Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-02-11
The Government Fire C.nmncis.;o>.
erShips
Mr.. REEDS AA.pAMUs CASE.

MR. REED Ma -,DAMUs CASE
Io-oay, Id the sun .eme Court Of the District
OF Columbia STING In general term, Judges
Wylie, MacE.thur and Hagner.) the mandamus
case OF =. s. ex REL W. B. Reed agt. the Com
misSiJners of the District OF Columbia was
cahed.Mr: t. A. Lambert counsel for the re-
iator (Mr. Reed, and Mr.. A. G. Riddle for the
DiStr1ct. 1t will be remembered that Mr.. Reed
was first appointed a commissioner by the Dis
trct authorities, and subsequently he resigned
and the Secretary of the Interior appointed him
as commissioner on the part Of the gOvern-
ment. He sets forth that last summer the Dis
trict commissioners assumed to do away with
the Office he held by reducing the number OF
fire commissioners; that they had no such
power, and he therefore petitions for writ OF
mandamuS. Some time was spent in reading
the papers In the case which include an opin-
ion from the attorney of the District in support
Of the action of the District Commissioners,
and the opinion of the Attorney General sus-
tanning the claim of Mr.. Reed.
In answer to the court Mr.. Riddle said that
the number OF commissioners were reduced
from seven to three, and that those at the head
OF tie list were retained. These Were: Mr.
Hume, living in the county; Mr.. Collins. In
GeOrgetown n, and Mr.. Peter f. Bacon, living in
the central part OF the city.
The answer to the rule was read by Mr.. Rid
die. stating that the relator filled an office SUBJ
ordinate to them by law; that on the eth OF Au-
gust they abolished said Office, and that the re-
lation is not sufficient to enttle him to the writ
toG he was ineligible to hold said Office and had
never duly qualified and they therefore pray
the rule be dismissed. Mr. Riddle read the or
DEF: THAT the Office Of fire commissioner an
pointed by the Secretary OF the Interior Is here
by abolished, and the five commissioners are
removed
Mir. Lambert commenced his argument
claiming that the act OF the legislature OF Au
gust 1871. (pa9e p. part ~, District laws) was
a valid one under the organic act. The rclatOr
was regularly appointed; but during his absence
Abroad. " ith credentials to the fire departments
Oh Europe. the District Commissioners assumed
10 abolish the Office. He proceeded to argue
mat there was no power in the Commissioners
10 remove this officer, an appointed officer OF
passage OF the aco OF 1874 the legislative power
reverted TO Congress.
The court suggested that that act gave the
commissioners the power to consolidate Off
GERS sc.
Mr.. Lambert admitted this, but said that the
words In that act, under them," made the
pivotal point i'll this case. If this officer WAS
under them, then they had the power TO remove:
out lie heii that they had no such power Ia this
case. They had the right as to their own ap-
pOlntees They could have removed ali their
own appoLteeS.
Mr.. Riddle for the District followed arguing
that the Office was q subordinate one to The
tof one commissioner from the county OF
W Washington. and referring TO the act he i'd it
was clear it meant that part of the District
outside the cities He argued that the officer
was hot an Independent one. and in his CORE
Spondence re had admitted that he was Sl1bor-
dlnate TO The District Commissioners These
officers were all on the same level lie then
took up the qualifications and said that It va,
clear Mr. Reed was not eligible, for he e. Il no!
pretend to be citizen OF the county except 50
lar as the city OF Washington is involved in the
county. Mr.. Reed could not be returned to this
office, for he was not eligible.
Mr.. Lambert was replying to Mr. Riddle when
our lepCrt closed