Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-06-25
Difference Between Domicile
and Residence Raised
in Proceedings.
QUESTION ARGUED BOTH
MORNING AND AFTERNOON
Attorney Ralston Speaks for Defend
ant and Ex-senator Bailey and
A. A. Birney for Plaintiff.

! Difference between domicile and resi-
| dence was a point raised this morning
| before Justice Gould in the proceedings
| instituted by William J. FriZzell to oust
J Commissioner Oliver P Newman from
! his office on the ground that he is ineligi-
| BILE because he is not a resident of Wash
| ington; the question furnished basis
of argument which occupied all of the
morning session of the court and part of
! the afternoon.
The argument was opened by former
Senator Bailey of Texas for the COM
plainant who was followed by Attorney
! Ralston for Mr.. Newman. Upon COM
pletion of Attorney Ralstons argument
the court recessed until 1880 o'clock
this afternoon. when Attorney A. A.
Birney of counsel for the complainant
submitted a reply argument.
At 2::}0 Justice Gould dismissed the
jury until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning
and began hearing arguments on the
prayers for instructions to the jury.
Mr.. Bailey Opens Argument.
Argument on the question as to what
constitutes residence as contradist1n
guished from domicile consumed the
morning session of the hearing in the
case instituted by William J. Frizzell to
oust Commissioner Oliver P Newman
from his official position on the ground
that he is not a resident of the District.
The argument had not been completed
when the luncheon recess was taken at
1890. During the argument the jury
which was selected yesterday was ex-
! cused.
Former Senator Bailey opened the argu-
ment. and cited numerous authorities IN
! his attempt to convince the court that
tn residence q
actually be present, and not merely
maintain a home. In reaching d decision
on a statute. said Mr.. Bailey. the court
should keep before it the purpose of he
statute 1t is good rule to follow. lie
continued. in the construction of a statute
for the court to take into the conslde ra-
ton the intention of Congress when the
statute was framed. The Congress at the
time 1t framed the statute requiring three
years residence in the District in order
to make a man eligible for appointment
to the District commissionership. he said.
was to give the local people seif-goy-
ernment
said. were required to be Of the people
of their number. The law compelled the
President. whatever other consideration
he might give. to select q man who had
lived in the District Of Columbia for
three years next preceding his selection.
But the Congress did not leave the stat
ute open to misconstruction, but said
that the President must appoint a man
with actual residence. and, to make 1t
have . claimed residence elsewhere. Mr..
Newman stands condemned by both re-
quirements of the statute"
Mr.. Bailey said Commissioner Newman
claims Washington as his legal residence
and Chicago as his actual residence He
said that from 1910 to 1913 Commissioner
Newmans abiding place was not in the
District of Columbia, wherever else it
may have been.
Questioned as to His Theory.
Upon the completion of his argument
Justice Gould questioned Mr.. Bailey at
some length upon his theory of domicile
and residence. Senator Bailey said that
II man was physically present here for
three years, regardless of what his in
tentions might be. he thought he would
be eligible for appointment as District
Commissioner. He said there was abso-
lutely no doubt that the law required
residence.
Justice Gould asked Mr. Bailey how
long a man could leave the District with
out losing his actual residence The
senator replied that he could go out Of
town for a day. or a week. one month or
two months without losing his residence
He did not, however. attempt to set a
limit.
Attorney Ralston, of counsel for Com
missioner Newman. began his argument
by citing the case of a Chicago lawy er,
who went west for his Wifes health. and
remained two years. came back and was
elected to a judgeship. and was attacked
in quo warranto proceedings. The law
required five years residence, the man
had been back from the west only three
years, but the court decided in his favor.
Mr. Ralston said that II Mr.. Newman
had gone to Chicago to take an office he
usrk,t 1nrl v,lC a6nH iv1uf
him that he had no right to the position.
because of his announced intention to re-
main a resident Of the District. The law
says he must not have claimed resi-
dence elsewhere. He said that residence
and domicile when applied to a political
office do not mean the same thing He
said that length of absence from the city
has nothing to do with the question of
losing residence. and he called attention
to the fact that the senator did not ex-
plain for how long a period a person
must remain away from a territory to
lose residence.
Citing Mr.. Newman's interest in civic
affairs of the District. Mr.. Ralston said:
What's the use of quibbling about resi-
depce as against a useful public citizen?"
Taking of Testimony Concluded.
The taking of testimony was concluded
yesterday afternoon. At the afternoon
session yesterday Commissioner Freder-
lex l.. Siddons testified in behalf Of Com
missioner Newman. He said his close
acouaintanceship with Mr.. Newman dates
some years back, and testified that at no
time did Mr.. Newman contemplate giving
up Washington as his residence.
ellison Gardner, Raymond W. Pullman
and Louis Brownlow. newspaper corre-
! spondents, told of Mr.. Newman leaving
| Washington in 1911. and of his positive
| assertion that he was not leaving for
good. but was intending to return as soon
"a possible, as he considered Washington
his home.
| ,astirony. and told briefly of his ac-
ouaintance with Mr.. Newman and of