The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-03-18

portant I. principles, synopsis Of it is
s,.Yep, and an abstract of the opinion as de-
! .nivered by Judge Staples
| Hardwieke. formerly chief OF police of
the city OF Lyncbburg, brought an action
against Burch. formerly Mayor Of that city,
for falsely, maliciously, and without suft:-
cent cause, removing him from his said
Office Of chief Of police. The case was
tried before Judge Wingfeld, and verdict
and judgment for $1,000 given In favor of
plaintiff. Burch appealed to the Court of
Appeals, where the case was argued by Ma
ior HalseY and James Alfred Jones, Esq,
7or,tfe appellant, and by Major Kirkpatrick
and Mr.. Goggin for the appelleeas Numcr-
Gus questions were presented and discussed.
Exceptions were taken to certain rulings of
Judge Wingield, but the Court of Appeals
was of opinion there was no error in THAI
respect.
We do not deem it necessary to notice
these various points. One OF the main
Questions in the casc--a question OF very
considerable interest and importance to the
towns and cities OF the Commonwealth
was " hether the Mayer Of the city Of Lynch
burg has the power, under the Constitution
of Virginia, Of removing the chief OF police
from his Office.
BOARD OF POLICE COMAsssI0NERs.
The charters OF the city OF Lynchburg, and
of Richmond, Norfolk, ard probably Pc
tersburg, provide for board of police
commissioners in which is vested the power
OF appointing, controlliag, and removing
the chief>of police and bis subordinates,
with the right in the mayor to suspend the
chief OF police temporarily, but not to re-
move him. On the other hand, the Constitu-
tion OF Virginia coDfers upon the mayor
the power Of supervising, controlling, and
removing all CITY officers. II. therefore,
the chief OF police be city officer. within
the true intent and meaning Of the Consti-
tsstion, it is obvious that the charters Of
Lynchburg, Richmond, and other cities,
taking the power Of removal OF the chief
police from the mayor and vestiHg it in q
board of police commissioners, rs uncon-
Istitutional and void.
Judge Staples in discussing this question
! went into am examination Of the various
provisions Oh the Constitution to show what
was meant by the term " city officers"
Among these he enumerated city engineers,
officers having superintendent Of streets,
parks, water-works, gas-Works, sewers,
cemeteries, and numerous others required
by the wants of great city, whose duties
and functions are OF q purely municipal and
local character; whereas officers such as the
city sergeant, sheriff, justices OF the peace,
lhgh-constable, Commonwealth attorney,
hustings Judge, and clerk Of the hustings
court, are not city officers, although some
times designated as such. The reason is
that although elected or appointed for the
cities, and although confined in the exercise
of their functions to the city limits, their
duties concern the State at large or the gen.
eral public
WHAT IS OF STATE CONCERN.
| Whatever relates to the administration Of
Justice and the preservation OF the public
ueace is OF State concern, although confined
| to local agencies. The chief OF police is Of
the latter character. He is q eonservator
OF the peace. His duties are OF public
nature, and concern the public at large.
| Among the thousands OF strangers that
enter great city in the course of q year
1 in pursuit OF business or pleasure there is
scarcely one but is interested, in greater
qor less degree, in this officer as eonserva-
ltor of the peace generally. When the mob
,rages in the streets, when the ineendiarY
u, d assassin are at work, they do not offend
against the city, but against the State.
When they are detected and arrested by
the chief OF police and his subordinaSes il
is gnder the authority OF the State laws,
and by him as s State officer, and when
they are tried and convicted it is by officers
who represent the State and its sovereign
authority.
THE APPoIETING POWER.
It is true that the chief OF police derives
bis authority Immediately from the city. but
this is only because the charter so provides.
The Legislature might have made the ap-
pointment differently; it might have made
the appointment itself, or it might have
elected board OF police commissioners and
conferred upon them the power Of appoint
ing the chief OF police. A local authority
for an appointment does not make the Of
ficer local, il the nature OF bis duties IS
general.
The State as political society is interested
everywhere in the preservation OF the pub.
lie peace, suppression OF crime, and in pro-
tecting the rights Of persons and property,
whether in the city or country. No duty is
more general and all-pervading. That duty
looks to the preservation OF order at elcc-
tions, railway stations, and steamboat land
ings; the enforcement OF the laws against
intemperance, gambling, violations OF the
Sabbath, and the like. The instrumental
ties by which these objects are effected,
however appointed, by whatever name
called, wherever residing, are agencies OF
the State, and not OF the municipalities. In
support Of these propositions the opinion
cites numerous authorities, among them the
decisions of the Supreme Courts OF Massa-
chusetts, Maine, Michigan, Kentucky.
Louisiana, New York, Dillon on Corpora
tions, sc. 1t is impossible for us to cite or
quote from them, nor would it be OF any
especial interest to do So. All that we can
nc is simply to refer to them,
A POWERFUL AGENCY. ~
THE opinion declared that the Legislature
haG wisely vested the control OF the police
department in the board Of police commls-
sioners rather than in the mayor. The
police force of city is powerful agency
in the hands Of one man, and in times OF
high political and party excitement there is
great danger Of its being employed by the
MAYOR Of city for political purposes and
to secure his constant reelection.
The leading cities OF the State have been
under the control OF the police board OF
commissioners, and there is no complaint OF
a want OF efficiency, discipline, and subor-
dination in The police department, and the
Court OF Appeals is not inclined to set aside
the charters of these cities and destroy their
machinery OF government, unless 1t could
be shown that The Constitution OF the State
absolutely requires 1t.
j The Court being OF opinion that Mayor
Burch had no power to remove the ehief OF
police OF that city, OF even il he had such
power, evidence having been offered to
show that the removal in this case was ma
liciously done, the jury having so held.
was Of opinion to affirm the Judgment OF
the Circuit Court. Judge Christian dis