Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1901-06-21
COMMUNICATED.
JUDGE NICOL's DECISION.

IL Is cOntenu8u Oh Douau VI 49,
Mayor that rule SO Ia in conflict with the
laws of the State aud is unreasonable
and therefore null and void. By ar
ticle section 20 oftbe constitution, the
Mayor Of q city Ia made the chief execH-
tive officer thereof, and as such many OF
his important duties are therein defined.
The legislature cannot impair or abridge
these duties and powers and, manifestly,
any legislation which would seek to
subject the Mayor to the regulations Of
the Board OF Police Commissioners 10
the discharge OF his constitutional du-
ties as the chief executive of the city
would be unconstitutional and void.
However, the legislature has not sought
to abridge or impair any OF the duties
or powers of the Mayor, but
in section 3S, of the charter,
fully recognizes them by placing
the police force under the control OF
the Mayor for the purpose of enforcing
peace and order, and executing the
laws of the State and the ordinances OF
the city,"
Under section 80 OF the charter the
Board of Police Commissioners can pre-
scribe rules and regulations for the
police force, which implies the power
to establish rules for the good order,
efficiency and discipline, but when this
has been done, when the police force
has been duly constituted as section IS
of the charter expresses it. 1t then pass
es under the control of the Mayor, IN
der section 38 for the purposes herein
expressed. The Mayor Is not member
OF the police force, but under the con-
stitution and laws OF the State he is the
head thereof for the purpose of protect
ing life aud property and the preserva-
ton OF peace and good order in his city.
and how he shall perform his duty, and
In what manner he shall communicate
with the police force, and on what oc.
casioDs, Ia not matter Of regulation by
the Board of Police missioners.
The board is not clothed by law with
any such power. But the injustice and
unreaso ns bleness of articles ! and 2 of
section 80 Ia manifold, when 1t is con-
sidered that q policeman ls subject to
removal by the board, and that is the
penalty denounced against him for re-
ceiving an order from the Mayor and
yet the Mayor, who is the offender
against the rule. Ia entirely beyond the
power of the board. But suppose the
policeman for fear OF dismissal declines
TO receive en- order direct from
the Mayor, what becomes OF
the control of the Mayor Of the
police forcsp and what more
pitiable spectacle could there be than
q Mayor 10 bis own city unable to give
an order direct to any policeman, from
the Chief down, at any time, day or
night. But 1t is urged that rule 30
makes an exception Sin case OF necessi-
lty demanding instant action on the
spot" Who ia to judge of "the necessi-
ty demanding instant action" the
Mayor or policeman Suppose the po-
liceman dissgrees with the Mayor, who
is to settle the controversy aud what
becomes of the order of the Mayor
pending the settlement OF the contro'
versyp Suppose, however. the police
man, not to humiliate the Mayor, re-
ceiyes bis order direct and obeys the
command, and ia dismissed from the
force, would not the otiense OF the
guilty fall upon the innoceutp But
suppose the policeman receives an or
der direct from the Mayor and in the
Judgment OF the Board of Po-
lice Commissioners it was not
case OF necessity demanding In
slant action, is the policeman to be re-
moved for an error of judgment on bis
part7 1t seems to me that should rule
50 be sustained the lot OF Q policeman
would be most deplorable, between the
Mayor on one side, with the power Of
suspension, aud the board on the Other
side, with the power OF removal. No
rule which makes the policeman the 10.
nocent victim between contendine
forces can be sustained as reason
able. After referring to susbori'
ties the Judge continues and save
No reference has been made to any
rule of any police board OF any city oil
to any decision of any court or to any
law which forbids Mayor to give 90
order direct to policeman or to re.
ceive communication direct from hin
In and concerning the peace and good
order of this city, and it is believed thai
none such exists. The Msyor is clothed
with authority to enforce peace and
good order In his city, and he Is respon-
sible to the wealth whose officer
he is az well as to the community which
elected him, for the manner In which
he executes his trust, and hence Of
necessity he must be uutrammelled 10
giving bis orders to the police force and
10 receiving information from any mem.
Der of 1t or from any other
source to protect the welfare and the
peace and good order Of his munich
pality. For these reasons l an oil
opinion that rule SO prescribed by the
said board Is not justified by law, and
that said board had no authority to
establish II, and it Ia unreasonable and
and should be declared null and void
and its enforcement perpetually en-
joined. X.