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

to be determined under the provisions
Of this act are questions of fact. The
powers so much inveighed agains tin
the court to determine necessity for
or expedency of annexation IS con-
| trolled by the existence OF facts and
circumstances justifying action the
necessity for or expediency Of en-
largement is determined by the health
of the community, its size, its
crowded condition, its past growth
and the need, in the reasonably fu-
ture for development and expansion.
These are matters Of facts and when
thew so exist as to satisfy the judi
cial mind of the necessity for or eXpe-
diency of annexation then in accord
ance with the provisions of the act
the same must be declared.
In the able arguments. both oral
and in writing submitted by the learn
ed counsel for the City of Alexandria,
the Court was referred to number
of text writers and decisions Of the
highest courts in other jurisdictions
| which have been carefully considered
so far as acres has been had to them
They seem in the main to be based
on local statutes although there are
certain general principles announced
to which regard should be had to
| proceeding of this nature in so far as
they do not conflict with our local.
statutes as construed by cur twa
court of Appeals which in addition to
the grounds above enumerated has
held that the bounds Of the city
should be enlarged or diminished as
may be proper in view of its financial
ability. I'D. 29l.)
The record in this case is voluml-
nous Besides the mass of documen-
tary evidence, upwards Of one nun
Jred witnesses were examined before
the court, the transcript of whose tes-
timony covering 1922 typewriter
| paces has been attentively reviewed.
| The court has also the benefit OF
view of the city and of the terri
tory proposed to be annexed, as we'll
as exhaustive arguments OF counsel.
No effort will be made to analyze the
evidence introduced, witness by wit
J ness. 1t would be impossible to do so
in the limits of his opinion, nothing
further will be asSayed than what Is
conceived to be fair deduction from
the evidence as whole and such
comments on particular testimony as
may be necessary to which the law
as enuncatedby the Court OF Ap-
peals must be applied.
The City of Alexandria was found
ed in 1794.Its limits by amended char
ters have been several times enlarged
; and once in 1871 diminished to those
now existing for reasons of political
expediency. 1t has in the past en-
! countered many and formidable OBJ
stacles. Our admiration of the cour-
age of its citizens under adverse con-
ditions,is equalIed only by gratifica-
ton; all must feel the degree OF
which it has attained.
! But with respect to three of the ele-
: ments proper to be considered in this
connection, as stated in the case OF
Henrico VS.. Richmond. supra name
" the size, the crowded conditions
and the past growth Of the city the
figures introduced in evidence show
only small increase in population for
the past 80 or 40 years. In 1870 the
population was 1850, in 1880, 49,
$50, an increase in a decade of only
80. This may be explained, however,
by a change in the diminution of the
boundary lines in 1871. In 1890 the
population was 1889 an increase OF
$50 in the then ended decade; in 1900
the population was 14,52S, an in
crease in ten years of only 1S9; in
1910 l5,329 an increase in the last
decade of sol. For thirty years
/ 1SsO-1s1O, the increase is only l,61O
ar an average of 55-2-3 a year. 1t IS
earnestly argued that there has been
a steady exodus of negroes and unde-
! sirable elements and the figures pro-
duced show that that: population has
}, decreased 925 in the two decades from