QUITMAN-QUO WARRANTO. 



293 



United States. After the removal of the duty on for- 

 eign quinine in 1879 the manufacturers could not com- 

 pete with the imported article, and one after another 

 abandoned the business, until, at the present time, but 

 one firm continues the manufacture of quinine, and 

 that is the oldest in the business. 



About the time of the removal of the import duty 

 on quinine, cheaper processes for the manufacture of 

 the alkaloid were discovered, and the new sources of 

 supply of the crude material furnishing bark of im- 

 proved quality in unexpected abundance, the price de- 

 clined steadily, and foreign competition has continued 

 so active that the business has for several years been 

 unremunerative. The imports of foreign quinine dur- 

 ing the six years preceding the removal of the import 

 duty averaged about 70,000 ounces per year. Since 

 the removal of the duty the imports have increased 

 steadily, reaching, in 1887, the enormous amount of 

 2,180,000 ounces. The imports of cinchona bark also 

 show the effect of the competition of the foreign pro- 

 duct. The total consumption of quinine in the world 

 at the present time is estimated at 7,000,000 ounces 

 per annum, and of this 3.000,000 ounces are consumed 

 in the United States. Fully two-thirds of the quinine 

 consumed in the United States is therefore of foreign 

 manufacture, and none of the domestic made ia now 

 exported. Formerly there were considerable annual 

 exports to Mexico and the South American states. 



In the following table are given the highest and low- 

 est prices of American quinine, per ounce, from 1823 

 to 1888 : 



Over half a century's growth of the business of 

 manufacturing quinine brought it to a prosperous con- 

 dition, making it an important chemical industry. The 

 past eight years has witnessed its decadence, until, at 

 the present time, it is an unprofitable product among 

 many in but one chemical manufacturing establish- 

 ment, yet it is one of the most important articles of 

 the materia medica, and its consumption continues to 

 increase from year to year. (u. a. A.) 



QUITMAN, JOHN ANTHONY (1799-1858), a South- 

 ern general and politician, was born at Khinebeck, 

 New York, Sept. 1, 1799. He was the son of Rev. 

 Frederick Henry Quitman (1760-1832), a Lutheran 

 minister. After becoming a lawyer he removed to 

 Ohio in 1820, but in 1823 settled at Natchez, Miss. 

 Having won distinction at the bar he was made 



chancellor of the Superior Court in 1828, and took 

 part in the Constitutional Convention of 1831. For 

 many terms he served in the Legislature, and in 1835 

 was acting governor of the State. The movement for 

 the independence of Texas received his hearty support, 

 and, when the Mexican war followed as its consequence, 

 Quitman was one of the foremost volunteers. He 

 commanded a division of Gen. Scott's invading army, 

 and, when the city of Mexico was taken, he was made 

 its governor until peace was concluded. In 1850 Quit- 

 man was elected governor of Mississippi, and gave 

 every possible encouragement to the movement fur the 

 annexation of Cuba to the United States. (See CUBA. ) 

 But the administration at Washington baffled his 

 schemes ; by its order he was indicted in the U. S. 

 Court at New Orleans, whereupon he resigned his gov- 

 ernorship, to avoid an unseemly struggle between 

 national and State authority. A new administration 

 showed evident favor for Cuban annexation, but the 

 plan remained in abeyance, while the struggle in 

 Kansas demanded all the strength of the advocates 

 of slavery extension. Quitman was obliged to forego 

 the promised command of an army lor liberating 

 Cuba from the Spanish yoke. At the inauguration 

 of Pres. Buchanan he led the military procession, 

 and fondly hoped that the time had come for the 

 realization of his cherished plans. Again disappointed, 

 he died at Natchez. July 17, 1858. 



QUO WARRANTO is the name of a writ by which 

 . the government commences an action to 

 p 189 (i) 196 recovcran office or a franchise from the 

 Am Ren \ person or corporation illegally in pos- 



ixuj. jicp.;. . f'iiT I^TIII 



session of it. rormerly, in England, 

 th3 king, by virtue of his prerogative, sent commis- 

 sions over the kingdom to inquire into all franchises 

 granted by the crown ; and if those in possession of 

 them could not show a charter, the franchises were 

 seized into the king's hands without any judicial pro- 

 ceeding. The statute of 6 Edw. I. prescribed the 

 action of quo warranto, in which the writ commands 

 the sheriff to summon the defendant to appear before 

 the court and show (qm> inirnntto) by what authority 

 he claims the office or franchise. It is a proceeding to 

 try the mere right to the franchise or office, where the 

 possessor never had a right to it, or has forfeited it by 

 neglect or abuse. 



In the United States the writ of quo warranto has 

 been superseded by what is called an information in 

 the nature of a quo warranto, in form a criminal 

 though in substance a civil proceeding. The person at 

 whose instance it is instituted is called the rclator. 

 Proceedings referring to the usurpation of the fran- 

 chises of a municipal corporation must be begun by 

 the State through the attorney-general. In regard to 

 the election of a corporate officer, however, the writ 

 may issue at the suit of the attorney-general or of any 

 person interested. It has been held in various States 

 that quo warranto proceedings maybe brought against 

 members of a city council, a county treasurer, a sheriff, 

 a governor or lieutenant-governor, a judge of probate, 

 a presidential elector (proceedings being taken in the 

 name of the United States), militia officers, etc. The 

 State is not bound to show anything, but the defend- 

 ant is bound to show a right to the office or franchise 

 in question. 



1 here are two forms of judgment against an officer 

 or individuals it is onster ; i. e., that he or they be put 

 out simply, for there is no franchise forfeited ; against 

 a corporation, by its corporate name, it is ouster and 

 seizure of the corporate franchise. This is done on 

 the principle that the franchise is a trust, of which the 

 terms of the charter are the conditions ; consequently, 

 if any of the conditions be violated, it will work a for- 

 feiture of the charter. Moreover, the corporate 

 powers must be strictly construed, and exercised in 

 the manner and form as well as by the agents pre- 

 scribed jn the charter. 



Forfeitures may be brought about in two cases: 



