The democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1868-1874, 1869-10-04
j .THE-EEClsTRArl N-.Isasy-sN-T THE
I SUtNEME COURT,

Brown, 'fsllsred i,ishsR4uao lpf County
ease. 1be case, rs oIf. readers will re-
member, VAS tbatof John p lPliarss, who
had seepdulyelsctea Sheriff Of aaaaelph
county, IN. was stricken ffom the list Of
voters by the Board Of Registration soon
after his election We gave synopsis Of
the case at the time, in which we denounced
the ruling Of Judge Harrison.as n,onstrous,
and the principles thereby affirmed as,ppr
tenablceinlaw,, and in gross violation Of
vested right, Wcare happy to say that
the opinion then expressed by US has sheen
endorsed BY The Supreme Court; whohave
decided That the proceedings of,Jadge
Harrison were directly in yiuia'ion Of the
Constitution, and that hereafter our off :
GERS .are!not tolbe dependent ppon, 'nhe
discretion or caprice OF, an irresponsible
Board Of Registra,iou-iii' III Judge Maxwell
also delivers avery able opinion affirming
the decision Of Judge Brown, butlwe hayo
not space 70 present it in full. 'Theiopin-
ion Of Judge Brown was. as follows: b.,
al ~. PaREs IS, TIE STATE.
This was rule from the Circuit Court
upon the defendant IPhures, to show WHY
he should not be removed fiom his Office,
of Sheriff of Randolph county. because lis
name liad:been stricken from the list of
reg sterca voters BY the Board Of Registra.
ten, There was a motloh to quash the
rule, which the court oyer-rulcd. ,atJ,a
The only proof in the case tlint tho DE-
fendent was not a'voter was the certificate
Of the Clerk Of the Board of Registration
that certain names. including tho name Of
'thedefendant Pharcs, we're ordered blythe
Board to be stricken from Tie liss.Sf9rogs
tered voters. This esidcnte was objected
10, but the objection wdslovefruled by the
court and the objection, taken to The
ruling. 5'ogS tSl q as@ .t,s0th gu
A5pcrson legally elected to tho Office 81
Sheriff under the Constitution aud flaws Of
this State, and having duly qualified and
entered on The duties of his. office, has a
vested right in the Office, wi;h,ls priv
lcges and immdnitics Of value Of which he
cannot be deprived exception cause, and
that by. due process fllaw.o The court
erred in refusing to guasli the rule, on tho
motion Of the Sheriff; and also erred in
admitting the clerks certificate Of list
oftnumcs which he certified TO have been
ordered by the Board Of Registration to
be stricken from the list ,of registered
voters. Only the record or copyjthereof
properly certified to be d copy was admis.
siblc assevidcnce. sniIi 'ibhly bna =
But the most material and important Or
ror in the case was depriyiug an officerof
his Office because Of the fact alleged. . 10
wit: ahathi. name had BY order Of, tic
Board Of Registration been stricken from
:hc list Of registered voters ofthe county,
even If the fact had been legally made 70
appear. The Constitution prcscribes who
arc entitled toivote, and ii "also p,oyidcs
that'any person so entitled 10 vote Shall
be eligible to Office The defendant pos.
scssed all tue qualifications required byitho
Constitution and laws to vote and hold
Office at the time he was elected and quail.
fed as Sheriff Of ,RsndolphI county. lie
had, therefore, a vested, right in his Office
ofwhicl llec could not be deprived but for
cause by due process III law. And
whether the Board Of Registration struck
his name Of the registry list Of voters or
not was wholly immaterial 10 the right Of
the .party and the issue yto7be determined
in the case. ,i,4;yoJ sfe aEsi obi 4,i2 n.
1t never was in contemplation of tue
Convention that framed tie Constitution,
nor Of ahsl people when they adopted it,
that all the officers Of the State, executive
Judicial, aud pipisterislTwetc to be Deepen.
dent on the discretion or caprice, as 1T il
claimed, ofan irresponsible Board Of Reg!
istration in relation to an incidental matter
ItSuppose that boaid strikes Of the han,e Of
voter one week. and restoresfit TIE next,
as was done in did defendants case--aatid
may, under the pretensions set up in this
case, repeat the operation every week III
thsyear and every year without end and
without restraihtgahd according to- The
doctrine, claimed, the Office is fortified
without fault e the officer, and be removed,
and another appointed as often as the kali.
eidoscope changes. The removal Of an
ofFicerlof Statcfrom one county to another,
4 or even one township to another, would
atnrc lis being stricken from the list q
1 registered voters, and be could not be reg.
istcred in the new residence till be had re.
muined there the prescribed length cftilne
ftquisitcato vote there. And The con.
sequence would bs, according to the pre-.
tension here, that at every 'snch removal
l the officer, fotfcits his office and inust1bt
removed. and another appointed.
1 For the errors above stated. ! think III,
judgement should be reversed and the rul,
quashed. i,jhs
i at has been suggested whether tits mol
necessary that this Uourttsbou1d order iii,
party SO removed from his Office TO be re-
stored, but that IL not necessary. The
reversal Of q judgement Q, ar motion re.
moves the oiily impeachment TO his. offict