Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1912-10-12
TO ARGUE CASE
NOVEMBER 18th
Judge B. T. Gordon to Ad-
journ Court Until After
Election. !,
ANNEXATION C A S E
Counties Complete Their Defense
Witnesses Give Their Objections to
Coming Into the City.

An agreement has been reached
by the attorenys for Alexandria City
and Alexandria and Fairfax counties
with Judge Bennett T.Gordon, who is
hearing the annexation case at Alex
andria Court House, by which the
arguments will not be commenced
until November 18th. The delay in
the proceedings is to give Governor
Montague, who is one of the prin-
cipal attorneys in the casea an oppor-
tunity to fill important campaign en-
gagements which fhe made many
months ago. AS is we'll known, Gov
ernor Montague was recently nomin-
ated for Congress from the Fourth
District and it is imperative that he
take up his campaign work at once.
The case of the counties was COM
pleted today all the witnesses hav-
ing been heard. The consensus OF
opinion among every one at the court
is that Alexandria will win a large
portion, if not all of the territory
which she asked for.
Yesterday was largely taken up
with witnesses for Fairfax county.
j. w. Roberts, president of the Mu-
tual Fire Insurance Company Of
Alexandria City, but who resides in
Mount Vernon district, Fairfax coun-
ty, declared he was opposed to the
annexation of the proposed territory
to the city Of Alexandria. Mr.. Rob
erts said he and his sisters owned
about 1SO acres of land, part of which
was in the territory proposed to be
annexed. He said he owns no prop
erty in Alexandria City.
The witness declared the belief
that the annexation would raise
taxes, and that he did not believe any
benefit would be derived therefrom
Regarding the granting of liquor IL
censes in the territory if it is annex
cd Mr.. Roberts said it would be dis
astrous to the community, judging
from the past, when liquor was sold
in that section.
He declared that at that time there
was much more disorder than now,
The witness declared that order at the
present time is very good. He also
stated that he thought the property
on Fairfax county side was better
than that inside the City of Alex
andria
il. Loose president of the Wash
ington Florist Company, of Washing
ton, was another witness for the
counties opposing the annexation. Mr.
Loose said his company owns aDou'
ton acres of land and greenhouses in
the proposed territory. The witnes:
WAS opened to the annexation. he
said. because he did not see now any
benefits could be derived by the prop
erty owners, and for the further rea'
son that, in his opinion, there woule
be an increase in the taxation.
The witness contended that the sec
tion in which his company's land Il
located does not need any city I'M
provements. He went further am
declared that the improvements tner'
are now even better than is the prop
erty within the city limits.
Walter Roberts, whose residence i
in Fairfax county, but his place O.
business is in Alexandria City, ae
clared he did not see how the portioi
of Fairfax county within the proposed
territory would be benefited by th'
annexation. He said there was grea
deal of improvement to be done Win
in the city before it should be dom
outside.
The health conditions in West Emo
Va, which is in the proposed terri
tory, the witness declared, were abov'
the average. He testified also tha
the tax assessment in his territor.
were lower than those in the cit.
of Alexandria. Mr.. Roberts said hi
property there originally cost abou
100000, but that within the pas
twenty-five years it had depreciate
about SO per cent. in value.
On cross-examination the witnes
said this depreciation was due prir