Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-06-01

In the Court in General Term today. Judges
Hagner and James, the latter delivered the
opinion of the court in the case Of Harry s.
Hutton against the District of Columbia in
favor of the complainant. The complainant
was appointed policeman on June 4, 1850 and
performed service until August 10 fol-
lowing, and the question was raised in
the case by the plea of the District
that the plaintiff could not recover his pay be-
cause at the time of his appointment he had
not served in the army or navy. The plaintiff,
by Mr.. A. b. Duvall, filed a demurrer and the
case was certified for hearing in the general
term in the first instance.
The question is. according TO the opinion.
whether section 3jI, Il. S. ID. c., has been re-
pealed by the act Of June IL. 1873. Section
3Ji is drawn from the act Of August G. 1851.
and March 3. 1861. and provides: ''No person
shall be appointed policeman watchmhn who
has not served in the army or navy Of the
nited States and received an honorable dis
charge"
The court SAYS the first clause Of this section
was one of the provisions OF an act which es-
tablished the police force and gave authority
to the board to make rules and regulations for
the proper government and discipline of
the officers, provided for their appoint-
ment and method of removal. In short
the judge says, that statute provided
a complete scheme for the organization
and government of the police force as a sep
arate and independent departmeutof the NUM-
cipal institutions of the District of Columbia.
1t is TO be observed that the board of Commits
sioners was to be appointed by the President by
and with the advice and consent of the senate.
I'm 1875 this scheme of organization and
government was abandoned and Congress by
the act of June IL, 1873 20 Stat, l02. G. 1901
merged the police establishment in what was
intended to be a complete system of govern
ment for this District concentrating i'm the
hands of the District Commissioners the powers
and duties which had been independent Of
them and giving for their more perfect per
Torrance enlarged and additional powers (fck-
LOTT agt. District, Mackey, 572; 1856 L. s., 240)
The third section Of the new act authorized
the District Commissioners TO abolish ANY
Office, remove from Office. &c. The sixth sec
ton provided for the adjustment Of the bond
of police. bond of school trustees on july .ls7s
ana transferred all their powers and duties with
power TO employ such officers and agents and
10 adopt such provisions may be necessary
to carry into execution such powers and duties
The effect Of this grant had been considered
and he quoted from Mr.. Justice Brewer in the
Eckloff case at some length when the question
was as 70 the power Of removal and Judge
James says that the reasoning of the Supreme
Court IL equally applicable TO the powers
Of appointment, and demonstrates that the Conn
missloners were free from the restrictions and
bUtCttQ the system
which was done away. The language OF the
act, should have authority TO imply" &C. 10
directly applied to the police force and as q
motive OF mere Interpretation it gives power
TO appoint such officers as they should deem
necessary. ltappears in terms TO exempt the
appointing power from restrictions or hmita-
tons In them selection.
The court holds that the section referred 70
In the plea ID not now In force aud the Com
missioners at the time Of the plaintiff appoint
r1Arr To as,,f 81
force persons who had never served in the
army or navy, and il follows that as his appoint
ment and employment was lawful ne must 70
cover.
The judge concludes We think IL proper TO
add that the considerations which induced
Congress to provide this qualification of serv-
Ice IN the army or navy are matters Of public
history of which the court may take ju-
dicial notice, and that in our opin-
ion il was the Legislative intention
to make an honorable discrimination
in favor Of the man who had returned 20 the
competitions Of civil life after service in the
late war. On the other hand, there is no rea-
son to suppose that Congress would thus dis
criminate in favor of men who enlist in these
services in times Of peace, and the strict terms
of the statute are consistent with an interpre-
tation which limits those. Determinations
to service rendered before its passage. The
should be appointed as policeman or Waterman
who has not served in the army or navy Of the
United States and received an honorable dis
charge" We are aware that this form Of
intends 10 include an event or oondi-
ton recurring from time 70 time after
Its enactment; but there f. in this
respect no rigid rule Of Interpretation. II will
be understood that only past event or condi-
that such was the Legislative intent II ID not
likely, We repeat, that Congress intended -
between the citizen md ths -