Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-07-27
JUDGE TO DECIDE
COUNCIL CASE
Takes Barrett-Lambert Pro-
ceedings Under Ad-
E yisement.
AN INTERESTING CASE
Question Thoroughly Thrashed Out in
Corporation Court Yesterday BY
Judges Norton and Nicol

The arguments in the quo warranto
proceedings instituted by Robert S.
Barrett against City Councilman Ur-
ban S. Lambert t. secure a seat in
common council, to which he claims
he was elected last June, were brought
to conclusions in the Corporation
Court late yesterday afternoon.
Judge Chichester, of Fredericks-
burg, who was designated by Governor
Mann, took the case under advise
ment and said that he would render
his decision sometime during the next
week.
The arguments of the two attorneys,
Judge Nicol for Mr.. Barrett and Judge
Norton for MIR. Lambert in which they
gave their views of the legal position
of the two contestants were thorough
and most interesting to the audience
who were familiar with many Of the
phases of the controversy. AS outlined
in the Gazette yesterday afternoon
Judge Nicol in his opening address
reviewed the facts leading up to the
securing of the quo warranto. He did
not argue the question more than to
call the attention of the Court to some
of the leading points which he elabo-
rated upon when he answered Judge
Norton.
Judge Norton had presented combi
ned demurrur and answer but as all
the facts were agreed upon, his entire
argument was upon the demurrur.
Judge Norton's arguments were con-
fined to five principal grounds why MIR
Barrett is not entitled to a seat in
Council. In the first place, he claimed
Mr.. Barretthas not been prevented by
Council from exercising his duties. The
mere fact that the majority in Council
had not agreed with the presiding
officer, who declared Mr.. Barrett to be
entitled to the seat held by Mr.. Lam
bert did not constitute refusal on
the part of Council to seat Mr.. Bar
rett.
His second point was that the act
of 1906 under which Barrett claims ne
was elected, does not cancel section
1O15 E of thecode which provides that
Council shall fill all vacancies in It's
body for the full unexpired term.
On this point Judge Norton madean
elaborate explanation of the number
of conflicting statutes on the sub
iect of vacancies and showing that the
State legislature reached definate
and final conclusion when it passed
the exhaustive act in relation to city
officers, of which section 1O15 E is
part. He could not see how the Leg
islature, three years later would pass
an entirely conflicting act. He rather
held that the two statutes were not
in conflict. the first referring to vac
ancies in Council and the latter TO
all other vacancies.
The third point was the most I'M
,ort,nt of those advanced by HIM
and the one to which he devoted tne
,orcor mart of his two hour argument
was based on the theory that mem,
bers of Council are not munlclpa'
officers and cannot, therefore be IN
cluded in the section Of the cooe
which was passed in 1906. He spoke
at great length on this point, quotihe
many authorities. He agreed that
member of Council performed man!
municipal duties and in that respec'
only was he a municipal officer; pu'
a Councilman performed certain state
functions which made him state OIL
Ger as well. He cited a well-knowr
decision of the Supreme court which
held that policeman was state Off
Ger and not municipal officer.
But admitting that the law of l9O'
was effective, continued Judge Morton
in taking up his next point, Mr.. Bar
mtt was not entitled to seat II
Council because the election of Jun
18th was not a valid one. The laN
saws that when an election to fill
vacancy is to be held writ OF eiee
ton must be issued and this was nc
done.
The last point made by Judge MOI