Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1897-03-25

THE MAYOR AND POLICE COMMITS
sIoNERs.-The controversy which has
been going on for some time between the
Mayor and the Board of Police Com.
missioners of this city, and which has
been the subject of considerable inter
est, was laid before Judge James Keith,
President of the Supreme Court of APP
peals, fer decision yesterday. The
question involved is the right of the
board to reinstate q police officer sus-
pended by the Mayor. Corporation
Attorney Brent and Col. l.. G. Barley,
representing the Mayor, and Col. f. L.
Smith and Mr.. A. w. Armstrong, as
counsel for the Police Board, appeared
before the Judge, in chambers,
in Richmond. The conference which
ensued was purely private, but
the lawyers speDt two hours ar.
guing their contentions before
the Supreme Courts President The
questions Of difference arose 10 the con.
struction of certain acts of the General
Assembly, amending the charter of the
city Of Alexandria, and Involving the
management and control of the Police
Department OF this city Prior to the
acts of 1898 '94 the police department
was under the control and manage
ment OF The City Council TIE police
men were elected hy that body
every two years, and by an act passed
in 1892 the Mayor was authorized to
suspend or remove any police officer fer
misconduct in office or neglect of duty,
and 10 the event OF the removal OF any
police officer, he was directed to COM
muuicate the facts with his reasons to
the CITY Council without delay, that the
vacancy might be filled. But in the
event OF the suspension vi q police Off
Ger Ee was not required to make any
such report. During the session of1S93-
~ the charter OF the city was so amend
cd as TO establish police board for
the government and management of
the police force. In the argument be-
fore Judge Keith his Hoaor's attenticn
WAS called to the charter OF the cities Of
Lvnchburg and Norfolk, which autho
rio the Mayor of each city to suspend
any policeman rom office until the
Board of Commissioners shall convene
and take action in the matter" It.
seems that the board relies largely
upon this point but the other side
looks at il somewhat differently. The
authority vested in the mayor of
the city of Alexandria, it is contende',
is different from that of the Mayors OF
the other two cities named, and coun-
sci for the Mayor urged that if the
Legislature had deemed it proper to
take away from the Mayor of tho city
of Alexandria the power of suspension
vested in him by the act of 1891 -'92, I'M
til the Police Board had convened o:
taken action in the matter, it would
have said so in clear and distinctive
terms as it did in the charters Of Lynch
burg and Norfolk. An intent to change
Oh existing law should fully appear and
statutes should not be so construed as
to interfere with rights previously
granted by the Legislature until the in
tent to do so was clear. 1t is claimed
by counsel for the Mayor that the sec.
ton Of the act which Judge Keith is
asked to construe invests but one power
that of removal-in the Board Of Po-
lice Commissioners, while the power of
suspension is exclusively vested in the
Mayor, who is the chairman of the
board and has charge of the police
force for the preservation of peace, the
enforcement of the laws, and the good
order of the city. While counsel on
both sides are confident the law is with
them, Ju ige Keith gave no intimation
whatever as TO who he regarded as cor
rect. An opinion is not expected until
next week.