Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1888-05-29
MAYoR's OFFICE.
vi 4 Oh > bf I'VE,
ALEXANDRIA. VA, May %, 1883.

ALEXANDRIA VA, May %, 1883.
To the honorable the Board Of Aldermen and Common
Council of the city Of Alexandria:
Gentlemen l herewith return with my objec-
tions the bill eutited IAN ordini nce for the pre-
s,rvation of the health of the city, passed May
24sh, 1888.
Ny frst objection to the bill is that its oh ect is
not Clear and that it is probably hastily consid-
cred piece of legislation 1t uses the word "oppo-
sition" in connection which ia hard to uuder-
stand unless Opposite or lin opposition to" is
meant 1t puts grass in the novel classification of
offensive matter !" and it fo1bds persons ito
permit grass TO grow" in any gutter or alley &C.
10 refuss to permit grass to grow is one thing. TO
remove it while growing is another. Probably
the intent of the bill is not to require our citizens
to adopt some means 10 put a stop to the growth
of grass in tho places mentioned By arresting the
G urse of nature, but to pull it up while it is
growing. 1t might be possible to stop the growth
by using salt, brine, &c, but this would be repug.
nant to the act passed April 25th, 1876, entitled
IAN act amending sec. 7, chap. 10, corporation
laws"
The bill is ambiguous rs to the duty of the citi-
zcn-that is, whether he must put some chemical
substance on the ground, so as to stop the grass
from growing, or permit il to grow first, and then
pull it mp when il gets high enough to enable him
to get hold of it
Another objection is that tho bill has no repeal
ing clause in it, and it will always be matter of
doubt whether 1t is intended to repeal the present
laws on this same subject.
Of course, as q general rule, the courts would
hold it rs repeating all inconsistent laws. but the
question as to how far the present laws are incon-
sistent is not free from doubt.
The third objection is that the bill Is entirely
unnecessary. as the present laws on the subject
are amply sufficient to accomplish the object
sought if the officer charged with the duty of en-
forcing them attends to that duty.
Sec q, chap. .. city code, imposes upon the Su.
perintondent of Police the obligation to keep the
public Streets alleys and guttors properly clean
sod and there is an annual appropriation made by
the City Council for the purpose; and sec. Is,
chap. o. OF the city code, makes full provision for
the removal of filth or offensive matter from tho
cutters.
Still snoi her objection is that it imposes duty
the police force Of the city which is foreign to
the general object of their organization. and must
interfere with the proper performance OF their
other cuties think it clear that the supern.
tendent of Police should attend to matters OF the
dcscrpt covered by this bill, and such has been
tho obligation of his office for many years past.
But the main objection to the bill is that it is
wrong in principle. 1t imposes on the citizen 9
daty which belongs to the city itself-that is to
say to keep the streets, alleys and cutters clean
under proper restrictions, forbidding the citizen
to throw filth or offensive matter in them.
The city annually collects heavy taxes and ap.
propristes money to keep the streets, &c.. clean.
The tax payer has the right to expect that the
money so exacted from him shall be so applied or
o tax red, csd oorrespondingly. 1t would be OPP
pressive to collect tax for certain purpose and
then compel the taxpayer to do the work at his
own expense. Legislation of this character is i'm
polite, and if carried to its legitimate conclusion
would result in the passage of laws requiring each
property owner to clean and keep clean the entire
street in front OF his promises, Notwithstanding
the city cont nues to tax him for the purpose of
doing it itself.
For these reasons I am con trained to return
N hi 70 fha oh
without my appreciation or signature.
L. E. DowNHA9, Mayor