The Washington herald., 1913-01-19
Judge Gordon Rules that City
Has Enough Room in
Which to "Spread."
BAN ON ANNEXATION
An Appeal May FoIlow-Many Rea-
sons for the Decision Are
Given by the Court.

O. a.
ambition TO spread out and take in a part
OF Alexandria and Fairfax Counties was
shattered to-day when Judge Bennett T.
Gordon, of Nelson County, Va, who pre-
sided over the annexation proceedings,
came to the Circuit Court for Alexandria
and in an opinion handed down dismissed
the suit of the city for additional terri
tory.
Judge Gordon read his decision in the
case from the bench. His principal rea-
sons for refusing the petition as set
forth are practically as follows:
First, the population of the city has not
grown sufficiently during the past thirty
years to warrant further territory: sec
ond, the city is not in a congested con-
dition as claimed, but there is plenty If
room within the present limits for future
development; third. the financial condi-
tion does not warrant further obligations:
fourth, that the health of Alexandria is
so good there seems to be but little dan
ger of an epidemic due TO the lack OF
sanitary provisions in the suburbs.
The announcement of the decision of
the court in thu case came as a COM
plete surprise TO citizens generally, all
of whom had confidently expected that
the court would allow at least a part Of
the territory asked for by the city.
The city has a right to appeal the
case Whether or not this will be done
is problematical. This question is one
that now rests with the City Council, in
asmuch as an appropriation would have
to be made by that body for taking the
case to the higher court.
Judge Gordon quotes figures on the
population of the city, and says that
from 1885, to 1910. thirty years, the in
crease in population has only been
1.67o. The figures cited. he says fail to
show there is any need of an enlarge
ment of the city's territory necessary to
its accommodations.
The judge further states there is room
here for manufacturing plants and also
for dwellings of moderate size, suitable
for the working class. which. he asserts.
is most needed for the upbuilding of
town.
Testimony Is Quoted.
Tie quotes the testimony of f. C. Dunn,
city engineer, TO the effect that % per
cent of the present limits is not built up.
and also Of Harrie White that there are
$50 vacant parcels Of land in the city,
the major part of which are available
for dwellings for the poor class-laborers
and coIored people.
Referring to the city's ability to handle
the financial end of the proposition. he
cites the city has a bonded debt of $500
TO provide for. as well as its annual eN-
peRditure for ordinary purposes He
cites that the gross receipts last year
were S17S.S5O. including a temporary loan
of S25.O00. excluding the loan of sl53,5O0
and appropriations of Sli5. 7l5. according
he says, TO the report Of City Auditor
Price
Figures of II. X Field. chairman of the
finance committee. are given, together
with the testimony of J. Y. Williams,
member Of Council. and Or. w. NJ. Smith.
member OF the school board. The court
estimates that $4,000 additional to its
bundled Indebtedness would be incurred
by the city If annexation went through,
with estimated gross receipts of Sl5s,
OOH or s15S.OOO.
This the judge SAYS would mean an in
creased rate of taxation, to which. aC-
cording TO the testimony, the peOeple
will not submit. Proposed improy ements
would retard the work now going on.
the court says. The court further says,
that even II the LIB people living in the
territory proposed to be annexed for
mally lived here, it would not make an
neXation necessary. The court says: 1T
is a pregnant circumstance that practi-
Cally all of the residents of this outlying
territory. as well as number in the
city itself, opposed annexation. The first
named because they derived no benefits
that they do not enjoy in the way of
lights. water, police protection, schools.
roadwaYs, &c, but, on the contrary,
they apprehended s,-ious depreciation in
the value of their property by reason of
increased taxation and the possible OPEN
ing of saloons; and the second named,
because Of the belief that the city is now
making progress in the matter of streets
and sewers, which may be arrested by
assumption of the burden incident to the
proposed enlargement of the city bounds.
In conclusion the judge says: upon
the whole case. having a due regard to
the rights of those in favor of the eX-
tension and those opposed to ii, / am
of the opinion that the evidence fails to
show the necessity for or eXpediency of
anneXa ton at this time and that there
fore, the petition must be dismissed"
This case was heard September II last,
ard the hearing occupied more than two
weeks during which time 10S witnesses
were heard. The case was argued No
vember 1874, and Judge Gordon took it
under advisement.
This city was represented by Corpora
tion Attorney S. p. Fisher, assisted by
COmmonweslth's Attorney S G. Brent
and John NJ. Johnson. Representing
Alexandria County was Commemorative
Attorney Capt. Crandal Mackey. as
sisted by A. J. Montague and his brother,
Il. Lynch Montague, of Richmond. Rep
resenting Fairfax County was Common
wealths Attorney c. Vernon Ford. as
sisted by Attorneys Moore, Barbour,
Keith and Mckandish.
To Observe Lees Birthday.