The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-04-30

u 1899,
3she personswho were 'etr performing The duties
OF tie different ofiicers.of the State at the
time of her admission to representation to
Congress- Con- under appointments previously
made by the military commander, are Of
ficersu In the meaning of that section, and
entitled as such to hold their offices until
their successors are appointed. We do
not think so. We think the section
was plainly intended to apply only TO
officers elected or appointed under the
Constitution, and for whose election or ap-
pointment 1t provides. It was literally
copied, except in the omission of a
single word, from section in the Constitu-
ton Of 1854, commonly called the AleXan-
dria Constitution, which section was itself
literally copied, with like exception, from
the Constitution of 1851, in which Consti-
tutions it plainly had the same meaning,
and it was considered necessary by the
trainers of those Constitutions, notWith-
standing the insertion of such section, to
provide expressly, as they did in the
in office at the time of the adoption of said
Constitutions, except as therein otherwise
expressly directed, should continue In office
"until their successors are qualified" in
the language of the Constitution Of 1851,
or "until their present terms expire" In
the language of the Constitution OF 1864.
In the Constitution of 1880, article Z, after
providing for the case of the Governor and
privy councillors, further provides that
stall other persons in Office when this Con-
stitution shall be adopted, except as IS
herein otherwise expressly directed, shall
continue in office till successors shall be APP
pointed or the law shall otherwise provide"
it was considered necessary by some OF the
ablest men in the distinguished body which
framed that Constitution to adopt such a
provision in order to authorize officers act
ing under the old Constitution, when it
ceased to operate, to continue to act under
the new when its operation commenced,
and the provision in the seventh article was
|'accordingly adopted.
The Conventions which framed the Con-
situations of 1851 and 1864 followed in this
respect the precedent of their illustrlous
predecessor. II the necessity of such 4 pro-
vision, in order tc the continuance Of the
authority of the olo officers, was question
at doubt, when the Constitution of 1881
was framed and was solved on that occa-
sion by assuming that there was such ne
cessity, and acting under the assumption by
adopting that provision, surely after this
precedent had been followed by two sue
ceeding Conventions, when the trainers OF
the present Constitution adopted that In
strument, and carefully omitted such pro-
vision, while they copied from the Consti-
tutions Of 1851 and 1864 the section before
referred to in regard to "judges and all other
officers" it may be fairly presumed that
they did not intend to include in the word
"of1cials," used in that section, persons
who were performing the duties Of office Mt
the time of the adoption OF the Constitution,
especially when these persons were ap-.
government. At all events, this is not so
plain question as to make an act OF the
Legislature, providing other agencies, for
the performance of these duties, until the
arrival of the period fixed by the Consti-
ton for the election or appointment OF these
officers rs an unconstitutional and void act.
The fact is, the section was plainly In
tended, in its very nature and by its very
terms, to have onlya prospective operation,
and to be confined to officers elected or ap-
pointed under the constitutional machine
after it had been set in potion. 1t provides
nc have EXPIRED" that is, terms of service
prescribed by the Constitution-and MOTOR
the case Of officers acting under prior 60
ycrnment, whose terms OF service under
their appointment may not have expired,
or who may have been appointed to no term
Of service at all, but during the pleasure OF
a military commander.
The case of Lawhorne, er parte, IS Graf.
tan, So, relied on by the counsel Of Chahoon
in support Of their views in this branch OF
the subject, can give them, we think, no
support whatever. Governor Pierpolnt
was elected to his Office under the Constitr.
ton of 1864, which was received and reco5-
niZed as the Constitution Of the State after
the war, and thenceforWard continued to
be our only Constitution until it was super
seeded by the present Constitution. While
that Constitution was in force Governor
Picrpoint's term Of service under it eX-
pircd, and the question arose whether he
was entitled to hold over under the afOre-
said provision Of that Constitution, and that
question depended alone upon the question
whether the Governor was an officer in
the meaning Of the provision. To be sure,
we were then under military govern.
ment, and it may be said by some that
during its existence the Constitution OF the
State was suspended, and that Governor
Peirpoint became mere provisional OF
ticer. But certainly the counsel for Cha.
hoon don't say that the Constitution was
suspended on the contrary, they maintain
that there never has been any such inter.
regnum. However that may be, certain il
Is that the question came up in Lawhorne's
case for decision by this court, whether, &C.
cOrding to the true construction, Governor
Pierpoiut was entitled to hold over as a(orc.
said. As was then we'll understood, this
! question was brought up for the decision OF
| this court, with the knowledge and appro'
| baton of General Schotield, then military
| commander Of the State, who was willing
! in this respect to conform to the Const!tu'
ton Of the State, and the construction
which might be put upon it by this court.
Again, it is supposed that the act III
question is contrary to the 10th section OF
the 9Th article of the Constitution. That
section provides, among other things, that
there shall be chosen by the electors OF
every city Mayor, ETC., and it is commended
that, by reason of this clause, Mayor Of
the city can only be chosen by the elector:
! of such city, and therefore the act in ques
ton providing for such an appointment
otherwise is unconstitutional and void
though the appointment was only for The
short interval to elapse before the time pre-
scribed by the Constitution for making thu
regular election under the articlc-to wit.
the fourth Thursday in May next, or rather
/ the time when the officers elected under thai
article are to enter upon their duties-tc
wit, the first day of July succeeding.
| We think that this clause also was plainly
intended to apply only to a Mayor to bt
chosen under the Constitution at and aftel
the time therein prescribed for that pur
) pose, and not to one appointed to perform
the the duties of Mayor before one coult
be chosen and enter upon the duties of thu
office under the Constitution. Certainl.
an appointee under and by virtue Of thu
iel1Rc8 ,Eaull. be no more objectiona
Fl - = T. : = = a. ll grounds than an ap
: = - Larry commander durin;
|overnment holding owe
60 III = =. ment had ceased to exist