Evening star., 1915-06-21

ast. oreaves. So Miss. ass: Andrews
| agt. State. 9Miss. 740 90, 746: Ton
| trey agt. Bulge, IA Idaho. 639; Hudson
agt Conklin. 73 Kans. 764: Vrooman
agt. Niche, SO Mich. Al: Dakota agt.
Hauxhurst, 3 Dakota. 205.
THE language of the code, supported
by the history and the policy OF the
law, sustains the proposition that one
who has no interest except that whlcn
the public is not entitled to use the
name of the government in quo war
ranto proceedings. For if the ale
ga ton in such suit by private cit
izen sets out any cause OF ACTON a.
all, IL shows on its face that it was
cause of action belonging TO the whole
body of the public. and which, therefor.
should be prosecuted by the public rep
resentative.
"The rule is the same, regardless
whether the Office is elective or appoint
i've. People rel etc, agt Healy, 2oo
ILL.,. $50. For in neither case is there any
intent to permit the public office to be the
subj matter of private litigation at
the instance Of one who has iHtares!
therein which differs from that of every
other member Of the public.
The claim that this construction
makes the statute nLgatory cannot be
sustained. for the statute. as already
pointed out. gives Il person who has
been unlaw fully ousted before his term
expired a right. on proof of interest.
to the issuance of a writ and there
might be cases under the civil service
law in which the relator would have
interest and therefore a right to
De heard
Conclusions of Court.
The conclusion that the reIator must
have personal interest in the office
before n
United States is strengthened by the
fact that the courts of the District not
only have jurisdiction TO issue quo
trIct. but against all those attached to
the seat of government, who hold a
statutory office.
For. if a private citizen and taxpayer
ings to test the title to the Office of
civil Commissioner of the District. he
could under the same claim of right.
institute like proceedings against any
of those statutory off1cers of the United
States. who, in the District exercise
many important functions which affect
persons and things throughout the en-
tire country
The President has the power of re-
moval. and there have been few. if any.
cases brought to test the title of fed
eral offices. But such cases might arise
as to statutory offices attached to the
seat of government. and if they did
the Supreme Court of the District could
exercise quo warranto jurisdiction, as
II now does In cases of mandamus and
lnJunctions against appointed federal
officers who perform duties in Wash
ington.
This appears from comparing the
provisions of paragraph 1895 and 1896
with 1888 % of the District code. The
revised statutes declare that the Dis
tr1ct of Columbia shall be the seat of
government and all offices attached to
the seat of government shall be exer-
cised in the District of Columbia
THE code. paragraph 1888 a.. pro-
vides that the Supreme Court shall
have jurisdiction to grant quo war
ranto against a person who unIaw-
FULLY holds or exercised within the Dis
trict a public Office, civil or military
| ut was because of this fact, that ma
tional offices might be involved, that
the Attorney General of the United
such proceedings-instead of leaving
| that power to the District attorney
alone, as would probably have been the
| case of only District Offices were re-
ferred to in the code.
Man1festly Congress did not intend
that all these offices, attached to the
executive branch of the government, at
Washington. should be subject to at
| tack by persons who had no claim on
the office, no right in the Office and no
interest which was different from that
Of any other citizen and taxpayer of
the United States.
This fact will also show that para
graphs 1888 and 1910 of the District code.
in proper cases. instituted by proper Of
ficers or persons. may be enforcible
against national officers of the United
States. The sections are therefore to be
treated as general laws Of the United
States, not as mere local laws of the Dis
trict. Being law of general operation
reviewed of
this court
1T follows therefore that the mo-
ton to dismiss Is denied; the appIica-
tion for writ Of certiorari is refused;
remanded with Instructions to dismiss
the quo warranto proceedings"
Mr.. Newman Much Gratified.
Commissioner Newman was plainly
much gratif1ed by the decision. Shortly
after the rendering of the decision he
went to the New Willard Hotel. where
he was Joined at lunch by his counsel,
Jackson H. Ralston. Commissioner
Brownlow and other District officials
~ 81 was %as,I gratified slia and not SURPRISED by
feel particularly gratified because of
the very vigorous efforts to force me to
retire from Office. following the de-
cisiOn in the Court of Appeals
"At that time | said that ] believed
myself to be qualified and that ! con-
sidered it my duty to the President, to
the Senate and to myself to utilize
every proper legal facility to defend
my title. 1 think the decision today
proves that l was right in refusing to
quit. l hope that l may now be per
mitted to discharge my duties as Com
missioner without such petty annoy
ances as I have been subjected to for
the last two years"
Commissioner Newman has an ap-
pointment to see President Wilson
Wednesday. it is understood that he
wishes to talk about number of Dis
trict matters, including the naming of
a successor of E S. Martin, superin-
tendent of Fairgrounds. The appoint
ment was made some days ago before
1t was known when the Supreme Court
would act upon the case of the Com
missioner.
Mr.. Newman's Nomination.
Mr.. Newman's nomination to be a
Commissioner of the Dictrict of Col
umbia was sent to the Senate June
&c, 1913 He took office, July 10. 1913.
and was Immediately elected president
OF the board Of Commissioners ~