Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1877-04-12

stationary or slight rise III temp nl"' -,
light northeast 10 northwest Winds aud =iigh'
changes in the barometer followed by ihl''ns
barometer during the night.
The Quo WARRANTo CASE. This case, 10
volving the title to the Office Of Superintendent
of Police, in which G. W. Clifford. who was
elected by the City Council, vice William Is.
Brown removed by that body, filed patton
for rule to show cause why az information
10 the nature OF quo Warraut0 against Brown,
who still claims the office should moi issue,
came up 10 the Corporation Court this morn
ing.
a. Stuart, esq.,, for Brown. demurrei TO the
petition and argued that the Mayor is now a
constitutional officer, and is vested with the
sole power aud exclusive right 10 remove any
officer of this Corporation. The grant by the
Legislature 10 the act Of March II, 1876, ct
power to the CITY Couaci to remove is IN con-
hiet With the Constitution aGd void. That
body hsd 10 right 10 remove Brown and ap-
point Clifford.
| &. f. Stuart, esq, iuterIuptlug. 10 this
quo warraun proceeding understand that the
only question Is ". B. BroWns tile to The Of
fee. He caunpt dcmur to cur petition aud
question our title. lie must show a good title
in himself As far as this case ls concerned, be
is stranger to the Office, and has 20 right to
object - the maDuer OF CIittnrd' election. This
il laid dnwn III Highs Extra Ses, Rem.
Go9.
Mr.. Burke read Mr.. CiiiorI's petiton to
show that Clifford had set cut his own title III
full, and claimed that they could attacl: it.
| Judge LJwc-"}u On with the demurrer 10
| tie petition We will treat ii as Il uoliOn 20
| discharge lhc ruIe
Mr. y. Stuart, resumiog, referred to the
| Constitution Of Virginia, section 20, article &.
| to show the uncOnstltutionallty Ut the ACT Of
| March l., 1876. and cited Cooley Const. Lam,
p. III, Birch Mayor rs. LyuchGurg, p Graft.
| and cX pavtr Ellison and others, 20 Graft. The
| t'5unr had no right to elect Clifford; they
should have issued awriL tor AZ election by thu
people. The ;;'4th section 1t the City Charter
| provides thai in the event OF the removal by
the Mayor lie must report ii to the City C0un'
ell. Ii h. fails to make q report The Council
has ~ remedy but ulauuamus to c0upel him
10 do il.
&. T.. Stuart, esd, Ter ClltEJrd-rhe guio
tine WAS Invented by = gentleman Of that name
aud he was the first uuc 10 b. put to death by
it. The act that the Mayor now claims to be
| uncoustiut;oua is the Que Tor which he is re-
Sponsib!c, ana fathers. aud which waa imposed
On the people OF this city list apring. II it is
his guiIlotiue in this case. Mr. Stuart then
went on at some length To argue that the act
was consistent with the constitution, rs the grant
by that instrument OF power 10 the Mayer 10
remove officers is not exclusive, and the City
Council can properly be invested with concur.
rent power. Every city in Virginia has q char
ter recognizing that power in The City Council,
and tie Legislature has, by i general law, on
page 81 OF the code, confirmed it. The Leg.
iSaturc has the right to provide for the gov
ernmani OF cities and towns, and while it can
not taxa away the Mayors power OF removal,
it may confer concurrent power on the City
Council, and whichever first proceeds to act
may Dust the officer. This court will not de-
clare an act unconstitutional unless it is plainly
and rreconrilably SO. This act is not plainly
so because it does not pretend to take away the
Mayors power.
Mr.. II. o. Claughton, for Clifford also
claimed that the act of 1916 is valid, unless it
is utterly impossible to reconcile it with the
constitution. The court is bound to give it va.
hdty il By aDy means it can. lie combatted
the idea that the Mayor had the exclusive right
to remove officers, and referring to tho conStiu
tional provision giving to the Mayor power TO
examiuc the books aud investigate the acts OF
the various city officers, asked if it was intended
to be argued that that provision excluded the
right of the City Council to make such eZami
ualtuua and Investigations also. No one would
claim that, and yet il the constitution is held
to give tie exclusive power to the Mayor to
remove officers it must also be held that he Las
exclusive power to examine the officers &C
counts, &C., for the constitution uses the same
words in conierring both powers.
Mr.. Burke, for Brown contcnded that the
Goth Gaeion Of the constitution refers only to
mayors OF cities containing 1000 Inhabitants.
So that no argument GaE be got from he tact
that the Leg stature by the General Act Code,
p. j2I, for the government OF cities aud towns
of less than ), 0UOluhabtants, gives to the City
Coun.il tho right to remove officers, As to the
latter towns the Legislature may give TO the
Council power to remove because The c1nstiu.
ton does not cooI,r the sole power upon The
mayors OF >ueh taRLs, but IN towDs ct over
5000 Inhabitants, as Alexandria the exclusive
power is given to the Mayor BY the COusttu-
tiou, aud The Legislature YEA confer it on no
other peis11 CT body. The provision of the
ncw charter nn this Suticc: is invalid and void.
The object OF the trainers OF the constitution OF
1869 was to make the Mayor OF Il town OF 5000
inhabitants 4 mere important officer, with
larger duties and greater rcWors than tGrmcrly,
10 order by giving dignity 10 the oftica II could
be filled IY better uion. Prior to that G10stl
tuition the Mayor was very uuImportant and
almost uaclcss officer 10 hold that his power
Of removal ID not exclusive. and that the Coul-
ell could also remove, would lead to disastrous
consequences and bring about Just such COO
ficts as the present Grant the Mayor the sole
power and there eau be no difficulty. Mr..
Burke referred to Cooley Ccust Lin, r. ii,
aud Judge krith's decision in The Wealcr case
to sustain his position.
Judge Lowe sustap1cti the demurrer to the
petition ana discharged the rule, thus deciding
that 50 much Of the amcudrd charter OF 1916
as gives to The CITY CourciI power to suspend
or rcm1?r otl"trs Is Unconstitutional, uu and
void
The case against VIM. III. Bartlc, the tciG-
porarY apprentice ri the Mayor, was h"gri this
afternoon an decision rendered sustaining
the right OF the Mayor to appoint persou To
ill the Office pending the suspension Of RrowE.
WRECK.-Nlcuti0n was made Yesterday Of