Attorney General v. Drohan

• Decision Date: 24 November 1897
• Parties: ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DROHAN et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

169 Mass. 534

48 N.E. 279

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DROHAN et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

November 24, 1897

The case was submitted on the following agreed statement of facts, to wit: "That there is in the city of Boston an organization known as the 'Democratic City Committee of the City of Boston,' organized in conformity with chapters 489 and 507 of the Acts of the Legislature of Massachusetts of the year 1895, and acts amendatory thereof. That, under said acts and acts amendatory thereof, said committee adopted certain by-laws, a copy of which is herewith filed, and marked 'Copy of By-Laws.' It is agreed that, acting under said by-laws and in conformity with said acts aforesaid, a caucus for the election of members of the Democratic ward and city committee was duly called in ward 16 of said city on the 28th day of May, 1897. That at said caucus the said relators, John E. Curtis, Lawrence J Earle, James J. Graham, and Richard P. Morrissey, were declared elected members of the Democratic committee of said ward 16, and within three days thereafter were each furnished a certificate of election to said Democratic committee of ward 16 by the warden and clerk of said caucus. It is agreed that thereafter, under and in accordance with section 4 of chapter 435 of the Acts of the Legislature of Massachusetts of 1896, ten qualified voters of said ward 16 filed with the board of election commissioners of said city of Boston a petition, a copy of which is hereto annexed: 'Boston, May 29, 1897. To the Board of Election Commissioners of the City of Boston: We, the undersigned, legal voters of ward 16 respectfully represent that we have reason to believe that the returns of the caucus officers of said ward of the votes cast at the caucus on Friday, May 28, 1897, for Democratic ward and city committee, are erroneous, in this respect: That the ticket headed by Frederick S. Gore were credited with more, and the ticket headed by John Drohan with less, votes than were actually cast for them. We therefore ask that the votes cast for said Democratic ward and city committee, as aforesaid, be recounted. *** That the ticket headed by said Gore included the names of the relators, and the ticket headed by said Drohan included the names of the respondents. That thereupon, on the 3d day of June, 1897, said board of election commissioners did recount said ballots, and determined the questions raised in said petition, and reported to the president of the Democratic city committee that, by their recount of said ballots, no material change appeared from the count as declared by the said warden and clerk of said caucus. At said recount, John Drohan was present in behalf of the ticket which included the respondents, and T.J. Kenny was present in behalf of the ticket which included the relators, and each addressed the commission on the subject-matter of the aforesaid petition. It is agreed that on the 7th day of June, 1897, at a meeting of the Democratic city committee of Boston duly called and assembled, said relators, Curtis, Earle, Graham, and Morrissey, appeared and participated in the temporary organization of said committee, and that the respondents appeared before said city committee, and protested against the admission of said relators as members of said Democratic city committee, for the alleged reasons set forth in a certain written communication filed with the secretary of said Democratic city committee on said 7th day of June, 1897 a copy of which communication, omitting over one hundred names, is herewith filed, and marked 'A.' A motion to refer the matter of said protest to a committee to hear evidence and report to said committee was voted down; and thereupon it was voted to allow each side ten minutes in which to present their case, at the conclusion of which the said Democratic city committee voted, against the protest of said relators, to seat as members of said committee the respondents, Drohan, O'Rourke, Corcoran, and Shanley instead of the relators, Curtis, Earle, Graham, and Morrissey; and said respondents thereupon took their seats in said committee, and have since exercised the duties and privileges of membership in said committee. It is agreed that on the 19th day of June, 1897, the secretaries of the said Democratic city committee of the city of Boston filed with the secretary of the commonwealth, and with the board of election commissioners of the city of Boston, and with the secretary of the state committee of the political party of which they are a portion, a list of the members of the Democratic city committee of Boston for the term commencing June 1, 1897, and expiring June 1, 1898, which said list of members, as aforesaid, does not contain the names of the said Curtis, Earle, Graham, and Morrissey, but, instead and in place thereof, does contain the names of said Drohan, O'Rourke, Corcoran, and Shanley. It is agreed that no objection existed to the eligibility of the relators up to the time of the said caucus and said convention of the said Democratic city committee, so far as concerned their right, or the right of any one of them, to participate and be elected to said committee in the caucus aforesaid."

COUNSEL

J.B. Goodrich and T.J. Kenny, for plaintiffs.

J.A. Dennison, for respondents.

OPINION

MORTON J.

This is an information in the nature of quo warranto. The first question is whether the relators, as members of the Democratic city committee of Boston, hold public offices. If they do not, this information cannot be maintained, since the attorney general can intervene in matters of this nature only so far as they relate to public offices. For any interference with their private rights, the remedy of the relators is by proceedings in their own names against the parties in possession of the offices to which they claim to have been elected. Com. v. Dearborn, 15 Mass. 126; Kenney v. Gas Co., 142 Mass. 417, 8 N.E. 138; Attorney General v. Sullivan, 163 Mass. 446, 448, 40 N.E. 843; Attorney General v. Clark, 167 Mass. 201, 45 N.E 183; Attorney General v. Adonai Shomo Corp., 167 Mass. 424, 45 N.E. 762. Except for the fact that several acts have been passed by the legislature which relate, among other things, to political committees, no one would contend, we presume, that the members of a political committee belonging to one of the political parties hold public office by reason of their being members of such committee. We do not think that the effect of these statutes has been or is to make that a public office which was not one before their enactment. Without attempting an exhaustive definition of what constitutes a "public office," we think that it is one whose duties are in their nature public; that is, involving in their performance the exercise of some portion of the sovereign power, whether great or small, and in whose proper performance all citizens, irrespective of party, are interested, either as members of the entire body politic or of some duly-established division of it. Brown v. Russell, 166 Mass. 14, 43 N.E. 1005; U.S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wall. 385; People v. Nostrand, 46...