Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1913-06-30
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
u Continued from Page One

a committee or board, by vote Of
such committee or board, or where
such appointment is by the mayor OF
head of department, such removal
may be by order Of the mayor OF
head Of department. In case of
vacancies occurring in any municipal
position so authorized to be filled
qualified person may be appoint
ed to fill such position for the un-
expired term by the, proper appoint
ing power; and in case of vacancy
in any municipal Office which is cleo
tive by the people, if there be no
general election during the uneXpir-
ed term at which such vacancy can
be legally filled. the city or town
council may elect qualified person
to fill such vocancy until qualified
person can be elected by the people
and shall have qualified for the next
succeeding term, or when such gen
eral election does occur during the
unexpired term at which such vac
ancy can be filled. such city or town
council shall elect qualified person
to fill vacancy until qualified
person is elected TO fill such vacancy
at such general election and shall
have qualified
The act of February II, 1906,
does not expressly repeal section
1O15-e Of the Code. Does it do so
by implication?
~ 1t is we'll settled that the repeal
Of statute by implication is not
favored by the courts. The pre-
sumption is always against the in
tentiOn to repeal where express
terms are not used. TO justify
the presumption OF an intention to
repeal one statute by another. the
two statutes must be irreconcilable.
If, by fair and reasonable con-
struction they can be reconciled,
both must stand Fulkerson V.
Bristol, 50 Va; |, 5, and authorities
cited.
II members of the city council
of Alexandria are municipal officers
within the meaning of the act Of
February II, 1906. there can be no
Question thar the provisions of that
act and the provisions of section
1015e OF the Code are in irreconcil
able conflict, and that section Of the
Code must be regarded as repealed
by the act Of February II, 1906. The
question. therefore, to be determin-
ed is, whether they are municipal
officers within the meaning of the
last named statute.
1t is not easy, as was said in
Burch V. Hardwick, 80 Graft. f1
Val. "a. 33-4. to define them Getty
officers or municipal officers) in all
cases; but there are many such pro-
vided in the charters OF many Of the
cities of the State. Among these
are, perhaps, City engineers and sur
veyorS. officers having superintend-
ence and control Of streets. parks,
water works, gas works, hospitals.
sewers, cemeteries, city inspectors,
and no doubt many others well
known in large cities. Their duties
and functions relate exclusive TO the
local affairs of the city, and the city
alone is interested in their conduct
and administration. On the other
hand, there are many officers. such
as city judge, sergeant. clerk, Com
mon%ealth's attorney treasurer,
sheriff. high constable, and the like.
some Of whom are recognized by the
Constitution while others are not.
All these are generally mentioned as
CITY officers. and they are even so
designated in the Constitution. but
they are not removable by the may
or. The reason is, that while they
are elected or appointed for the city
S1h while their jurisdiction is con-
fined to the local limits, their duties
and functions, in measure. con-
Germ the State. They are State ag-
encies or instrumentalities, operating
to some extent through the medium
of city charters in the preservation
however paid. they are as much State
ment. However elected or appointed
of the public peace and good govern
officers as constables, justice of the
peace and Commonwealth attorneys
whose srisdictFon lis confined TO
particular counties, See also Nit
chell V. Witt. Judge, 9S Va, 4'7;
Smith V. Bryan. Mayor 100 Va. 1873;
| Dillon Nun. Corp. t5th edD,. Sec
OF; McQuillan Nun. Corp sec
IFS.