National Republican., 1883-01-04


tho whole air about police headquarters was
one of uncertainty, If not of fear. This feel
ing did not stop at headquarters but spread to
the various precincts and ont TO the men upon
their beats. All this trouble and uncomtort-
able feeling was caused by
THE PUBLICATION OF THE ATTORNEY GEN
ERALS OPINION,
which is as follows:
no THE PRwmENr.-Sr: Having transmitted to
me the request of tho district commissioners for
my opinion upon the question whether the COM
misslouers have power 70 remove without such
trial MS Is contemplated by section 356 R. s. OF ID.
C) members of the police force of tho district,
A brief outline of anteccdent legislation may
throw light on the subject. For long period
prior to February n, 1871, three municipal organ
izations namely, the county of Washington aud
the cities of Washington and Georgetown respeo-
lively, were invested with the ordinary functions
of local government (the city of Washington being
governed by u mayor, aldermen, and common
eounciD, but by act of that dato Q6 ST., 4l0)
tho District Of Columbia was created MS
body corporate in place of those three organ
izatiOns, with new form of government,
eonsisung of a governor, SECRETARY, and
legislative assembly. Aboard Of public works and
board of health were also established as auxiliary
organizations. This scheme of government proved
IA some respects unsatisfactory TO Congress, as is
shown by report of its investigating committee,
and by act of June 90 1874 rs ST. 1l6), the plan of
vestlng the executive power in commissioners was
tive assembly being abolshed), aud Joint COM
mitee was authorized to prepare and submit n
plan for permanent form of government. The
committee reported its scheme, but congress re-
Jected II and other projects and on July IL, 1873,
passed the act under consideration, entitled IAN
net providing permanent form of government
act has been continued to the present time with.
out substantial modification. Under the so-called
old corporation of Washington CITY, the power
of appointment TO local offices was vested
in the mayor and aldermen, ana That OF re-
moval in the discretion OF the mayor Under
the plan Of 1871 the appointment TO and removal
irom offices created by the legislative assembly
was vested in the governor Mt his discretion, and
this power, by the net of 1874 (seclion p congress
transferred TO the commissioners authorizing their
appointment aud proceeding rs follows; "Who
shall, until otherwise provided by law exercise
nll the power and authority now lawfully vested III
the governor or board OF public works of said dis
trict, except hereinafter limited" But congress
u proviso to the secuon-"and said commissioners
are hereby authorized to abolish any olice to
consolidate two or more offices, reduce the num-
Der of employees, remove from once ana make
appointments to any Office authorized by law"
This provision was re- enacted in the act of 1873
(section 81 in Identical terms, except that the
words "authorized by law" 1t cannot be doubted
that 1t was intended by the provisions cited 90
give the commissioners power in their discretion
to appoint to and remove from every office under
their jurisdiction where q different mode ofap-
pontment or removal was not specified, expressly
or by legitimate inference. II Is especially impor-
t0nt to note this since the general purpose or pol
icy of congress in such legislation, when once
clearly apprehe ended, should have controlling eff
feet IN the construction of doubtful terms They
should be presumed, If possible, to have mean-
ing in harmony with such purpose, rather than
one opposed thereto. Bearing this in mind, we
are prepared to state the question at issue, which
is in brief whether by the sixth section OF the act
Of 1878 congress in bringing under the authority OF
the commissioners an additional number of Oii-
GERS namely those of the police force, intended as
TO them to vary from its previous established poll
icy of confding In those officers discretionary
power of appointment aud rcmoval2 1t may be
tairly asserted that TO maintain such an intent
II ought to be shown by AT least very strong in-
ference.
The language is that from fixed date "tho
board of metropolitan police and the board of
school trustees snail be abolished, ana that all the
powers and duties now exercised by them shall be
transferred TO the said commissioners OF the Dis
trict of Columbia, VINO shall have authority to
employ such officers and agents and TO adoptsuch
provisions rs may be necessary TO carry into exc
eution the powers and duties devolved upon them
by this act" go St., 107.) The powers and duties
referred to will be found set iortn in chapter 10 Of
the revised statutes of the district. the material
point is that the power of removal then exercised
by the police board was limited by the following
provisions: Each person so appointed shall hold
Olice only during such lime as he shall tail hiuy
observe and execute all the rules and regulations
of the board the laws of the United States aud
the laws and ordinances existing within the dis
trict, and which apply to any part OF the district
where the members OF the force may be ON duty"
No person shall be removed from the police
force except op written charges preferred against
nifty shall have been afforded him of being heard
in his defense; and no person removed from the
police force for oanse shall be reappointed to any
If congress, in making this transfer, had said
that the powers and duties so transferred should
DO performed rs heretofore by the police board,
or in accordance with the provisions of existing
laws or had made use of some equivalent eXpres-
sion, 1t would have given SUCH evidence Of It's In
tent MS under the circumstances might be eX-
pected, IL 10 Intended to retain mode of proceed
ing which was inconsistent with the plenary au-
thority vested in the commissioners since their
creation. BY reference to the last clause Of the
section, that of the seventh section, II will be
seen, that when II intended TO preserve par
ticuar system from the effect Of consolda-
ton, the expression is apt and clear;s
But aside from this, If congress had
made Ta the a1Ser W m IN wdl hs terms % and
bia,' the question would still be whether express
grant of power over all Offices which, by Its terms,
would clearly include the new ohices is to be
limited by Inference from the mere use of such
words as =" the powers and duties BOW exercised"
1t would not be n strained construction Of these
words, under the circumstances, 10 interpret them
in u general sense, and, as now intended 10 in
corporate details inconsistent with the general
plan. The objection to this which may be sug-
the provisions as to the tenure and removal above
cited, but this Is met by observing that by section
10 all laws inconsistent with the provisions OF the
act are repealed. Ii found incOnslStent therefore,
The repeal is express, and the practical difference
is one which y is submitted is OF weight IN Just
such cases. without such clause the courts |
would feel bound to be even ingenious in pre- !
serving the said provisions; with IL they are |
instructed that congress expects that such |
Inconsistent provisions will be found |
and directs their repeal. They arc not
obliged therefore To struggle against any ap- |
parent Inconsistency, but may ut once recOg- |
nize IL ana give effect TO the repeating section |
But IL is not necessary TO resort 70 such reasoning
in view Of the immediate colteXt which must Of |
course, be taken as defining the sense in which |
the preceding text Is used The words are "who |
(the commissioners shall have authority to en- |
ploy such officers and agents. and to adopt such |
provisions as may be necessary to carry Into exc
by this act" 1he pam intent Of this clause | |
submit Is 70 give the commissioners plennTy |
power 70 retain the existing police scheme, both |
as TO It's official and regulatiye features, or TO |
is In perfect harmony with the general pur- |
pose aud policy batore noted, and, strength |
ems instead of tmparing power granted |
70 section 3. IL was perieclly oompe |
tent therefore, for tlfe commissioners for |
lnally or tacitly to adopt (or nOO the provisions
for removal by trial or written charges and TO
continue IL so long MS they should deem It neces-
tary Extended argument 70 sustain this position |
IS surely needless, unless IL can be shown that the
clause above mentioned Is susceptible OF some diff
bo presumed that congress intended TO bind tho |
Com miSsiOners by the words powers and duties |
now exercised" 10 proceed by trial to remove a |
member Of tho police force, when they substan- |
may use your discretion in the entire subject |
matter" IL is not claimed that the question is |
without dihlculty; but, on the whole case 10 seems
10 me that congress did not intend 70 force |
on the commissioners (wlthouU apparent |
reason) tho anomaly Of q mode Of removal |
as 10 one class of their appolntoes differ |
Ing from that prescribed MS to all others, but /
wisely LEFT the matter 10 their own good iudg- |
ment, think, therefore, thai the commissioners |
are at liberty to adOpt the method of removal nj
Nlt4str Il tFt fItfaf