The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-04-20
'N|ASU|R||.I|[..R'| law
DECLARED VOID.
Judge Witt Sets Aside Or.di-
nance Preventing Political. A 4sl,'.-s
tiyity Of City Employees.
Will co TO HIGHER COURT
City Attorney Notes IS E Z. r
and Will W, Take X, Case Up
Later On.


and Will VI, Take Case Up
Later On.
fudge s.. b. witt, OF the Hastings Court,
Yesterday rendered d dcclsion in the case
q tho city Of Richmond VS.. Lynch a a9llL
Duke, involving lie validity 9 the tlnlous
Masurler OF lnance recently passed by TIE Y ~
Council and designed to prevent persons
holding positions under the city govern.
,ncnt from holding seats IN party com com
mitteca or acting az officers OF elections
rho court declares the ordinance null n III
md void ana cltcu decisions of other IBID
un,lls to s,istain his contention on Sl 'ys
Attorney Pollard. on behalf OF the TN Guy,
noted exceptions and VIII take thc casc
to the Supreme Court. MeanWhile '.i ihs,el
= n ecte a. NJ tho ordinance viii continue
IN hold their seats iii the State ana CITY
Committees. s.. 4. i's5ti
Judge Wits Decision.
THO I full text Of Judge Wits opinion IN
clty sS 81 Richmond
as4f We. KS ss{5} M
S j.. j. Lynch I, !. I. !, aoa s5.
/ cityiiof Ricllnordl 3.5s
SsS'tf meal from Police Justice 81. NH '5
On 4tlln'7thS day fof November. 1901 q
s,,mmona Vas Issued by Tie 7 POLICE jus
tfcc OF the city OF Richmonn, .coin n.,,y
hs should not be fined
ordinance npproved July 49, 1901, by yslf1ich
i lis ordained 81 shall not !,e law
ful FOR any city official cmplo me n.
ber &c any municipal board In on1,ectio On
5s ,vi IN thaiAcIty government, 10 serve az
s iiiflge. registrar or clerk ut any eiec-
Or 1rlmars nI "a
,ihat s'i tho said Lynchsi vlolhfion ofs the
above mentioned ordi,anss BENG a.y
81 tho said city, did on the - day |, o., Q
d October, 8 9oi serve Sas q member Or Inc "
state Democratic Committee. Y. g
committee ofka politt cal pa It
On thoS same day a. like summons was
issued against " tier G. DUKE. clars3l1hls
that he being melnb OF the q. go llss
Board 9f ttees1,SS. sefSu U 81 the
City. Democratic I, Commute that being
d standing committee o tical par,
THE penal clause or the Ordinance. aes
cla rcs that should any ~ Of the part!es
above mentioned be convict cd they should
he :ftneG not lcss than ten nor more 3tha p
FSfIfty dollars, and SUCH conviction s i
operate as g iscliargs troil' o'1ee RI
& ss .'ri,s: nnrtics duly appeared in answer
Il 10 the summons md we're fined len
by the oice nn saI ea e this
court. and BY consent The Gu usess arg =
heard together. Is I'D d, /,
The defendants moved 70 i ,, ~
VI tice. supon tie ground that the city ordi-i
nance nan; appr re, Juiy uncon-
stitutionai, ssnull and void,
.s Double Penalty,
The ordinance presc,4bes q double pen;
alty;$trst. u fines and &c como, y ior1e IS
The Iii question of forfeiture Will be con,
sidcred 1 FIRST. The defendant Duke holds s1al
81 ffie M shafsar ISL
Il ing the Police Board, and also declares &c ares
If how the members are to be elected eli ana
how bo yemgy a sya ret tle
members Of the board can only be re-
members Of the City Council tsee els
The defendant, John ]. Lynch. holds his
sofiice ,is1 member Of the council by virtue
SorS an election in i fferson Ward, IN the
city Of Richmond anh 6 =,
Il a ,nember of the council may pc tufnea
out--namcly by a vote Of two.thlrds q
It's members (see charter OF city OF
81 In 5Loutfan vs.. Commonwealth q Nt..
at page 20G.f In discussing tho squestio lon OF
the removal OF officers, the court says;
n .'The Constitution rproyid hoSsn1eth
z! Of his removal, and tho eglslature can :.
q not remove him n a different met nod, by
Il creating Il new % ffico and su bmltting the
b. o11estio to any other tribune l.'s III NJ
b It will sl1n seen then thai IN this case tVe
nrc confronted with nn ordinancef Of the
~ city Of Richmond which sets aside both
thc charter OF The city and the act !. OF
cxpellIng from Tho council stnI the one
case and removing from the board In the
other, by n majority vote (forS It; Is only
"A takes n majority vote to II lis ordinancel
men whom the higher lay has Ordained
vote. am sof opinion that this portion
OF tho ordinance being in conflict. with
beth the statute law of the State and
IA the charter tcs the city Is unconstltu-'
tlOnal, null and void.
8Ss5s55s NotfWi thout Remedy.
Tho council Is not without 1T. remedy.
III II Duke and Lynch have commit ted any
Z act unworthy OF the positions they hold
1t Is entirely within the province of that
body 70 remove them 81 the law permits
Tho second part Of the penal clause,
~ or rather OF the, question argued, Ii
Is Wlet her 9or2nOt the city has a right ut
4, all to make n crime OF such acts rs are
mentioned In this summons. toswlt, the
participation In the political Affairs OF
the State by those who may hold city or
8 State offices. gg ks n VII III 3i
The cltyfattorney has argued with great
q ability and force that such q right Is
vested In the council by virtue Of the
police power of the municipality, and a
large number OF authorltles 3liayo been
= =. 20 = - = I,