Martinsburg gazette and public advertiser. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1826-1833, 1827-02-08

Ii must be admitted that il the words
"or duly qualified according to law;n
refer to laws passed subsequently to the
adoption of the constitution, they ara
sufficiently comprehensive 10 convey TO
the legislature, the power Of adding o.
Their qualifications, TO those enumera-
ted in the constitution. These words
must have some meaning, and il is
therefore attempted, contrary tn their
obvious meaning, to conhne their ope.
ration to pre.existing disquallfcations
only, because says the gentleman from
Norfolk, on any other construction, the
extended sense given to tue subsequent
clause by the word "or," would subject
to the legislative will, the two quahf.
cations OF freehold and residence speci-
fiaally mentioned, and thus expose the
convention to the charge of folly, ia
pretending to give the permsneucy of
constitutional definition to those qualifi-
cations, and in the next breath subject
ing them to instability by submitting
them to the discretion of the legislature.
Il is worthy of consideration in the first
place, whether any law imposing dis
qualiti cation in reference TO the H0use
q Bwgssses would by general words,
without specific reference to those
laws, be made applicable to an entirely
new body, just called into existence
viz: the General assembly; and this is
strengthened by the belief, that there
was no disqualification created with re-
gard to one, and afterwards enforced
with regard to the other, which is not
found either in the ordinance of 1875,
adopted 10 the constitution, or contain
ed III statutes since passed by the As
sembiy. From tins view then, he was
ineIined to thlpk that the words ''os duly
qualified according to law" had in their
retrospects no operation beyond toe Or
dinance Of 6onVention in 1873.
But let this pass, and consider the
objection on its own merits, il IS obvi,
Gus that il we can give such construc-
ton to the sentence, as will make the
whole consistent and sensible, the force
OF the argument is destroyed. Let US
see, then, what was the intention of the
convention and what they had 10 pro.
vide for, Freehold and residence, they
wished to establish as unchangeably as
the general basis of qualification, as of
suffrage. There was then, another class
of persons, the isndholders in West Au-
gusta, and the citizens of tue horoughs
whom they did not wish TO dslranchlse.
To have used the c1ujunctive aud duly
qualified, Sc would not have embraced
their case. the word 'or.n was there.
fore selected. but had it teen their IN
tenUon TO coubne The operation OF these
words exclusively TO pre- existing casss,
would they not, as ia fixing the right
Of suffrage, have used such words AS
present, or existing laws, to Indicate that
intention2 Could any thing have been
more obvious, and supposing such to
have been their intention, can they be
relieved from the charge, of at least
great inaccuracy in rot doing sof Bat
add to TIM, that they had been sccus-
toned to see their power existing in the
English parliament, and more particu-
larry in the House OF BuFgeSses, 81 en-
acting disquslfca!ions as the circum-
stances or the policy of the community
required them, that they had always
seen this powss used dlscreetly and for
the public benefit, and therefore did not
wish to destroy it, and We see al once
why the convention used form nf ex-
preston, which, whilst II secured by
enumeratihg them, the general qusii
cations of freehold aud residence. sutfi-
cienlly protected existing rights, and
precluded not the legislature from the
exercise of a power, to which the fra
mers Of the constitution bad always been
accustomed, and always seen exerci-
sed with moderation and wisdom. Sup
posing, then, these three objects in
view, how could this convention have
expressed their intentions by other
words as briefly, or how without much
circumlocution could they have express
ed them more clearly?
1t is admitted by the gentleman from
Norfolk, that the construction contend
ed for by him, would adopt, and give
the force of constitutional provisions to
all disqualifcations heretofore created
by law, so that the legislature could nei
Their repeal nor alter them. We must
suppose the convention then, not only
guilty ofthe folly of giving entire APP
probation TO power of the legislature,
as exercised under the regal government