Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-01-03
THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE
POLICE.
Have the Commissioners the Power to
Remove Policemen At Discretion?

Have the commissioners the Power to
Remove Policemen at Discretiona
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYS THxY HAVE
The Attorney General has rendered the follow
Ing opinion relative to the power of the District
commissioners to make removals from the police
rec:
To the President:
SIR:-Having transmitted to me the request OF
the District Commissioners for my opinion upon
the question whether the Commissioners have
power to remove without such trial as is contem-
plated by section 356 {R. S. of D. c., members OF
the police force of the District, answer as fol-
lows:
A brief outline OF antecedent legislation may
throw light on the subject For q long period
prior to February 81, 1871, three municipal organ1
zttlons namely, the county OF Washington and
the cities of Washington and Georgetown, respec-
lively, were invested With the ordinary functions
OF local government dhe city Of Washington being
governed by mayor, aldermen and common
couhcD, but by act OF that date
(i6 ST., 4ig, the District OF Columbia was
created as a body corporate In place OF
those three organizations, with new form OF gov
legislative assembly. board Of public works
and board OF health were also established as aux
proved1n some respects unsatisfactory to Congress-
as IS SHOWN by report of its Investigating COM
plan Of vesting the executive bower in comuais se
SionerS was substituted as temporary expedieDt
tthe legislative assembly being abolished), and a
JOINT committee was authorized to prepare and
submit plan for a permanent FORM of govern
mehI The committee reported its scheme, but
Johgres elected II and other projects and on
emitted IAN act providing permanent form
OF government for the District OF Columbia"
go St, 1927 and this act has been continued TO the
| present time without substantial modification
Under the so-caled old corporation OF Washington
city the power OF appointment to local offices was
vested In the mayor and aldermen, and that Of
| removal IN the discretion OF the mayor Under
the plan OF 1871 the appointment to and removal
from offices created by the legislative assembly
Was vested In the governor at his discretion, and
TINS power, by the act of 1874 section p Congress
transferred TO the Commissioners authorizing their
appointment and proceeding as follows: "Who
shall, until otherwise provided by law, exercise all
the power and authority now lawfully vested in
the governor or board OF pubi1c works OF said d.
trct except as hereinafter limited" But Congress
saw nj 10 add the following p3enary authority In
| are hereby authorized to abolish any Office to
consolidate two or more Offices, reduce the number
OF remove from office and make appoint
lhentS 10 any Office authorized by law"
This provision WAS re-enacted In the act of 1878
Section 81 in identical terms. except that the
words ''authorlzed by law" 1t cannot be doubted
that It was Intended by the provisions cited to
give the Commissioners power In their discre-
| APPOINT TO AND REMOVE
from every Office under their jurisdiction where q
dlnerent mode OF appointment Or removal Was not
speclned, expressly or by legitimate inference It
is especially Important TO note this, since the gen.
eral purpose or policy OF Congress in such legisla-
ton, when once clearly Appreciated, should have
controlling en- ct In the construction Of doubtful
| terms They should be presumed II possible to
nave meaning in harmony with such purpose
rather than one opposed thereto Bearing this In
m m No. we are prepared to state the question
g hrio xrhn
section OF the act of 1873 Congress in bringing
unier the authority OF the Commissioners an adj
dl1ionai number OF officers, namely, those OF the
ponce Iorce Intended, as to them, to vary from its
PREVIOUS established policy of confding in those
o dL; q discretionary power OF appointment and
removals 1t may be fairly asserted that TO main
tain such an intent it ought to be shown by at
| least very strong inference
me language Is that from fixed date "ttle
board OF Metropolitan police and the board OF
school trustees shall be abolished aud that all the
powers and duties now exercised by them shall be
| trlct or Columbia, who shall have authority to
employ such officers and agents and to adopt such
| cution the powers and duties deyOlvei nnon them
by this act" GO ST., 1919
THE POWERS AND DUTIES
referred to will be found set forth in chapter IS
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
Office only during such time as he shall faithfully
observe and execute all the rules and regulations
or the board. the laws of the United States and
the laws and ordinances existing within the Dis
trict, and which apply to any part of the District
{Sec 341)
mo person shall be removed from the police
iorce except On written charges preferred ag ainst
him to the board Of police and after an opportu-
nifty shall have been afforded him of being heard
IN ms defense; and no person removed from the
II Congress in making this transfer had aid that
the powers and duties sotransferred should be per-
| 1ormed as heretofore by the police board. or In
accordance with the provisions OF existing laws
or had made use OF some equivalent express
son. Il IT, would a+a have given such evidence
circumstances might be expected, if it in In.
tented to retain mode Of proceeding which was
inconsistent with the planary authority vested In
the Commissioners since their creation By ref
to the last clause Of the Section that of the
to preserve particular system from the effect OF
consolidation, the expression is apt and
cie eac Blu But aside from this If Congress had
ma stopped with the words "Dlstrict OF
Columbia" the question would still be whether
by its terms would clearly include the new new
Offices, is 10 be limited by inference from the M re
use OF such words as :" the powers and duties now
exercised" 1t would not be a strained construc-
ton OF these words, under the circumstances,
to interpret t,d them in general sense and
Msh to the
The objection to this which may be suggested Is
that this would repeal by implication the pro
visions as to the tenure and removal above cited,
but this is met by observing that by section Is ali
| laws inconsistent with the provisions of the act
are repealed. II found inconsistent therefore, the
repeal Is express, and the practical difference
Is one ", which IL it is submitted is OF
such clause the courts would
feel bound to be even ingenious IN preserving the
said provisions; with it they are instructed that
Congress expects that such inconsistent provis-
ions VIII be found, and directs their repeal They
are not obliged therefore to struggle against any
apparent Inconsistency, but may at once recog-
nlza 1t and give effect to the repeating section.
But it is not necessary to resort to such reason
Ing In view Of the immediate context
which must, OF course. be taken as defining the
| sense in which the preceding text is used. The
| words are ''WhO the COmmsSioners) Shall have
authority to employ such officers ana agents. and
| TO adopt such provisions as may be Necessary to
carry into execution the powers ana duties de-
| vowed upon them by this act.". The plain intent
| OF this clause submit is to
GIVE THE COMMISSIONERS PLENARY POWER
TO retain the existing police scheme. both as to its
omcial and regulative features. or to modify or
substitute without limit. So taken 1t is In perfect
harmony with the general purpose and policy
"a md