Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-03-29
COMMISSIONERS SUSTAINED.


pcnsion.---The Judge Also Decide
the Commissioners Have No Power
of Suspension, Nor is there any Law
Compelling the Mayor to Kepor
Cases of Suspension to the Board
though, he says, i'll the Interest O.
Harmony he should do so.
The decision of Judge Keith in the
controversy between the Mayor and
the Police Commissioners reached thi;
city yesterday morning, and immediate.
ly became the theme of general con.
versation. The substance of the de.
cision is given in the head lines to this
article and the full text below. 1t will
be seen that the Judge has reviewed
the three propositions submitted 10
him. The most important one-the
power to review and revoke the
Mayors action-is conceded to the
commissioners, but he sustains the
Mayor in his standpoint that he and
not the board has the power of suspen-
sion and that there is no law compel.
ling him to report his action to the COM
missioners, though he is of opinion that
in the interest of harmony and good
government he should do 80. All
parties interested breathe freer now the
issue is settled, as it was one which
would sooner or later have been sprung
by some Que in the Mayors Office, and
the speedy disposition of it. instead Of
allowing it to drag its slow length
through several courts, is thought to
have been the best way to settle the
trouble. AS may have been expected,
now that the controversy has been
settled, all sorts of opinions are express
ed as to the course that should be pur-
sued by both the Mayor and the COM
missioners. The latter from the first
have said that they purposed sustaining
the Mayor if they believed he had been
treated with contempt; but his refusal
to allow them TO review the case pre-
cipitated their action. The parties d.
rectly concerned in the controversy
have never allowed it to interfere with
their social relations, and there is a dis.
position on all sides to act in concert,
each conceding the courtesies due the
other. The following is the full text of
Judge Keith's opinion:
The questions to be determined are as
follows:
81. in the event OF the suspension of
an officer by The mayor for period
not exceeding thirty days, is such sus-
pension operative and valid during the
whole period or does it only continue in
force until such board of police commits
sioners convene and take action in the
matter? In the event that said board
does convene and take action, has it or
not the right TO review the action OF the
mayor in respect to such suspension,
and if it should decide that such sus
pension was not warranted, would its
order be operative from its date only,
or would it supersede the mayors &C.
ton in suspending said officer?
~, Can the board of police commits
sioners, under the authority conferred
to remove policeman, suspend him;
in other words, does the power to re-
move include the lesser power OF sus-
pension?
"3. In the event of the suspension of
a police officer Ivy the mayor, is it or
not his duty to report the fact of such
suspension to the board of police COM
missioners
"The answer to the first question
propounded depends upon the con.
struction of the act approved March is,
1894, amending section 81 of the chart
er of the city of Alexandria. By that
act the board of police commissioners,
created and organized under Sec
tons 50 and So of the charter, were
authorized to select from the electors of
the city of Alexandria chief and lieu
tenant of police, and to elect such num-
Der policeman as may be authorized by
the city council and to fill any vacancy
that might thereafter occur in the police
force. 1t is provided that the police
force thus constituted shall hold their
respective positions during good be-
havior or until they may be severally'
removed by the said board for cause,
after such investigation as the board
may deem necessary. 1t will thus be
seen that the number of the police force
is to be determined by the city council;
the persons composing it are to be Sc
Iected by the board of police commits
sioners, who are clothed with the power
of removal for cause. With respect to-.
these provisions there is no difference
of opinion. The controversy arises over
the following language:
1.-The mayor of the city of Alexandria
shall have the power and authority to
suspend the chief, lieutenant, or any
policeman for misconduct in Office for a
period not to exceed thirty days, or un-
I'll such board shall convene and take
action in the matter
"The contention of the mayor is, that
this confers upon him the power to sus-
pend, absolutely, for period not to ex-
coed thirty days; that the power thus
conferred, when exercised by him,
is judgment rendered against
the offending officer or policeman
for the misconduct in Office with
which he is charged; that it is not
subject to the review of the board of
police commissioners, and that the
words or until such board shall con-
vene and take action in the matter
does not constitute limitation upon
his power of suspension for thirty days:
or confer upon the board of police COM
missioners any authority to review his
| Judgment, but is to be construed as
vesting in MIN the power of suspension
in the alternative either for period
not to exceed thirty days, or until the
board shall convene and take action.
in this view am unable to concur
I The Language seems to me plainly and
clearly to limit his power to suspend in
~