Evening star., 1915-06-21

paper work The court with other thinpS
charged the jury that there was diff
ference between legal residence and
actual Easidepce Under the charge. the
jury found against Newman The tildR-
ment ousting him from office was al
nrmed by the Court Of Appeals-ons
| judge dissenting
The case is here on a writ of error
which raised several important cues.
tions. which. however cannot be de-
cided. if under the laws of the Dis
trict of Columbia. F'rizzell as a private
citizen was not authorized to institute
; this proceeding to test the title to Z
public office to which he himself made
no claim
Justice Lamar. after making the
foregoing statement, delivered the
opinion of the court.
"Usurpaton of public office, from
an early day. was treated a crime.
| and. like all other crimes, could be
prosecuted only in the name of the
! king by his duly authorized law off,
/ GERS. When a judgment was obtained
against the intruder he was not only
ousted from his office, but fined for his
| criminal usurpation- A private citizen
ceeding in his own name than he could
| in his own name prosecute for the
crime of murder-even though the vic
tim was his near kinsman.
But in time the criminal features
were modified, and it was recognized
that there might be many cases which
Though Justifying quo warranto pro-
ceedings--were not of such general i'm
portance as to require the Attorney
General to take charge of the litiga-
ton. This was especially true in ref
erence to the usurpation Of certain mu-
nicipal offices named in 9th Anne. chap
ter 20. By that act. passed in ITO. il
was therefore provided that it should
be lawful for the proper officer by
leave of the court to exhibit AN in
formation in the nature of a quo war
TO ha
deSirous Of prosecuting the same
against the designated municipal Of
fees.
means of determining which of two
claimants was entitled to an Office. but
continued to be so far treated as
criminal proceeding as to warrant not
only a judgment of custer, but fne
against the respondent if he was found
to have been guilty OF uSurpation. This
qua si-criminal act was adopted in some
of the American states and formed the
basis of statutes in others. 1t does not
seem ever to have been enforced in any
form in the District of Columbia.
Differences Cited.
"ln 1902 Congress adopted a District
code. containing a chapter on quo war
ranto, which, though modelled after tho
English statutes. differed therefrom in
several material particulars The writ
was treated as a civil remedy; IL was
not limited to proceedings against mu-
nicipal Offices but to all persons who
in the District exercised any office civ
il ormiilitary. 1t was made available
to test the fight to exercise public
franchise or to hold an office in a pri-
yate corporation.
Instead of providing that any per
son desiring to prosecute might do
I
restrictions were imposed and one en-
largement of the right was made. These
provisions have never received judicial
INTERPRETATION. This case must, there
fore be determined according to the
special language Of that code, in the
light of the general principles appli-
ca BILE to quo warranto--the prerOgatiy6
writ by which the government can call
,pon any person to show by what war;
rant he holds public Office exercised
a public franchise.
Discourages Private Citizens.
The District code still treats usurpa-
ton of office as public wrong which
can be corrected only by proceedings
in the name of the government itself.
1t permits those proceedings to be in
stituted by the Attorney General Of the
United States and by the attorney for
the District of Columbia BY virtue Of
their position they, at their discretion,
and acting under the sense of official
responsibility, can institute suoh pro-
ceedings in any case they deem proper.
But there are SO many reasons OF pub
lie policy against permitting a public
officer to be harassed with litigation
over his right to hold Office that the
code not only does not authorize pri.
vate citizen on his own motion to at.
tack the incumbents title but 1t throws :,
obstacles in the way Of all such private
attacks.
TT recognizes. however. that there