of citizens who op-
posed the confirmation Of Mr.. Newman
in the Senate.
Twenty Days to Answer.
Justice Wright then directed the is
requiring him to appear in court within
twenty days. exclusive Of Sundays. and
show cause why a writ OF quo warranto
should not issue against him.
In granting the leave to flle'' Justice
Wright held that a taxpayer, no matter
| how small his contribution to the total
receipts from taxation, has such Inter
est in the Office Of District Commits
| sioners as to entitle him to institute pro-
ceedings to test the eligibility of an In
cumbent of that Office.
| The court suggested that the District
| of Columbia is looked on by Congress and
| the courts as municipal corporation,
| and by analogy as any stockholder. no
| matter how small his holding, could be
| heard to have a determination Of the
! question of whether an Office of the cor
| poration was in possession OF one not
| qualified, SO taxpayer could bring be-
| fore the court a proceeding to determine
| the right to Office Of a District Commits
| sioner.
| Not Large Taxpayer.
Consel for Mr.. Newman laid stress on
the fact that Mr. Fizzelrs annual tax
payment isi only-$a9Ns ave- OF a totA&~a(
| S. OOO, 600 paid in by owners Of District
real estate as annual tax. Attorney Raj
ston urged that one man should not be
heard to complain Of Mr.. Newman's in,
cumbency when SO many thousands OF
Disfrict citizens were satisfied with the
| present condition Of affairs at the Dis
| trict building.
| Mr.. Ralston charged that interests
are behind the opposition to Mr. New
man and asked the court before grant
ing leave to file to Mr.. Frizzell. to put
the petition on the stand and conduct
an inquiry as to his good faith IN orins-
ing the legal proceedings wnicn ene
LAWYER characterized as costly and ex-
pensive." He claimed that the litigation
| is begun lat the instigation OF persons
unknown to Mr.. Newman. whose anlmus
should be the subject OF inquiry and
whose names and contriouooms IONS snou'o
to the end that the processes OF the
court may not be abused to serve
private animosities or interests
Attorney Ralston presented the oo.ec-
| tions of Mr. Newman to the court. AFTER
denying the right Of Mr.. Frizzell to
bring the proceedings. because of his
small tax payment and OF his lack or
| that Mr Newman had been appointed by
| the President and confirmed by the SEN
ate. both having examined into MS quail
Such determination by the executive
and legislative branches Of the govern
| ment. Mr.. Ralston claimed, precludes re-
1 view by the judiciary.
Claim of Exemption Made.
A Mr.. Newman, although appointed
| for three years, may be removed at any
time by the President. he holds an Office
which comes under decisions of the court
denying the right to molest 1ncumbents
nv quo warranto proceeding. the lawyer
contended.
| When Senator Bailey arose to re-
spond to the argument of Mr.. Ralston
Justice Wright motioned him to be
seated, saying: Il do not care to hear
from you, senator" The court then
proceeded to declare that he was In
presented by Mr.. Ralston as to the
| interest of Mr.. Frizzell. which would
entitle him to apply to the court.
The other matters could only properly
| be determined after the process Of the
court should have brought Mr.. Newman
| into the case, as they are closely allied
to the merits. which should not be preju-
diced in any way by a decision before a
the court has no right to inquire into the
incumbency of an Office to which nomi-
nation has been made by the President
and confirmed by the Senate, the court
said. judicial tribunals do not claim
The only question before them is. he
suggested. whether the law imposes upon
| them the duty to inquire into and deter
mine a question proposed for their con-
| sideration.
| CORPORATION Counsel Thomas was an
interested spectator in court today. but
took no part in the presentation Of the
| case In behalf Of Mr.. Newman.
Denies Courts Jurisdiction.
Commissioner Newman this afternoon
had the following to say concerning the
decision of Justice Wright:
| II have been informed that Justice
| Wright of the District Supreme Court
1
| pass upon the qualifications Of the Dis
| frict Commissioners. / dissent most en-
phatically from that view.
II do. in fact meet every requirement
| stipulated by the statute. ! have been
appointed by the President of the United
States and confirmed by the Senate Of the
| United States.
''The President personally Investigated
and passed upon the facts as to wheth-
er / met the statutory requirements.
and the District Of Columbia commit
tee of the Senate, after listening for
two hours to alleged evidence purport-
ing to show tnat l was not qualified.
fied, and the committee was sustained
by the unanimous action Of the Senate.
Summing 1t all up. Judge of the
view the Presidents action in nominat-
ing me, and the Senate's action In con-
frming me. for the purpose Of deter
mining whether the President and the,
~ hoy