The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-01-30


sor had qualified?
Counsel for tho city. in an exceed
ingly Interesting aud learned argu.
history of the several statutory
changes in the charter OF the CITY Of
Norfolk, contends that the Board of
Police Commissioners has the abso.
Lutte right, by majority vote,
TO REMOVE WITHOUT CAUSE
the Chief OF Police, his assistant, of
any policeman, and that said re
moval Immediately deprives such
chief. assistant or policeman of any
| further power to act.
1t seems, however, that careful
analysis of section 5Sth OF the char.
ter under which this right ia
claimed. shows that no such power
exists in respect TO the Chief or his
assistants. however it may be in re.
gard to the force at large. Section
81 directs the Police Commissions
ers ito select go many perma-
nent policemen, officers and patrol
men US may be authorized by the
City Council" aud further on in
said section provides that leach DO.
llcemun of said force may hold
his respective Office during the term
of good behavior or until said
Board, by majority vote, shall re
move him." But Gin this same sec
ton said Board is also directed to
appoint, with the approval of the
City Council, one Chief of Police
and such other assistants and oil
GERS as they may deem necessary,
who shall hold otlieo for the term of
two years." &c.
A clear distinction is now drawn
between the Chief and his assistants
| on the one hand and the policemen
OF the force on tho other, not only
with respect to their mode of ND.
polntment, but, what Is more im
portaut to this inquiry, the term of
their respective offices, making the
term of Office OF policeman dur
ing the term of good behavior or
until said Board, by majority
vote, shall remove him." while the
Chief and his assistants 'shall hold
Office for the term of two years."
But, even if the above contention
of counsel for the city were sound,
it does not fully meet the real
question in this case, which is: Did
| the defendant have right to hold
over alter expiration and exercise
| all the functions of his Office until
| his successor WAC qualified? 1t
seems to the Court that his consti.
tutional right to do SO ia undoubted.
| That defendant is State officer is
settled law in Virginia. Judge
| IN no 6 4,
III the case OF Burch vs.. Hnrdwicke
GO Graf, p.24). says: "rhe State, as
"a POLITICAL SOCIETY
ia Interested in the suppression Of
crime, and IN the preservation OF
peace and good order, aud in pro.
tecting the right OF persons and
property. The instru.
mentalitles by which these objects
are effected, however appointed, by
whatever name called, are agencies
| OF the State, and not of the munich
pallties for who they are appointed
or elected" Being then State
officer. what are his constitutional
rights to hold that office. and how
long do these rights exist?
THIS QUESTION IS SETTLED
by section 20 of article VI of the
Constitution, which provides that:
Judges and oil other officers elect
ed or appointed, shall continue to
discharge the duties of their Office
after their terms of service have eX
pred, until their successors have
qualified. The defendant, then.
not only had the right, but was
bound under the Constitutional re-
nulrement to hold over until his
successor was qualified. His sue
cessor had not qualified when this
warrant was issued aud he ut that
time had full power and lawful
right" to wear his uniform and OK.
ercise all tue functions of his Office
as Second Assistant Chief OF the 20
lice Department Of thIs city. The
appeal aud the warrant must be dis.
missed at the cost OF the plaintiff.
THE COST.
The cost in this case will have tc
be paid by Capt. Bolton, who gave
bond to Justice Burroughs to in
demnliy the city, AS reported when
the appeal was taken. Capt. Velliucs
Can now proceed to max the amount
OF SlSI. due HIM for salary during
the time he was Illegally debarreci
by the Police Commissioners from,
rendering the city service. The
Captain OF Police, who served dur
ing the time Capt. Vcllines was i'm.
properly withheld, cost the city 1914
and such amount as may he required
to dcfray the expenses Of trial. As
Capt. Bolton has given the bond he
Will be held only for $lS7 aud cost,