Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1901-05-06

WILL THE CITY COUNCIL PAY?-"The
Police Commissioners have engaged
counsel and now there Is to be legal
fight between themselves and the
Msyor--tbis time over trivial ques'
tion," aud sit must be remembered
that whether the Com missloDers or the
Mayor wins, the city looses every time.
Referring TO these extracts, quoted
from an editorial in the Gazette of the
End instant, City Auditor Price today
said II the attorneys were paid out OF
the city treasury it would be only upon
the order Of the City Council, and re-
called his action in 1897 when the
Mayor and Commissioners agreed to
disagree. That case, it will be remem
bsred, was heard before Judge Kei b
on March "a, prior TO which the
Auditor he'd conversation with the
gentleman then in the Mayors office
and stated that the city should not be
expected to pay counsel on either side,
as the City Council wss not party
to the controversy, ard could not be
made one without lis consent. The
Mayor admitted the Auditors position
to be a correct one land Council en-
dorsed it by subsequent lesislstion),
but added that of course he would
have to, through his attorney, defend
his action, and that If he was financially
able he would not ask the city to assist
him, but he would have to do so. On
May IL the City Council ordered the
payment of the Mayors attorney, but
considerable debate ensued over pay
ment of two bills of the Commissioners.
On May 25 Mr.. Cation introduced In
Council resolution sppropriatiDg $3.50
toward the contin2 gent expenses OF the
police board. He thought these bills
should be paid not directly by the
city but by the police board.
Mr.. John II. Greene agreed with Mr.. Cation
but he did not wish to recognize the authority
of the police board to bind the city. de
thought that the board should have referred
the m alter TO the City Council. Mr. WcCuen
did not see why it was needed to pay only
one lawyer on one side and two lawyers on
the other. He favored making the commits
sioners pay their own attorneys fees. a
month later, June %, when the resolution
was reported favOrsbly there was more de-
bate. In the Board of Aldermen Mr.. Bal
leneer said IF the $3.50 was for the purpose
of paying the two lawyers who went to Rich
mond to argue the case between the Mayor
and the police bosr1 he wss opposed to paying
the bills The commissioners should have
come to Council for advice, and inasmuch IS
they had acted without consulting Council
they should pay the bills themselves. Mr.
Burke said the members of the board had act
cd in good faith.
The resolution W passed, Mr.. Bsl'enger
giving evidence of his sincerity and consii-
tency 10 voting against it, Continuing, Audi
tor Price said "As Corporation Attorney
Boothe the law officer of the city, who is
elected to represent the City Council, when
under the charter the corporation is ito plead
and DO implesdei, prosecute and defend all
causes, complaints and actions. real, personal
or mixed, "wss not engaged in the controversy,
IL must be assumed tbst the MAYOR and COM
mis.ioners had arranged matters with their
attorneys, although he 1.-THE Auditory has had
no conversation with either upon the subject,
and consequently knows nothing of their in
tentions