Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/17235893/Newman-v-United-States-Ex-Rel-Frizzell-238-US-537-1915
Timestamp: 2015-04-27 16:31:07
Document Index: 634544498

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1538', '§ 250', '§ 1']

Newman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915
P. 1Newman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915Newman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915Ratings: (0)|Views: 26|Likes: 0Published by Juan del SurThe President, on June 23, 1913, nominated Oliver P. Newman as Civil Commissioner of the District of Columbia. The nomination was referred to a standing committee of the Senate. Certain persons filed objections to the confirmation on the ground that "Newman had not been an actual resident of the District for three years immediately prior to his nomination," and therefore was not qualified to hold the office under the provision of the Act of 1878 (20 Stat. 103, § 1).The President, on June 23, 1913, nominated Oliver P. Newman as Civil Commissioner of the District of Columbia. The nomination was referred to a standing committee of the Senate. Certain persons filed objections to the confirmation on the ground that "Newman had not been an actual resident of the District for three years immediately prior to his nomination," and therefore was not qualified to hold the office under the provision of the Act of 1878 (20 Stat. 103, § 1).More info:Categories:Types, Government & PoliticsPublished by: Juan del Sur on Jul 09, 2009Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/17235893/Newman-v-United-States-Ex-Rel-Frizzell-238-US-537-191510/11/2009pdftextoriginal Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALSOF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIASyllabus
proceedings brought in the name of the United States on the relation of a citizenand taxpayer of the District of Columbia for the purpose of ousting from the office of CivilCommissioner of the District one appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate on theground that he was not, as required by the Act of June 11, 1878, c. 180, § 1, 20 Stat. 103, an actualresident of the District of Columbia for three years next preceding his appointment,
held that:In early days, usurpation of office was treated as a crime, and could be prosecuted only as such andby duly authorized prosecuting officer, and a private citizen could not prosecute such a proceeding.Subsequently, after modification of the criminal features, the writ of quo warranto
came to be usedas a means of determining which of two claimants was entitled to an office.Under the District Code of 1902,
is not limited to proceedings against municipalofficers, but extends to all persons in the District exercising any office, civil or military; theseprovisions never having been judicially interpreted heretofore, this case must be determinedaccording to the special language of that Code in the light of general principles applicable to
Owing to the many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed withlitigation over his right to hold office, Congress has not authorized, but has placed obstacles in theway of, a private citizen on his own motion to attack an incumbent's title to office.Under the District of Columbia Code, a third person may not institute
proceedingswithout the consent of the law officers of the government and also of the Supreme Court of theDistrict.
The District Code makes a distinction between a "third person" and an "interested person" inmaintaining
proceedings.While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having onlyqualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, whichis not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto
proceedings.The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him aninterested party who may maintain
proceedings against the incumbent of an office onthe consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to
proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether theoffice be elective or appointive.Unless the right to maintain
proceedings under the District Code were limited topersons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washingtonwould be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different fromthat of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.As §§ 1538-1540, Code District of Columbia, apply to actions in
instituted byauthorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the UnitedStates, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District construing those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250, JudicialCode.43 App.D.C. 53 reversed.The President, on June 23, 1913, nominated Oliver P. Newman as Civil Commissioner of theDistrict of Columbia. The nomination was referred to a standing committee of the Senate. Certainpersons filed objections to the confirmation on the ground that "Newman had not been an actualresident of the District for three years immediately prior to his nomination," and therefore was notqualified to hold the office under the provision of the Act of 1878 [Footnote 1] (20 Stat. 103, § 1).At the hearing before the committee, there was testimony that Newman, who was a newspapercorrespondent, came to Washington in March, 1910, with the intention of becoming a resident of the District. He rented an apartment in which he resided until the opening of the PresidentialCampaign, in the summer of 1912. He was then assigned to newspaper work which took him out of the city. He accepted the employment upon the understanding that it was a temporary arrangementand that he was to return to Washington as soon as the campaign was over. In the discharge of hisduties as correspondent, he was absent in Chicago and other places until the inauguration. He thenreturned to Washington and was there living when, on June 23, 1913, he was appointed one of theCivil Commissioners of the District. The committee made a favorable report, and he was thenconfirmed by the Senate.Thereafter, William J. Frizzell called the attention of the Attorney General and the district attorneyto facts which, he insisted, "proved that Newman had not been an actual resident of the District for
three years next preceding his nomination." On the basis of such facts, he requested those officers toinstitute
proceedings for the purpose of ousting Newman from the office. Bothofficers declined the request, and thereupon Frizzell, alleging himself to be a citizen and a taxpayerof the District, applied to the Supreme Court of the District for permission to use the name of thegovernment in
" was instituted.The respondent demurred on many grounds, among others, that Frizzell was not an interestedperson, and that the court could not go behind the finding of the President and of the Senate thatNewman was qualified. The demurrer was overruled and the case submitted to the jury to decide thequestion of fact as to Newman's residence. Testimony was taken explanatory of his absence fromWashington on newspaper work. The court, among other things, charged the jury that there was adifference between "legal residence" and "actual residence." Under the charge, the jury foundagainst Newman. The judgment ousting him from the office was affirmed by the Court of Appealsof the District, one judge dissenting.The case is here on a writ of error which raises several important questions which, however, cannotbe decided if, under the laws of the District of Columbia, Frizzell, as a private citizen, was notauthorized to institute this proceeding to test the title to a public office to which he himself made noclaim.MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.1. Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes,could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder, he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for hiscriminal usurpation. A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own namethan he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder, even though the victim was hisnear kinsman.2. But, in time, the criminal features were modified, and it was recognized that there might be manycases which, though justifying
proceedings, were not of such general importance as torequire the attorney general to take charge of the litigation. This was especially true in reference tothe usurpation of certain municipal offices named in 9th Anne, c. 20. By that act, passed in 1710, itwas therefore provided that it should be lawful"for the proper officer, by leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of a
quowarranto at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same
"against the designated municipal officers. The writ thus came to be used as a means of determiningwhich of two claimants was entitled to an office, but continued to be so far treated as a criminalproceeding as to warrant not only a judgment of ouster, but a fine against the respondent if he wasfound to have been guilty of usurpation.
224 U. S. 282. This
-criminal act was adopted in some of the American states, and formed the basis of statutes in others.It does not seem ever to have been of force in any form in the District of Columbia.
Similar to Newman v United States Ex Rel Frizzell 238 US 537 _1915Lightfoot v. Bowen, No. 08A524Juan del SurConstitutional Cases 2007-2008 TermJuan del SurPatriots Heart v Soetoro - Petition for Grand JuryJuan del SurEdwin Vieira - A Dissenting Opinion on SecessionJuan del SurAmendment XXVIII - The American AmendmentJuan del SurPaul Leicester Ford - Pamphlets on the Constitution, 1787Juan del SurCRS - Military TribunalsJuan del SurTimothy Baldwin - A Keener Whiff of RevolutionJuan del SurMichael Cutler - Porous Borders Pose Severe ThreatJuan del SurJon Christian Ryter - Clinton Signs Gun Ban TreatyJuan del SurEdwin Vieira - The Poverty of Political DiscourseJuan del SurDerry Brownfield - Federal Wrongs - State's RightsJuan del SurConstitution of New York - 1777Juan del SurSharon Ann Meroni Letter 7-4-10Juan del SurDouglas Vogt - Affidavit About White House False StatementsJuan del SurViguerie, Fitzgibbons - Reclaim the ConstitutionJuan del SurEdwin Vieira - If Not Now, WhenJuan del SurArgument - Driving Without a LicenseJuan del SurAnnals of Democracy, Counting VotesJuan del SurA Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privile...puzo1Tim Dejong - The Senate Defined NBC in 2008Juan del SurTimothy Baldwin - Drawing a Line in the SandJuan del SurPrintz v United States 95-1478 and 95-1503Juan del SurBenson v United States Writ of Cert - DraftJuan del SurConstitution of the State of Maine, 1825Juan del Sur
RecommendedLightfoot v. Bowen, No. 08A524Juan del SurMOTION TO DECLARE THAT BY DEFAULT, THE PRESIDENT ELECT RESPONDENT BARACK OBA...Constitutional Cases 2007-2008 TermJuan del SurConstitutional Cases Before SCOTUS – 2007-2008 TermPatriots Heart v Soetoro - Petition f...Juan del SurPETITION FOR THE CONVENING OF A FEDERAL GRAND JURY Patriot's Heart, Carl S...Edwin Vieira - A Dissenting Opinion o...Juan del SurThe Internet is awash with articles in the patriotic ether that promote “sece...Amendment XXVIII - The American Amend...Juan del SurThis is the eighth iteration of a proposed Twenty-Eighth Amendment, and, assu...Paul Leicester Ford - Pamphlets on th...Juan del SurPamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, published during its Disc...CRS - Military TribunalsJuan del SurMilitary Tribunals: Historical Patterns and Lessons
This report summarizes t...Timothy Baldwin - A Keener Whiff of R...Juan del SurOne need not be a political scientist, sociologist or philosopher to understa...Michael Cutler - Porous Borders Pose ...Juan del SurThere is no reliable way for Border Patrol agents, ICE special agents or othe...Jon Christian Ryter - Clinton Signs G...Juan del SurWhen the co-presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton took office on Jan. 20, 19...Edwin Vieira - The Poverty of Politic...Juan del SurThe more I scan the Internet these days, the more disappointed I become, beca...Derry Brownfield - Federal Wrongs - S...Juan del SurWe have seen in recent years the increased (and some would say unlawful) intr...Constitution of New York - 1777Juan del SurThis constitution was framed by a convention which assembled at White Plains ...Sharon Ann Meroni Letter 7-4-10Juan del SurAn Illinois citizen and registered voter has filed an Objector’s Petition to ...Douglas Vogt - Affidavit About White ...Juan del SurDouglas Vogt filed an affidavit to accompany a criminal complaint over the "C...Viguerie, Fitzgibbons - Reclaim the C...Juan del SurBased on decades of experience fighting government lawbreaking in the name of...Edwin Vieira - If Not Now, WhenJuan del SurWhy should average Americans presume that their country is lost, and their fr...Argument - Driving Without a LicenseJuan del SurDriver Licensing vs. Right to Travel “The right to travel is a part of the...Annals of Democracy, Counting VotesJuan del SurIn 1988 Ronnie Dugger wrote the definitive article on computerized vote fixin...A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring...puzo1April 2010: Filed with Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit appeal to U.S. 3rd...Tim Dejong - The Senate Defined NBC i...Juan del SurThe Senate defined “natural born Citizen” in 2008, and Obama didn’t qualify.
...Timothy Baldwin - Drawing a Line in t...Juan del SurThat the House of Representatives passed the healthcare bill yesterday (March...Printz v United States 95-1478 and 95...Juan del SurJAY PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA, PETITIONER 95-1478 v. U...Benson v United States Writ of Cert -...Juan del SurThis is the latest update from Jeffrey Dickstein, September 19, 2009: "I h...Constitution of the State of Maine, 1825Juan del SurIn 1825, the legislature of Maine ordered the printing of several thousand co...Previous|NextPage 1 of 7