The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-14
NEWS FROM ALEXANDRIA.

Corporation Court today Judge ]. X. Nor
ton rendered his opinion in the case of
Spinks VS.. Price. The judges opinion was
in effect that Mr.. Price is not eligible to
| hold the position of police commissioner
in this city and, at the same time. to
hold position under the United States
Government. Mr.. Price. it is understood.
will take an appeal from the decision.
writ of quo warranto was recently
filed for the purpose of testing Mr.. Prices
eligibility TO hold the two offices at the
same time. In his answer, Mr.. Price de-
MED that he held any office under the
United States, declaring that he is a ma
chinist at the navy yard in Washington,
receiving 40 cents an hour for his labor
1t was likewise alleged for the defence
that the section of the code given by the
plaintiff is in violation of the section CT
the constitution Of Virginia which de-
clares 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 con-
stitutiCnal.
The Commonwealth was represented by
Attorneys Leonard Marbury and Anthony
w. Armstrong. Mr.. Samuel G. Brent rep
resented Mr. Price. The decision Of Judge
Norton will not invaiidate any of the pre-
vious acts of the commissioners. The fCl-
lowing is Judge Norton's opinion:
This is Il quo warranto proceeding
sued out by the Commonwealth attor
ney. 1t is alleged that Frank Price is
disqualified to be 4 member of the Board
OF Police Commissioners of the city of
Alexandria because he is employed by
the Government OF the United States. and
receives emoluments or pay for his SER
vices as the wages for such employment.
These facts are admitted in Prices an
swer,
las is well known in the city of Alex
andria, the Beard of Police Commission
ers was formed in order that the police
of the city might be taken from all in
tiuence by reason of politics or other
wise, and be made practically indepen
dent in holding their Office during good
behavior. as long as capable of perform
ing their duties. That this hope has not
been realized will appear from the affi-
davit filed by MIR. Price in these proceed
inss. That affidavit sets out that whilst
these proceedings are, nominally, in The
name of the Commonwealth's attorney,
yet they were really Instituted by the
CONFERENCE.-The attorney at the request
of +. c. Spinks, jr., an ex-pofceman,
who was removed by the Board of Po-
lice Commissioners for fragrant violation
of tho rules laid down by it. and that
really, back of these proceedings are
James T. Smith, sergeant of the police
force. and George l.. Simpson, Mayor of
the city of Alexandria; and that the said
James I. Smith employed Mr. A. W. Arm
strong TO assist the Commemorative at
/ torney in the prosecution of these pro-
! ceedings. The facts set out in this aft
! davit are undenied.
THE object of the affidavit was to re-
univ IN, t1a-.a Ity,t-
( TO be made party, SO that a bond might
be required of him, the statute requiring
a bond of any individual at whose instance
/ the Commonwealth Attorney prosecutes
such proceedings: and the court was urged
TO require the Commemorative Attorney
to amend his quo warranto proceedings by
setting 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 uncon-
tradicted affidavit, that back of these pro-
ceedings against a member of the police
board are F. c. Spinks, jr., removed po-
liceman; James T. Smith. sergeant of the
police force, and George L. Simpson may
or OF the city of notwithstanding a
very unfortunate state. of affairs. 1t would
seem that the law creating the board of
police commissioners had largely failed of
its object when 1t shows a clash SO serious
that the mayor of the city, sergeant of the
police force, and removed policeman are
seeking to remove a member of the police
board 1t makes it perfectly clear that
the law needs some radical changes and
improvements to make 1t meet the objects
OF its passage. 1t may be that the court
has nothing to do with questions of this
sort, but II is the duty of the court to pre-
sent the case just as it appears from the
record. 1t is a matter of sincere regret
that it is necessary to pass upon the ques-
ton raised, but the issue having been
made, that duty, however unpleasant, must
be performed.
Section 1853 of the code OF 1887 is as
follows: No person shall be capable of
holding any Office or post mentioned in
the preceding section who holds any Of
flee or post Of profit, trust or emolument
civil or military, legislative. executive,
or judicial, under the Government of the
United States, or who is in the employ
ment of such Government. or who re-
eeives from IL in any way any e.no,uaaeat
whateNerr and she acceptance OF any suct,
ONCE, post, trust, or emolument. or the
acceptance Of any emoiument whatever
under such Government, shall ipso facto
Tacate any Office or post of profit. trust
or emolument under the government of
this Commonwealth, or under any county
city, or town thereof
1T is contended for the respondent
that this section of the code is In con-
hict with Article III, section 2, of the
constitution of Virginia. That section
provides that all elections shall be by
ballot. and all persons entitled to vote
} S2z2ll BE o2SgilSSG 60 aAy oGSee ysifSss, SSe
gift of the people except as restricted
| in this constitution
The Legislature, in 1884 passed an
act providing for the election by the
! General Assembly of city and county
electoral boards. acts 1881, p. 1907
The act provides that they should be
freeholders.
! In Black rs. Trower f79 Virginia, 1898,
I the act was held TO be unconstitutional
/ because the freebooter requirement con-
! ficted with the above provision of the
constitution.
However. this court might feel that
! that opinion was not sustained by the
cases cited. and however much this court
might be Of the opinion that this provision
Of the constitution relates only TO what
may be called public or State officers. and
applies, according to its very language,
| only to those officers elected by ballot or
| such as were named and provided for in
| the constitution itself. yet this court would
! be compelled TO follow this case under
| like facts
Il do not think, however. that the above
| provision Of the constitution applies to a
| police commissioner of the city OF Alexan :
! dria. Though it may be held that TO be a
member Of county or city electoral board
/ is an office within the gift of the people
though elected to the office by the Legis-
lature. and unnamed in the constitution
Itself. yet it does not follow that the Of