Evansville daily journal. (Evansville, Ind.) 1863-1866, 1864-01-08
From the Indianapolis Journal
Eligibility OF Governor Horton.


Eligibility OF Governor Horton.
4 question has been suggested, rather
than distinctly made, whether Governor
Morton, if he will accept or should re-
ceive the Union nomination for Cover
nor in February, can constitutionally
hold the Office. Though to our mind,
and in the opinion Of every man of both
parties with whom we have conversed,
there is no question at all in the matter,
it may be well enough 10 present one or
two considerations assuring his elgibil-
ity. The constitutional provision in re-
gard to the election and qualification of
Governor is as follows: Cart. Y, Sec. l.
The executive power of the State shall
be vested in Governor. He shall hold
his Office during four years, and shall
not be eligible more than four years in
any period Of eight years" This pro-
vision was intended to effect, anI does
effect, but one thine-the exclusion Of
any one man from two successive cleo
tons to the office of Governor. 1t does
not prohibit a second election after an
interval of four years, or the election of
any man not four years previously elected
to that Office. Oliver p Morton was not
elected Governor of Indiana in 1860.
Henry s. Lane was the recipient of
that honor, while Governor Morton
was elected Lieutenant Governor
To declare Morton ineligible now
to the Office of Governor is, therefore, to
declare that an election to another office
makes him so. This, no sensible man
will maintain. Neither reason nor a
reasonable construction of the law, will
exclude him because an event which
neither he nor anybody else could an
ticipate when he was elected to a differ
ent Office, called him to the one he now
holds. If it were otherwise, the Consti-
tution would enact an absurdity so OBJ
vious and monstrous that the whole pro-
vision might be declared null for want
of sense Section 10 of the same Ar
ticle, says that when the Governor dies,
resigns, is removed from Office, or found
incapable of discharging his duties the
Lieutenant-Governor shall take his place.
and in the next clause provides that in
case of the removal of both Governor
and Lieutenant-Governor, the Legis-
lature may declare what officer shall act
as Governor, and such officer shall act
accordingly until Governor is elected"
&c. The Legislature has declared that
in case of the removal of both Governor
and Lieutenant-G Governor, the Secretary
Of the State shall take the Office Now
any construction of the 1st Section
which would exclude Governor Morton
would also exclude an "accident Of an
accident of a Governor made of a
Secretary of State And the absurdity
of the supposition that that could be in
tendedeis too evident for discussion
Il is urged that the constitutional pro-
hibition applies not to the previous elect
ion, but the previous possession of the of
fee of Governor Wereply that the consti-
tuition intimates nothing Of the kind On
the contrary, it says 'he GoUernor :"
shall hold the Executive power, but if he
can't, or resigns them, the duties shall
deUolUe on the Lieutenant Governor, and
it don't say that " then the Lieutenant
Governor shall become, Governor. TIE
| Constitution creates the office, and the
people illit5 If any accident removes
the man the people put in, provision is
made for the discharge of his duty by
another,rbut no provision is made that
the succeeding officer shall be anything
else than that which he was elected to be.
| He becomes Governor by courtesy, but
not by the Constitution. If it had been
intended to make the possession Of the
oilice, as well as the election to If, ban
to succeeding election, mething
would have been provided in regard &c
the length of possession, for Lieuten
ant Governor might succeed to the Gov
ernorship week after the inauguration
or a week before the election. We car
hardly suppose that the men who framed
| the Constitution would have overlooked
so important a contingency, and
so obvious q one, too. as the differenc,
of nearly whole term in the length o
possession Of the Office, if they had in
tended to make that possession a causl
of any exclusions. Again, to illustrat,
the doctrine 1t might easily happen
as it did happen in 1868 when Governo
Hammond succeeded Willard, that tn
vacancy in the Governorship will occu
on or after an election. Suppose tn
Lieutenant Governor should be a candi
date for Governor, entirely eligible, an
the Governor in Office should die. Th
Lieutenant Governor succeeding to tn
fragment of the term would become in
eligible TO the next one, the electio
would be void, and yet the election woul
be legal when made These monstrou
absurdities prove, though no less clearl
than the plain language of the cOnst
tuition, that it never was intended to e.
clude from the Governorship the Lie,
tenant Governor of the next preeedin
, term The case is so plain that we ougl
to apologize to our readers for saying 8
much about it.