Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-04-16


under such ordinances and regulations as the council
might adopt the Sergeant the Judge of the election
and his Judgment was conclusive. Now the question
Is whether by force OF these provisions much OF the
act OF e42 directs the Sergeant to conduct the cleo
ton, and constitutes him the judge of the final election
is implicitly repealed.
From the authorities above quoted the result is that
repeats by Implication are not favoured in law. That
they be made by negative words or by matter SO
repugnan that both statutes stand and that the
design to repeal must clearly appear without doubt or
ambiguity
Does the design to repeal clearly appear here To
make out such design must first infer that there
to be but one election. I'd. Although the act of
1851 entirely silent to Aldermen. except in the Sec
ton postponng the election at the present year.
to inter that they be elected under the rds
Councmensused in the act 3d. We to infer that the
superinendents are to be Judges OF the elecon-al-
though this act is entirely silent as to their duties.
Having thus raised three implications, we must on
them build fourth, viz that the law which implicitly
gives 10 the superntendents the power to conduct and
Judge the elect ion of Councmen and Aldermen mpl-
eddy repeas so much OF the law OF 1912 as expressly
gives this power to the Sergeant.
Tins mode OF repeating law, by first giving by i'm
pcaon power In the new act and then implicitly re-
peapg the express power OF the old act me at
with all sound principles ofconstruction and have
met with no authority that would sustain it,
But there exists the face of the act itself an ipsu-
perabe objection TO construction which would cons-
tue the superintendent judges of the election-itis
found in the proviso to the sixth section OF the act The
sixth section requires the President of the Council is
sue commission 10 the officers elected, &c Pr0Dided
hoiueDer That such commission shall issue less
majority OF the Council satisfied that the person
claiming the same duly and legally elected; in case
they are not go satisfied they may order new election
| forthwith for any office.
The commissions thus to be issued are to the officers
mentioned In this law, and not to the Councilmen.-
the election Of other officers. Necessarily the superin-
tendens not judges OF the election OF the other Off
GERS If the superntendents are not the judges of the
election Of the other officers it is matter of plain To-
ference that they not judges othe election of Coun-
cilmen. The great object OF the law be to give
TO the people the election of the officers enumerated in
the first section. The mention Of the Councmen is
only incidental, and by very loose and inartifcia
pressons. Ii the superintendenis cannot, by impca
ton, be made the judges Of the election OF these officers
tor whose election the law was intended chiefly to pro-
vide-hey cannot, by implication be made the Judges
OF the election OF those who only casually mem
toned.
But the Councilmen not by this law made the
Judges OF their election. Certainly they are not
made by express terms, and it seems to me it cannot
be so by implication. Such implied construction
might be attended with serious mischief Suppose two
rival parties struggling for the ascendancy in the Coun
Gil. If these parties were judges Of their cleo
ton, the most violent controversies to the organza
ton OF the city government might annually occur in
the Council.
think the act of 1851 does not either expressly or
implicitly give to the Council the judgment OF its
elections.
Ne express repeal of the old mode of conducting
the Councmen and Aldermen are to be taken is de-
clared-and no such act and proper provisions for
Quoting the election OF these persons in any new mode
inserted in the law as will Justify the opinion that
the Legislature designed to repeal the old mode OF
electiDg these persons merely by adopting one.
Yet this is the only mode by which an implied re-
peal can exist in such case as the present, where
there are no negative words and declarations of an
intention to repeal.
The best opinion can form on the first question is,
that the Sergeant is still to conduct the election ofth
min ooohv Aorl a.
Of 1912 to be elected.
On the I'd question, what are the relative powers of
the Superntendents and the Sergeant in conductin
the election of the twenty seven persons confess am
unable to give a satisfactory answer because l can
find nothing in the law OF 1851 TO guide me. The du-
ties OF the Superntendents expressed in the act of
1851 to super intend and record the election and
lty the persons elected OF their election What their
duties or powers as Superintendent are, is i'd
The provision OF the 9th section, above referred to-
shows they are not to be judges ofe due and legal cleo
ton OF the officers named in that act The inference
be irresistible that they be the Judges
OF the election of Counclmen and Aldermen. do not
think we can ascertain their duties by reference to the
duties OF commissioners. chap. 7, Sc, page 70 OF the
Revised Code, because 1st the Commissioners therein
spoken OF are Commissioners TO conduct the election
named in that act; End. The act of 1851 contains no
Richmond; but, Sd. the duties of the Commissioners
under that law are merely ministerial. The elections
to be held under that law for Congress and the Lee
gislatue and by the Constitution of the United States
and Of Virginia, Congress and the Houses of the
Legislature are Judges OF their elections If this
act creates any analogy it ma kes the duty of the Su
duties they to discharge Superintendent is not
stated in the law. The Superintendent to keep
record of the election. But the law does provide
for any permanent record and the only Of re-
cord is to ascertain the result of the election suppose
this provision is fully satisfied by requiring the Supern
tendents to keep po.book. The duty Of notifying
the elected of their election may be merely
isteral.
In answer to the second question, them have |
to say that my view Of the law the superintendents
to keep the poll book and to notify the parties eec-
ted of their election; but what they do az super
is not explained.
3d. In answer to the third question, think it clear
the persons to be elected from the wenyseven are the
senior alderman and ten other aldermen the act 1851
having provide for the election OF mayor and recor
der n another manner.
4th The fourth question is, who compose the Coun-
ell, the act of 1851 becomes part of the charter of
the city
After the twenty had appointed senior alder
man and ten other aldermen from their own number
there remains sixteen persons, and these, think, COM
pose the Council BY the law of 1872 the twenty
seven are 10 appointa recorder, senior alderman aud
ten other aldermen, from their own body. They may
also appoint mayor from their own body. If they
appoint mayor, recorder and senior alderman, and
ten other aldermen from their body it will leave
fourteen to compose the Council.
If they appoint mayor from the body of the citi-
zens, and recorder, senior alderman and ten other
from their body, it will leave fifteen 10
compose the Council.
Under the act of 1851 senior alderman and ten 9TH
er aldermen are to be elected from the twenty seven.-
This leaves sixteen to compose the Council.
do not see any repugnances between this part of
the law and the old charter. The only practical differ
is, that under the old law there might by eectng
the mayor from the body OF the people, be an equality
OF representation among the three Wards in the Coun-
Gil; and under the new no such equality can exist.
have answered the questions ofthe Council as well
can; but is proper that if the act of 1851
becomes part Of the charter of the city, think tun
less it be explained or amended BY act) difficult
ties will rise in lis operation which be finally
tied only by the judicial tribunals OF the
try.
APRIL IA, 1851. S. S. BAXTER.
The ODD FELLows.-The Grand Lodge OF Va, l.
o. o. f., commenced its annual session ut Odd Fellows
Ell all in this cifu Mondau Last A Of