Evening star., 1914-04-06
NEWMAN'S RIGHT
TO HOLD OFFICE
MUST Be SHOWN
Continued from Tenth Page.)

troll the discretion Of the prosecuting
officer. and 1t was held that the discre-
ton as to bringing the action of quo
warranto reposed in him by Statute
could not be controlled. In other cases
a rule contrary to the latter was an
nounced, but in none of the cases cited
does the statute provide for the bring
ing of the action by person interested
merely, nor does it make any provision
for bringing the action upon the refusal
of the proper prosecuting officer to act
when requested.
The learned justice below was led into
this line of decision by interpreting the
words person interested III section 1910
to mean person interested personally in
the office. In no case called to our atten-
ton has the expression person inter
ested" been interpreted to mean a person
interested in the Office, except possibly in
state agt. Matthews supra. where the
court intimated such holding in a dis
cuss1on not essential to the decision of
the case. In each instance, where it has
been held that relator must be a citizen
personally interested In the Office the de-
cision was prompted by the express terms
OF the statute Applying the same sound
rule of statutory control of judicial de-
clsion, We must hold that person inter-
eSted is broad enough to admit of any
citizen and taxpayer of the District of Co
lumbia, by leave of court, exhibiting an
information in quo warranto to test the
right of an officer to hold public office
Indeed. to hold otherwise would require
US judicially to read into the statute some
thing not reasonably deducible from the
language employed by Congress in its
enactment
The Purpose of Congress.
1t is proper to inquire into the purpose
of Congress in the enactment of this
statute. Unquestionably, it was to pro-
vide for a judicial determination of the
right of a person to hold an Office in
the District of Columbia. In West Co
agt. Lea. ia L. s.. $50, Chief Justice
White. discussing the construction of
statutes when the text is ambiguous
stated that then the cardinal rule re-
quiring that we look beneath the text for
the purpose of ascertaining and enforcing
the intent of the lawmaker would gov
ern.' Or as stated in District of Column
bia agt. Brooke. 214 U. s., 13S: Not only
the purpose of the law must be consider
ed. but the means of its administration"
Congress was fully cognizant that the
courts generally have held the words "a
person interested or interested person"
used in similar statutes to embrace a
be assumed, realized that unless the
words should be so interpreted the
statute would be meaningless: for. since
all officers are appointed in this District,
no one, other than citizen or taxpayer,
could be "a person interested" within
the contemplation of the statute.
The Attorney General and the district
attorney each receives his appointment
from the same source from which the
principal officers of the District receive
theirs There is not such independence
of action where these officers receive
their commissions directly from the peo-
pie by public election.
Confronted by the presumption which
attaches to every appointment to Office
that the qualifications of the officer have
been fully inquired into by the executive
before the nomination is sent to the SEN
ate or the appointment finally made, Con-
gress appreciated the delicate situation in
which these officers are placed, and as
sumed that naturally they would hesitate
to challenge the exercise of the discretion
thus imposed in the President
To Meet Local Conditions.
There was reason, therefore. for Con-