Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1913-01-18

In q sweeping decision rendered this
morning at Alexandria court house,
Judge Bennett I. Gordon of Nelson
county, named by Governor Mann to
decide the suit of Alexandria city for
additional territory dismissed the pc
tition and in consequence Alexandria
will be unable to extend it's boundaries.
Alexandria may take the case to the
Supreme Court.
The decision of Judge Gordon came
as complete surprise not only to the
attorneys for the city but Of those of
the counties, as we'll, who had conf
IDENTIFY expected that, in the least,
Alexandria would secure some addi-
tional territory.
Judge Gordon read his decision
which was all the way through de-
fense of his action in denying the
city's request. A careful reading Of
the decision by those who are familiar
with the case makes it seem impos-
sible that he could have arrived at
some of the deductions which he has
made.
Boiled down Judge Gordon's reasons
for refusing the petition are based on
four grounds as follows: lst The
population of Alexandria city has not
grown sufficiently during the past 30
years to warrant further territory.
2nd,i That the city is not in a congested
condition. as claimed but that there
is plenty of room within he present
limits for future development. 3rd.
That the financial condition does not
warrant further obligations and fourth
that he health of Alexandria is so
good that there seems to be but little
danger of an epidemic due to the lack
of sanitary provisions in the suburbs
Judge Gordon's decision was as fol
lows:
This proceeding pending in the Cir
cui tCourt of Alexandra County un-
der Virginia Code S. l0l4a has for its
object the annexation to the City Of
certain portions of the counties nam
ed as defined in the ordinance passed
by the Council of the said City. See
also Acts of Assembly LOO: p. ia.
Section of the Acts ccntemplates
first action on the part Of city or
town for the annexation ii territory
the necessity for or the cxpedicncy Of,
which together with the terms and
conditions upon which it is desired
to annex the same, as we'll as the pro-
visions made for its future manage
ment and improvement. are required
to be st fort hin ordinance,and second
action on the part of the resi-
dents of outlying adjacent territory
to be annexed to city or town.
1t would seem to be clear mas
much as notice is required to be Civ
en- to the movement in either case,
that the rights and material interest
of both the cities and counties are to
be considered and that annexation
would be ordered only when the re-
Quirements of the statute have been
complied with, and the evidence IN
troduced shows the necessity fos' or
the expediency of annexation, that
the terms proposed are reasonable and
fair, and the. provisions for future
MANAGEMENT just. Those in favor Of
annexation and those opposed to it,
each have rights that should be con-
sidered and respected. See Henrico
county VS.. Richmond LOG Va, at p.
295 & 299 49,.
Therefore it would seem that the
rule formerly obtaining as illustrated
in the case of Wade VS.. the City OF
Richmond 18 Graft, whereby ada
cent territory could, by act Of AS
sembly, be lawfully taken. into the
city limits. without respect to the
rights of the residents of the terri
tory so attached, must be considered
as abrogated.
The present procedure for annex
ing the outlying territory to a city
or town being purely statutory we
most look to our statues as interpre-
ted by the Supreme Court of Appeals
foc guidance in this important mater
(Henrico vs.. Richmond 1o6 Va,,l 2s2.)
Nearly if not all of the question: