The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-04-20
Mr.. WISE mot abandoned,

| Mr.. DANIEL turn the point over TO
Mr. Bingham. He scouts it as folly.
MIR. Chahoon also claims to hold Office by
virtue of the 25th section of article 6, which
provides:
Judges and all other officers elected or
! appointed shall continue to discharge the
| duties Of their offices after their terms Of
have qualified"
This is at least as old as the Constitution
Of 1850. 1t is prospective. 1t Is intended
to- prevent an interregnum. But If this sec
tion continued anybody in Office it didn't
continue these military appointees. They
bad no existence in 1867. The government
| of the State was in the hands of officers
elected under the Alexandria Constitution.
| They were abhorred by the powers of the
| Constitution, who were conspiring against
the body-politic as it then existed. That
convention never intended to keep them in
| Office. This provision. of the Constitution
is prospective; provides for cases of resig-
nation, removal, or death and prevents in
terregnums. 1t is an tokdern uer6is in the
Constitution of 1850, and in the Alexandria
Constitution, and is copied literally into this
Constitution. Il don't know what to call
| it,
In the next place, it is contended that
Chahoon is continued in Office by the ena-
| bling act. Why, sir, he is not included in
| its terms. The first four sections Of that
act refer to county officers. The latter Sec
tions give full and complete control as to
i city officers to the Governor, who appoints
all councilmen, etc. Chahoon WAS practi-
cordin9 to the Constitution and 1d,cs of Vr-
| gi'ua." From the time of his appointment
down to January Goth he was an officer Of
the United States. The enabling act only
| legallzes the acts of such officers as are
"eh9tble to office under the eItsiting
Constitution and laus Of Virginia" The
Code OF Virginia, page 100, citing Hening's
statutes at Large, shows that Chahoon was
ineligible to office. And this on account of
offices together. In the case Of justice of
the peace it was adjudged by the Court of
Appeals that in accepting Federal Office his
tenure OF office ended, and that his resigna-
| tion did not restore his capacity to continue
| to hold the State Office. So far from coming
within the terms of the enabling act, Cha
hoon is just the person who cannot claim
| to hold under it. 1t denounces him. If
there were no other, that would be sufi-
cient ground for removing him.
The new Constitution, as at first framed,
disqualified all persons holding Office and
| made no provision for filling the offices. It
forever incapable Of holding office. 1t
called roll, and left out all provision for
continuing in office military appointees.
| They hadn't these in their eyes at all. They
intended to meet here and declare who
should hold office and who shouldn't: they
purposed saving the offices for themselves.
As to the perSonneE-the persons-they were
to be driven out and not even allowed to
vote. They could not continue military ap-
pointees, because these were beyond their
reach. Chahoon can derive no aid or COM
fort here.
But the idea is broached that there was
nued Chahoon in office, and Notwithstanding
the Legislature has stepped in, Chahoon stiil
holds de .facto. | am not concerned as to
the time between the admission Of the State
to representation in Congress and the pas
sage of the enabling act. If the Legisla-
ture had power to provide for the appoint
ment of councimen, who should elect sue
cessor to Chahoon, what becomes of his de
fdcto authority? He is nothing more than
Il usurper. He can't be de facto and de
jure both; and he can't be de .facto Mayor
| if there is q de jure Mayor. When q man
is i'll office by color of title, by reputation,
are acquesced in by the sovereign autho-
rity, then his acts as to third persons are
valid he is de fdeto in office. But if he at
tempts to justify himself, he is party to
the proceedings, and the court has power
to decide upon his pretensions. fla wrong
is done, and persons attempt to shelter
| themselves under his authority, the court
has the right to pass upon his title. Here
is man who calls himself de jure Mayor.
| When person whom he has Wronged lays
| hold upon the horns Of the alter of justice
is it to be endured that he shall come here
and say ~ am de facto Mayors? If he
Of q deed his title might pass I'M
questioned. But when he comes here as he
does, he lays himself open to inspection and
dissection, though the subject is too rotten
for the knife. He has no de facto character.
But suppose he had. Suppose that between
the two periods-the admission of the State
to representation and the appointment of
EllysOn-he was de .facto Mayor all these
several grounds now fail him. Concede that
the de facto officer is the one claiming the
office up to that time, how Is it after the
State has acted and appointed Ellyson? One
is Mayor de fdcto. Is it Chahoon2 He was
disarined and destroyed by the State, which
never acquiesced in his claim. Therefore
he cannot be de facto Mayor.
But, conceding that he was a de .fdcto
officer, the most enterprising of our oppo-
nents will not contend that he survived il
the Legislature had power to pass the en-
abling act. Had the Legislature that power!
! Was there vacancy? / have attempted to
show that there was. You must hold this,
or else that the reconstruction acts are still
in full force, are 4 Greek-tire, which, set
ablaze, can never be eXtinguished. Does
the authority of Congress still survive
They are monstrous consequences indeed il
this pretender can survive the action OF the
Legislature, of the Governor, and of the
Council which elected Ellyson. Mr.. Daniel
elaborated this point somewhat, but our
space begins to fail.
Mr.. Daniel contended that the Legisla-
ture may declare vacancies. Here lin the
Code] is q whole chapter Of such. For
fighting duel-for selling his office-for
holding United States appointment-the
Code vacated office.
But it is said that this Office must be filled
as the Constitution prescribes. The offices
under the new Constitution are to be
evoked into life under charter yet to be
enacted. 1t is enough to advert to the dIf-
ference between the powers Of State
Legislature and of Congress. The lat
ter derives all its powers from q writ
ten Constitution. 1t can exercise no
powers not specially granted to it. The
former has sovereign power, except where
limited by the State or the Federal Consti-
tuition. Every body-politic is absolute,
as contradisting guished from the organixa-
t,on of the body-politic. Salus popuH ST.
prema est len. And if there was vacancy,
as we hold that there was, were we to sit
down and wait and look at the State Con.
stitution9 But that Constitution does say
that all legislative power is vested in the
Legislature. It was an unnecessary decla-
ration. The power is inherent. I suppose
that "all legislative power" embraces all
| legislative power, and I hold that the Le-