Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-12-15

many of the residents of the territory
now in dispute strongly object TO
changing from the government of
Arlington County to the government
of said city.
THAT the present government of
Arlington County is adequate, suffi-
cient and satisfactory to the great
bulk of its inhabitants and property
owners and far superior TO that az
forded by the city of Alexandria.
The answer states further that in
the territory to be annexed there are
improvements such as public schools.
health centers, fire department, paved
streets, street lights, sewers and a
modern water system-all superior to
improvements in the city of Alexan-
dria. 1t is pointed out that there is
an adequate county police force and
valuable fire department equipment
i'm the county for the protection of res
idents of the disputed territory, and
that in many other respects this ter
ritory is far better served by the
county than it would be by Alexandria.
The answer essentially hits at Alex
andria's desire TO include the valuable
Potomac freight yards within its
boundaries. claiming that none of this
freight territory is needed for the
residential or business expansion of
Alexandria.
The answer concludes with request
to the court that permission be given
to have the county's reply amended
from time to time as additional data
becomes available. 1t was pointed out
that the county had not had ample
time to prepare a complete answer.
The paper was signed by z. c..
Turnburke, chairman Of the Board of
Supervisors of Arlington County. and
by the five attorneys representing the
county.
Citizens Protest Presented.
Before fling the answer Mr.. Bar
bour presented to the court petitions
signed by 500 residents of the terri.
tory sought to be annexed from Ar.
lington County, stating that these
papers are an ardent protest on the
part of the citizens themselves. Mr..
Farr announced on behalf OF Fairfax
County that similar petitions would
be filed by residents of that county.
Walter II. Varney. corporation coun-
sci of Potomac, which Is in the dis.
puted territory. was granted permits.
sion by the court not to appear on
behalf of that town in view OF the
"untenable position" in which he had
been placed by conflicting instructions
given him by the town council. He
explained that at one meeting he was
directed to join with the counties in
the legal fight against Alexandria. and
that about a month later he was di.
rected by the council to reverse his
position and collaborate with Alex.
andria. The court agreed that his
earlier participation in the plans of
the counties made it inadvisable for
him now to serve ih an opposite role.
Alexandria announced in its opening
statement that the city is valued AT
$11 900 900, has a population Of 1896,
and embraces an area of approximate.
ly 2h square miles. The first wit.
nesses to testify for the city were w
Fl. p. Taylor, clerk of the city council
who testified regarding adoption OF
the annexation ordinance; Paul Morton
youthful city manager, who produced
maps showing the need, as he ex
planned it. for additional territory, and
John r. Johnson. clerk OF Potomac
who told of resolutions adopted by the
town council. first opposing and later
favoring annexation by Alexandra.
Counsel for the defense was headed
by John r. Barbour and included Com
monwealth Attorneys William G.
Cloth of Arlington County and Will
son Farr of Fairfax. State Senator
Frank L. Ball. Delegates Charles T.
! Jesse, j. g. McCandlish and era ndall
Mackey. The city was represented
by City Attorney Albert Bryan. Garter
Hall and others.
In fling its preliminary answer
Arlington County claimed broadly
that the annexation of any part OF
either county was inexpedient and un
necessary and that Alexa ndria now
has more territory than it is able
! properly to take care of.