Wilmington daily commercial., 1872-04-24
wsanesaay Afernoon. AprII aA.
MIN1srERs rN THN BOARD on EDUCATION

An old question is revived-whether ministers
can legally serve in the Board Of Education.
law, passed in 1866, and intended to put Rev. q.
f. Wiswell out Of the Board, makes ministers
ineligible to any office under the city charter,bu
this law was never regarded and never obeyed.
1t did not serve its purpose, even, Of displacing
Mr.. wiswel who served until he removed from
the city, in 1867, and then resigned his place. At
the same time Rev. VIM. Altman was also a
member Of the Board, and in 1868 he was again
elected by the people.
Nobody ever regarded the law as of much ac-
count and there is very clear evidence that it is
Invalid and unconstitutional, An examination
Of authorities shows that in the first place, the
Board Of Education is part of the corporation
OF the city OF Wilmington. The last charter of
the former was passed, it ia true, as a separate
act, by the last Legislature but it simply amends
and replaces certain sections Of the city charter,
by which the Board was originally created. Now
the city charter has existed much longer than
the present constitution. The city was incor-
porated by letters patent, in 1888, and in l772
the General Assembly granted a further charter
which has continued without lapse or repeal'
DOWN to the present moment, though contin-
ally amended, enlarged, and amplfed.
Now this charter possesses certain character
istics which no law OF the Legislature can touch.
The Constitution OF 1881 expressly reserves
them, article Z, section s. thus THE rights,
priuileges, iinnuni.ies, and estate OF religious
societies, and corporate bodies, shall remain, as
il the Constitution had not been altered And,
unquestionaby. one OF the privileges of the
10 all IN wifi
out regard to his calling, and this right, priyi-
lege, or immunity, is now struck at, by the law
OF 1866.
1t may be said that the Constitution itself, as
did that OF 1872, forbids an ordained minister
from holding " any civil Office in this State. "
But this clause does not apply to the case Of an
officer Of the city Of Wilmington, as was ruled,
fully and clearly in the decision Of John Ha-
gany's case against the City,in 1910 by the Court
Of Errcrs and Appeals. Hagany was minister,
who received the highest vote for City Treas
urer, but the City Council, constituting the Con-
stitutional provision to apply, decided that he
was ineligible. But the Court. including Chief
Justice Bayard, and Judges Harrington, and Lay
ton, agreed that this had no reference to any
officer but those created and existing under the
State government Chief Justice BayArd said !:
/ am, therefore clearly of the opinion that
the terms used in the Constitution have refer
ence to State officers, and not to corporation
officers, and that Mr.. Hagany was elegible tC
the office Of city treasurer"
The propriety OF such a law as this Of 1866, is
very doubtful, even # its constitutionality were
not in question. II the Legislature, in the exer
else of its own discretion, can exclude ministers
from places to which they have been duly elect
ed why can it not equally exclude lawyers. mer
chants, or any other profession or trade I,
what lengths may not its prescription go ? Tn
theory of our institutions. generally speaking,i
that the majority ought to rule. II, then, tn
people elect minister to represent them, is hi
ministerial character treason for thwarting the
will, and reversing their choice II they prefel
minister to lawyer, have they no power t.
to obtain their preference 1t seems to us tina
such law is totally at variance with sound prin-
cples OF Republican government.