Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1900-10-13
COMMISSIONERS PRICE DISQUALI-
FLED


Commissioner Frank Price to hold |
the Office Of commissioner while at the |
same time employed by the United
States government.
Mr.. Price, 10 his answer, denied that |
be held any Office under the United
States, declaring that he is machinist |
at the navy yard in Washington, re-
ceiViDg 40 cents an hour for bis labor.
1t was likewise alleged for the defense
that the section of the code given by
the plaintiff is in violation OF the sec
ton Of the Constitution of Virginia
which declares that all persons qualified
TO vote shall be qualified to hold Office.
Judge Norton held that Mr.. Price
is ineligible and that the section above
quoted is constitutional. Messrs.
Leonard Msrbury and A, w. Arm
strong represented che Commonwealth,
and Mr.. s. G.. Brent represented Mr..
Price.
Ii is understood that an appeal will
be taken.
The following is Judge NOrton's opin-
ion:
In the Corporation Court OF the city OF
Alexandria, Virginia.
Commonwealth non Quo warrsnto pro-
Frank Price. oeedings.
This is a quo warranto proceeding
sued out by the Commemorative At
torney. 1t is alleged that Frank Price
is disqualified to be member of the
Board of Police Commissioners Of the
city of Alexandria, because he is EN-.
ployed by the government of the
United States, and receives emoluments
or pay for his services as the wages for
such employ These facts are sd-
mitte1 in Prices answer.
As is we'll known in the city OF Alex.
andria, the Board of Police Commits
sioners was formed, 10 order that the
police of the city might lie taken from
al influence, by reason of politics or
otherwise, and be made practically in
dependent in holding their Office dur
ing good behavior, as long as capable
of performing their duties. That this
hope has rot been realized will appear
from the affid ivit fled by Mr.. Price in
these proceedings. That affidavit sets
out that whilst these proceedings are,
nominally, in the name of the Com.
monwealth's Attorney, yet they were
really instituted by the Common
weslth's Attorney, at the request of F.
&. SpiDks, jr., an ex policeman, who was
removed by the Board of Police Com
missioners for fragrant violation of the
rules laid down by it. and that
really, back Of these proceedings,
are James L. Smith, sergeant of
he police force, and George L.
simpson, Mayor Of the city of Alex
audria; and that the said james 7.
Smith employed Mr.. A. w. Armstrong
to assist the Commemorative Attorney
10 the prosecution of these proceedings.
The facts set out 10 this affidavit are
undenied.
The object OF the affidavit was to re.
quire the real mover in these proceed
Ings to be made party, SO that bond
might be required of him, the statute
requiring "A bond Of any individual at
whose instance the Commonwealth
A torney prosecutes such proceedings;
and the court was urged to require the
Commonwealth Attorney to amend
nis quo warranto proceedings, by set.
ing out at whose instance they were
prosecuted. Under the statute the court
did not have power to require this.
Thus it would appear. from the IN.
contradicted affidavit, that back of these
proceedings against a member of the
police board are +. O. Spinks, it,, re-
moved policem an, James I. Smith, SER
geant OF the police force, and George L.
simpson, Mayor of the city of Alexan-
dria-certsnly very unfortunate state
of affairs. Il would seem that the law
creating the Board of Police Com mis-
soners had largely failed of its object,
when it shows a clash so serious that
the Mayor of the city. sergeant OF the
police force, and removed policeman,
are seeking to remove member OF the
police board. II makes 1t perfectly clear
that the law needs some radical changes
and improvements TO make it meet the
objects of its passage. 1t may be that
the court has nothing to do with ques-
tons OF this sort, but 1t is the duty
OF the court to present the case just as
il appears from the record 1t Is mat
ter of sincere regret that it Is necessary
to pass upon the question raised, but,
the issue having been made, that duty,
however unpleasant, must be per-
formed.
Section 163 OF the Code OF 1887 is as
follows: mo person shall be capable
of holding any office or post mentioned
10 the preceding section, who holds
my Office or post of profit, trust, or
emoumeot, civil or military, leglsla.
i've, executive. or Judicial, under the
government of the United States, or
+ho is 10 the employment Of such gov
ernment, or VINO receives from it 10
any way any emclument whatever,
and the acceptance OF aDy such office,
post, trust, or emolument, or the &C.
eepianoe Of any emolument whatever
under such government, shall, ipso
tacto, vacate any Office, or post OF
profit, trust, or emolument under the
government OF this Commonwealth, or
under any county, city, or town |
thereof"
IL is commended for the respondent |
that this section of the code is in con-
fl ct with Article 3. Section 2, of tie
Constitution Of Virginia. That section |
provides that sail elections shall be by |
ballot, snd all persons entitled 10 vote |
shall tie eligible to any Office within the
gif- OF the people except as restricted |
10 this constitution"
The Legislature, 10 1884. passed an
act providing for the election, by the
general assembly, of city and county
elec oral boards. (Acts 1884, p. 1907
The act provides that they should be
FREE holders.