Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-08-03
.tc., are limited to the confines

etc.. are limited to the confines Of
municipality, performs in the dis
charge of those duties any public SER
vice in which the people of the State
at large are interested. Within this
class would be, for example, the Com
monwealth's Attorney of a City, City
Sergeant, Police Officers, Police JUS
tice, unless his jurisdiction were limit
ed by law to trial Of violations of or
dinances Of the City, etc, He is mum
cipal offer whose duties relate purely
to municipal affairs, for example, At
torney for the City, Mayor, City Sur
veyor, the various heads of City de-
partments, members of Council, etc
It true IL contended iy the leaned
counsel for Lambert, that the Council
is legislative body, but it legislates
purely for the municipality in which
its members are elected, and the State
at large has no interest in such leg
islation, and it is not effected thereby
except insofar as the State is inter-
ested in the government of its various
subdivisions.
If the determination of the forego-
ing question is correct, it assists
somewhat in the determination of the
last, most difficult and most impor-
tant question submitted for decision,
that is whether, admitting that mem
bers of Council are municipal officers,
are they included in the provisions Of
the act of. February, 1906, or does
this act by implication repeal Sec.
1015, Code 1904.
Section 105 E. gives council the
right to fill vacancies for the full un-
expired term while the act of Febru-
ary 1906 states that in all municipal
Offices elective by the people council
can only fill the vacancy until the
first regular election.
The rule which has been laid down
by our Court of Appeals in innumer-
able cases, that statutes in pari mater
ia should be read and constructed to-
gether as if they formed part of the
same statute and were enacted at the
same time, and where here is dis
crepancy, or disagreement, among
them,, such should be reconciled, if
possible. 20 Graf. 329, 90 Va, 459,
rs Va, 274, 80 Va, 495, 100 Va, 25O
and in many other cases makes this
an exceedingly nice question in this
case, and one which cannot he definate
ly settled until the court Of last resort
has passed upon it.
"Under the foregoing decisions, |
recognize the duty upon the Court,
if possible, to reconcile the conflict
in these statutes, but apparently the
statutes are irreconcilably in conflict,
and this conclusion becomes more GER
tain if member of Council is NUM-
cipal officer, which we have undertaken
to show he is, for the title of the act
of 1906 is can ACT to authorize the
several cities and towns of this Com
monwealth to appoint officers, ETC.,
and to provide for the filing of va
cancies in ALL municipal Offices for
the unexpired term" While in the body
of the act this language is used, "in
case of vacancy in ANY MUNICIPAL
OFFICE ELECTIVE by the people,"
ANY, in the sense used meaning eve
ry, or all, or each one of all. Heaton
" Wright, N. Y; Howe. Prac. 79.
Purdy V. People, Hill, 3S4. No more
comprehensive language could be US
ed. Judge Moncure in Moore VS.. Va,
Fire and Marine Ins. CO. % Graft, p.
SIG says more comprehensive word
than "all" cannot be found in the En-
glish language. A member of Council
is one of the MUNICIPAL OFF,
GERS OF A TOWN ELECTIVE BY
THE PEOPLE. If Sec. 1015e had not
been on the statute books when the
act of 1906 was passed, clearly mem
Der of Council would come within the
purview of the act of 1906. There are
no qualifying words, and no exceptions
noted in the statute, the language US
ed is most comprehensive, it is broad
enough to cover and does cover MEM
bers of Council, if l am right in hold
ing that they are municipal officers
and elective by the people. To exclude
them, we must read an exception into
the stasute which does not appear
there. See Roanoke v. Blair, LOT Va,
639.
CHALONER COMING TOMORROW.