Evening star., 1915-06-22
The Newman Decision.


In its decision in the Newman case
the Supreme Court has SO inter-
preted the District code as to deny
10 citizens OF this jurisdiction the
right to question the title of munich
pal appointees to office. That IS the
essence of yesterdays ruling, which,
by vote of 5 to 3, puts an end to
the commissionership contest in
favor of the incumbent.
Three questions were before the
Supreme Court: l, Whether Mr.. New
man under the terms of the statute
creating the Office of civil Commits
sioner was eligible by virtue OF a
the courts could review the actions
of the executive. with the consent of
the Senate, in appointing officials to
Office. and 3, Whether the proceed
ings OF custer instituted in this
instance were warranted by law. OF
these three points the Supreme Court
has elected to decide the case upon
one alone, denying to the relator citi-
zen the right to institute proceedings
and ignoring the other questions.
The effect of this decision is that
Mr.. Newman is continued in office
without any valuation by the high
est court of his title, which had been
denied by two courts below, and
without determination of the right
of the judiciary to review the ap-
pointive actions of the President
with the consent of the Senate. The
question as to the Commissioner
eligibility in fact and law stands un-
answered and the doubt still remains
in the public mind as to his qualifica-
tions, which the lower courts, after
q trial upon the issue of facts, have
declared insufficient.
According to the Supreme Courts
decision it is possible to secure the
custer of public official of this Dis
triet on the ground of ineligibility
only through the intervention of the
Attorney General or the district at
torney, or, in the event of their re-
fusa1 to act, upon the motion of a
citizen who is sufficiently inter
ested." The greater part of the Su-
preme Courts decision concerns this
question of interest" The court
holds that Mr. Frizzell. being mere
citizen without claim to the Office and
with no direct pecuniary interest in
it. has no qualification under the law
as relator in quo warranto pro-
eeedings. Nor, according to the Su-
preme Courts decision, has any other
citizen such a right, or any way to
acquire that right.
The practical effect of this ruling
10 that appointments to Office by the
President in the District of Columbia
are impossible OF question or review
by the courts. II citizen, having, as
the court says, only a public and not
a private interest in the Office, chal-
lenges an incumbent's title to Office
he must secure action by the Attor-
ney General or the district attorney.
1t IS an obvious proposition that the
President of the United States hav-
ing appointed and secured the con-
frmation OF a municipal official for
the District, the Presidents chief law
of1leer will not act at the behest of a
citizen in challenge of his chiefs
right to appoint 1t is to be pre-
suIned that in case any doubt has
existed relating to eligibility the
question has previously been referred
to the Attorney General for advice.
1t is conceivable that the President
and his Attorney General might, in
their desire to make a certain ap-
pointment, be mistaken in their view
OF the law of eligibility 1t is so urged
in the present case. Where, then, is
there any way to correct the situa-
ton, The Supreme Court declares
that in such circumstances the test
can be brought only by an inter
ested" citizen. Who is an inter
ested" citizen, According to the
court, only one who has a direct,
personal, pecuniary interest in the
Office. Who in the District of CO.
lumbia can have such an interest in
the office of Commissioner Surely
not an incumbent whose term has
expired and whose rights to the Of
hoe have lapsed, being merely holding
place pending appointment of his
successor. Surely not disappointed
applicant for the office And the court
of last resort now says, in effect that
no others can invoke the law to chal-
lenge the eligibility OF an incumbent
It would seem that the Supreme
Court in this decision has ignored
the essentially peculiar character of
the District as non-voting COM
munity, all of whose officials are ap-
pointed. 1t has apparently applied in
its decision the reasoning applicable
to other communities in which en-
terest" in an Office is possible in
terms of its restricted definition. The
District code was written for this
peculiar community, and 1t would
seem only just to have interpreted il
with reference to the limitations put
upon the local citizenship. and par.