Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1913-10-05
8 WEARIN CEN
AGAIN IS VICTOR
OVER TRUSTEES
Court Rules Jacksonville Mayor
Has Power to Suspend Police
Officers Who Neglect Duty.

| JACKSONVILLE, Oct. 4.-By a de-
cision of Judge Daniel w Simmons IN
Circuit Court Mayor Van C. Swear
ingen is again victor over the BoarI
of Bond Trustees in the court con-
| tests to determine who shall con
troll the Jacksonville police depart
ment.
Judge Simmons in the suit of Willie |
! N. Robertson, a policeman, against Sig
| Hess and other members of the board |
ruled that writ of prohibition must |
| issue, holding that the board has no
| authority to try members of the po-
| lice department, except upon charges
| made by the Mayor.
| Robertson was suspended by the |
Mayor for misconduct, but after his |
suspension had expired the board at
| tempted to arraign him on the same |
| charge. He sought and won the writ
of prohibition.
Judges Opinion.
In his opinion Judge Simmons says, i
in part:
This cause is now before the court
! upon the demurrers and returns of
| the parties defendant to the sugges
ton filed by the plaintiff, and in
wolves the right of the Board of Bond
| Trustees of the city of Jacksonville TO
| try a member of the police force with
| out charges having first been filed by
| the Mayor.
In the case of Dawson VS.. Hall,
| recently decided in this court IN
! in which it was decided the Bond
/ Trustees had such power, the Trus-
! tees had already taken jurisdiction OF
/ the case at law, and had set II tDr
/ hearing before the case was decided.
The only trial power ever con-
ferred upon the Bond Trustees by or
dinanCe, prior to the enactment OF
ordinance L-l04. was conferred by
section 231 of the City Code, which
provides that for certain offenses d
policeman shall be suspended, fined
or removed from office, in accordance
with the decision, of the Board Of
Bond Trustees, after a trial upon spe-
cific charges duly made in writing
1T is claimed that under this sec
ton Of the Code the Bond Trustees
have the right to remove, suspend or
I fine policemen upon any charge they
may care to entertain, from whatever
source received. This court decided
in the case of Dawson VS.. Hall that
/ section 231 Of the City Code was re-
Ipealed by ordinance L-104; but even
when 1t was in force, it could never
have been intended to give the Bon1
I Trustees any autoCratic or arbitrary
! power over the police force. It viii
be observed that even under the seS-
ton relied upon they had not power
to try except upon specific charges,
not merely made in writing but duly
made in writing
Power of Bond Trustees.
| Can it be reasonably contended
| that the Council intended to clothe
| the Bond Trustees with power to act
| f.
| torney, grand jury, petit jury and
| court? If so, it was very liberal
grant of power. The State Senate or
! Florida has no such power; neither
has the Senate of the United States.
"Then If the Bond Trustees must
| first have charges duly made in writ
! ing before they can proceed into such
! trials, by whom must these charges
be made? The original city charter
gave the Mayor the right to direct
| and control the police force, and an
amendment to the charter, made by
| the Legislature in 1899, empowered
| the CITY Council to establish gen
| eral provisions and requirements
| which shall be followed by the May T
! in the control, suspension ana re-
movaI of members of the police force,
| designating the causes OF grounds
| upon which members of the police
| force may, upon specific charges, he
! removed from office, and providing
| for the trial Of such charges before
| the Board of Bond Trustees.
| And so it seems clear that even
| the charter lays this duty OF suspend
| ing upon the Mayor, and so closeiy
links his power to suspend and MS
| duty to prefer charges that they ara
| inseparable. This being true, II FOL
| lows that as a matter of logical reA-
| soning. even undel section Z5l,
charges could be duly made only oy
! the Mayor. It can not be held, as
| contended by the defendants here
! that the Mayor and the Bond Irus-
/ tees have seDarate jurisdlctloh' ia
! such a system of discipline woulo
violate the principle of the laws that
matters can not be litigated again
after having once been tried ana
{ disposed of; and would bring INTO the
! administration of the police system so
much unrest and uncertainty ana 50
much petty pickering over questions
! of power and authority that It's use
! fitness would be all but destroyed.
| Riqht to Investigate.
.I+ 10 finally contended by the d.
i PENDANTS that, even II they have 10
power to fine, remove or suspend on
/ their own motion, they certainly nave
! the right to investigate charges ana
have bearings in to order to ascertain
I whether or not the accused Poli, e"i'I''
( is really earning his pay, and to de-
+ crease the amount of such pay in case
# be found that he is not earning At
This right is claimed under the char-
fer provision that the Bond Trustees
! shall control the compensation OF
members of the police department.
The charter provision merely
means that the Bond Trustees sndli
make a scale Of pay and not that they
: shall decker over price separately
/ with each man.
| After all, it comes back to the
! chief point involved in the case .,
Dawson VS.. Hall, namely:
That the Bond Trustees have no |
! power to try policemen except upon |
{ charges preferred by the Mayor.
| "This means that they have NJ |
right to call a policeman before them
/ to answer any charge whatsoever un-
( less he be first complained against
by the Mayor They have authority |
to make rules governing the conduct |
Of the men and officers OF the force