|
387
<br />
<br />Js~uary 30, 19~
<br />
<br /> "Mr. L~ G. ~hite, Chairman, "Jan. 9, 1922
<br /> Finance Committee, Cit~.
<br />
<br /> "Dear Sir:--
<br /> I understand that a committee of the State Legislattuve reported on the sub-
<br />ject of fee officers of the State and recommended that all
<br />the remuneration of such offices be'limited to $5000~O0. such offices-~bolished and that
<br /> If the Finance Committee deems it proper, it might recommend a resolution
<br />to the Council, indicating the Council's approval of this proposed legislation, recommending
<br />that all fees previously ao0ruing to these Offices be turned over to the City and that the
<br />salaries of the officers Paid~-~y the City, be kept within the limit set by t~e Legislature.
<br />I do not believe that any Changes should be made during the period of office of the present
<br />incumbents~
<br />
<br />"Your s: truly,
<br />
<br /> The City Manager stated
<br />on fee Officers.
<br />
<br /> ' "J. P. Jervey, City Manager."
<br />that he had received copies of bills before the Legislature
<br />
<br /> After some discussion of the mat~er, Mr. White moved to leave the fee bills to the dis-
<br />cretion and good judgment of our Representatives in the Legislature,
<br />
<br /> M~r. Brooks ~fe~ed the following resolution as a substitute for M~. White's motion:
<br />
<br /> "BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, VA.,' That our representatives
<br />~M~. Wright and Mr. Corbitt, ~e instructed that it is the desire of this Council, as express-
<br />ed in session January 30, 19~2, that the fees as collected by the various State~ Officers be
<br />limited to $5,000.00 per ann~m, plus t0~ of the fee in excess of $5,000.00, the residue 90~
<br />to be equally cLivided by Stats and City. The City does not care to guanan.tee the salar~
<br />of any fee Officer."
<br />
<br /> Mr. ~2OOk~' substitute was seconded by Mr. Esleeck and s~iopted by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes-- Brooks, Esleeok, Hutchins, Smith, 4.
<br /> Nays-- Oast, White, 2.
<br />
<br /> ~nd. Correspondence bearing on oonsolid~tion of the Offices of Police and Civil Justices
<br />of the City of Portsmouth.
<br />
<br />"Finance Committee,
<br /> City.
<br />
<br />"Gentleman:
<br />
<br />the question of
<br />
<br />"January 9, 1922
<br />
<br /> In mccordanoe with your verbal instructions, I have carefully investigated
<br />combining the duti-es of Civil and Police Justices.
<br />
<br /> So far as the volume of work is concerned, I am satisfied that it can be
<br />handled bv one man. In my opinion, it would be preferable to have a man with legal training
<br />in the combined office. I understand, however, that the present incumbent in the office of
<br />Police Justice
<br /> is taking a. course in.lmw. SO far as the fees collected by the Civil Court
<br />are concerned, th~se sa~e ~ee.s would be collected, of course, by the Civil and Police Justice,
<br />were the offices comblne~
<br />
<br /> I am attaching hereto a letter from the Civil Justice, which deserves care-
<br />ful consideration at the hands of the committee. It seems to me that the whole question is
<br />one of p~ll~, which only the Council can determine. Undoubtedly the majority of the attorneys
<br />and the majority of~our citizens, who have business in the Civil Court would prefer to have
<br />it separ&te. It is possible, als~ that if the offioes were c~b~'ed, it would be necessary
<br />to increase the pay of the Civil and Police Justice and to provide him with more clerical
<br />force. I am cf the opinion, however, that the clerical work could be handled by one man, as
<br />it was formerly.handled by one m~n who also handled certain clerical work for the Police De-
<br />partment, of which he has now been relieved.
<br />
<br /> As I feel this is a question of policy which must be determined by the
<br />whole Council, I confine myself to repeating, as already'stated, that in my ~pinion, the work
<br />can ~e performed by one man.
<br /> Yours truly,
<br />
<br /> A letter was read from
<br />C~ties of the State.
<br />
<br />the Civil Just~ice
<br />
<br />J. P. Jervey, City Mannger."
<br />concerning Civil Justice Courts
<br />
<br />in several
<br />
<br /> A communication was read from the Retail Merchsmts' Association, indicating that the
<br />said Association favors the separation of Civil and Police Courts, but of course, desiring to
<br />leave the details of the separation of such Courts to the Council.
<br />
<br /> A communication was read also from Russell A. Walker, an attorney-at-law in the City~
<br />protesting against the consolidation of the Civil and Police Courts of this City.
<br />
<br /> Then Mr. White moved that the present status of separate Civil and Police Courts be
<br />continued. The motion was adopted, and by the following vote:
<br />
<br /> Ayes--.Esleeck, Hutchins, Oast, Smith, White,
<br /> Nays-- Brooks, 1.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|