Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1902-03-13
JUDGE LITTLEJOHN
FULLY SUSTAINED,
Supreme Court Gives Decision In
Police Case.
VICTORY FOR THE COMMISSION
Important Case is Thus Disposed of
and Mayor and City Council Majori-
tY Cannot Interfere With Police
Force.

EOcC6,
The decision of the supreme courtin
the case of Mayor and City Council OF
Americas vs. Perry ct al Commission
was handed down yesterday, and af-
firms in every particular the judgement
recently rendered by Judge Littlejohn.
The case arose in this way; in $780,
the charter of the city was amended,
one of the provisions being that q
board of Police Commissioners was pro-
vided which board had full power and
authority to elect police officers for the
city. The power to fix the number of
policemen and their pay was vested in
the Mayor and City Council.
The Boprd of Police Commissioners
acted under the authority vested in
them by appointing police officers az
required therein.
This law was acquiesced in by former
administrations, and was understood
to be the law until recently, namely,
on Jan. Goth, last, when the Mayor
and three members of council, Alder
men G. j. Sherlock, Lynn Fort and
J. r. Hudson, undertook to enact GER
tain ordinances in which it was pro-
posed to abrogate the Board of Police
Commissioners and take from them the
power to appoint police,
1t also undertook to abolish the Office
of Chief Police, and to provide for the
election of police officers by the Mayor
and City Council. Three members of
the council, Mayor Protein Glover and
Aldermen j. B. Hudson and j S. Boil
ton refused to cooperate with the may
or and the other members of council in
their effort to abolish, or abrogate the
Board of Police Commissioners.
Notwithstanding this division in
council; the ordinances were adopted
by vote of four to three.
The mayor, as the executive head Of
the council, undertook to carry into
effect the ordinances so adopted, direct
ing a letter 10 Chief of Police COM
manding him to assemble his men at
the council chamber at a stated time so
that he might know whether they
would recognize the authority of the
Mayor ana City Council under the
new ordinances.
Thereupon the Police Commission in
their official capacity and as citizens
and tax payers, presented to Judge
Littlejohn their petition for Injunction,
claiming that they were, under the
charter of the city, authorized to ap-
point policemen, etc. and praying that
the mayor and council be enjo1ned
from interfering in the legal discharge
of their duty; and that said body be
enjoined from interfering with the
policemen elected by them.
The mayor and three members of
council who had co-operated with him,
engaged the services of eminent coun-
sci, who demurred to the petition of
the plaintiffs upon various grounds,
the main grounds beng: that that por-
| blOu VI lL1O S1hA LCA Vi GIC CAN W1lC1
provided for police commission was
unconstitutional and void; and that a
court of equity had no jurisdiction { t
the subject matter of the cause.
Judge Littlejohn oYerruled the con-
tentions of the defendants, and passed
an order on the 18th, ult, permanently
epjoining the Mayor and City Council
as prayed for in the petition.
This ruling Of the circuit court was
excepted to by the city authorities and
the case went to the supreme court
upon 'fast" bill of exceptions, and
the decision was handed down yester-
day.
AS before stated, the ruling of Judge
Littlejohn was affirmed, and it is now
settled that the power to elect or APP
point police officers and policemen is
vested in the Board of Police Commits
sioners, and not in the Mayor and City
Council of Americus.
1t is distinctly decided by the higher
court "that if the Mayor and City
Council have any authority to appoint
police force, such authority can not
be exercised unless the Board of Police
Commissioners fails or refuses to pro-
vide the city with an efficient police
:, force"
The citizens have watched the pro-
gress of this case with unusual interest,
and it is the hope of the more conserva-
tive of them that the issues are finally
settled and will be accepted in good
faith by both sides, as a continuation
of the controversy will create confusion
and much other additional expense.
which will have, ultimately, to be
borne by the taxpayers.
It Is said that a goodly sum has al
ready been, or will be, expended in
= the way of court costs, attorneys fees,
etc.