Evening star., 1915-04-13
Mr.. BAILEY CRITIClSES
SOLICITOR GENERAL DAVIS
Declares He Has No Right to Ap-
pear-Justices Ask Lawyers
Questions.

appointment, ana tndt ne nao claiIneu
residence elsewhere during that period.
A jury trial in the District Supreme
Court decided against Mr.. Newman,
and this decision was upheld by a ma
jority Of the District Court Of Appeals
Mr.. Newman then carried the case to
the Supreme Court of the United States.
The attorneys in the case for Mr.
Newman are Jackson H. Ralston. Will
liam E. Richardson and George w.
Hott. John w. Davis and Conrad H.
Syme also aided in the preparation Of
his case For the defendant in error
before the Supreme Court, William ].
stituted the custer proceedings against
Mr.. Newman. the attorneys are former
Senator Joseph W. Bailey, Arthur A.
Birney and William j. Neale.
Mr.. Ralston's Argument.
Jackson H. Ralston opened the argu-
ment for Newman. 1t was stated that
former Senator Bailey would make the
other argument for the defendant in
error. Mr.. Frizzell.
Mr.. Ralston briefly outlined the his
tory Of the appointment of Newman
and the proceedings brought to oust
him from Office
The quo warranto statute. said Mr..
Ralston, under which proceedings had
General and the United States attorney
for the District shall act.
He said that the Attorney General
and the assistant district attorney had
then William J. Frizzell. resident
and taxpayer of the District, had
sought to bring quo warranto proceed
ings to oust Newman.
He said that Justice Anderson OF the
District Supreme Court had ruled
against Frfzzell. to the effect that he
couldn't properly bring such action
AGAINST Newman.
ruled this decision. and the trial OF the
case was had in the District Supreme
Court. The trial resulted in a verdict
against Newman. ~
An appeal was taken to the Court of
Appeals, and that court sustained the
action of the court below. Chief Justice
Shepard dissenting. A request for
a writ of error to get the matter be-
fore the Supreme Court Of the United
States was entered and granted. A
petition for writ of certiorari to get
the case before the Supreme Court also
was entered and is pending.
Mr.. Ralston argued that Mr.. Frizzel1
had no right under the law to bring
man. He admitted that the District
court had granted Frizzell this right.
Not Merely a Municipal Office.
Mr.. Ralston declared that the Office of
District Commissioners was not mere
ly municipal office. but an officer
through whom the Federal government
exercised power in the Federal Dis
trict.
Our view Of it has been that it is
very much more than a municipal Of
fce." said Mr.. Ralston. The lower
courts held that Mr.. frizzell. as tax
payer in the District, had an interest in
the appointment Of Newman as a NUM-
cipal officer"
MIR. Ralston argued that a taxpayer
really has not such an interest as to
ceedings. He insisted that this had
been held in many cases in many
states.
A person must have an interest as dis
tinguished from that of the whole body
of citizens-an interest In the office itself,
he said
IF Mr. Frizzell has a right to challenge
the holding of office of a District Com
missioner. he has the same right to chal-
lenge the right of our interstate commerce
trade commission or any of the other
federal officers whose business is con-
Quoted in the District of Columbia"
Mr.. Ralston said.
Justice Pitney questioned Mr., Ralston
closely as to whether Mr.. Newman was
not municipal officer. and, as having
power to recommend to Congress how
the taxes may be expended. whether
keen interest in the appointment
''It seems to me. when was in Con-
gress, 1 heard great deal as to the
Comrpissioners being municipal Of
mendattons." said Justice Pitney
MI. Ralston's View.
Mr.. Ralston contended that if Friz-
zell had a right to bring custer pro-
ceedings against Newman, then any
citizen of the United States had such a
right, since he was a federal officer
The fact that the President had ap-
pointed Newman and the Senate had
confirmed him, he said. should be con-
elusive.
"A waste Of your time I regard the
hearing of this case by your honors."
said former Senator Bailey. opening
the argument for Frizzell. 1T ought
to have been dismissed"
Mr. Bailey Criticises Mr.. Davis
The appearance OF Solicitor General
Davis in the interests OF Commissioner
Newman was severely criticised by
former Senator Bailey. who appeared
against Newman. and in the interests |
Of william J. Frixzell. a citizen Of the !
District seeking to oust Newman from |
office.
..The government is here with its |
highest law officer to defend !
this man." said Senator Bailey. against
whom two judgments have been rem
dered by the Court Of Appeals of the
District and another by a trial by
jury"
in the governments appear
ing with Its second highest officer. or
sven with its frst?" questioned Chief !
In.t,ce White, when you remember |
thar the President of the United States |
a nd the senate have passed upon Mr.. |
Sewman's case favorably?"
Il do" replied Senator Bailey en-
ernment are sworn to uphold the laws
Of the land, and this case Is brought
against Newman In the name OF the
United states. with w. J. Frizzell as