The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1873-08-25
--I--.-. - - 4 = ~ lEII'"' -
The ELIGIBILITY Of Mr.. Hughes.

The Eligibility Of Mr.. Hughes.
To he Editors Of the Dispatch:
AS you, were courteous enough to publish
my first note, / ought not, perhaps, 70 Tres
PASS again upon you, but, as, the queftlon IS
n public one of much interest, you will per-
haps extend your courtesy to me once
more. r,, ~, H. s1.. ..ar. ~ b
You rely, for the support Of your opinion
upo1n the fact that the clause in the ,Constitll-
ton is prospective in its terms. and declares
that whoever shall hereaft fghta duel, ETC.,
ETC. and therefore you maintain that who
ever has heretofore fought duel is relieved
of his disabilities, But you will observe tnat
the prospective character OF the III" MARKS
it with no popularity, because &c posi- Jaeto
laws are odious and prohibited, ana the
law must be &c post fdcto or Prospectire,
and if prospective law relieves the duelilst
it will relieve every other offender 10 "non
it applies. You will observe also that i pro-
spectiye clause in the Constitution ana a
prospective statute stand upon the same
footing as to the effect, the only difference
being that the Legislature can repeal one
and cannot repeal the other. ',a.
Now, let us apply your principle: Suppose
the cu!prit has not only fought duel, Dut
killed his adversary and been sent to the
pehitentiary, would you hold himto be par
doned Of the homicide because. the Consul
tuition has declared him eligible to the Legs
Iature? Surely not: and yet if the ne"
clause in the Constitution has repealed the
statute which disabled him he Is entltle9 10
his discharge. for no man can be detained Id
the penitentiAry except according 10 law;
and a repealed law is 10 longer a law, anu
the law which disqualities Furnishes the
homicide. Now, your Interpretation OF ap,
plication of the Constitution makes 1t repeal
the statute, or it does not touch the case. II
certainly repeals or it docs not. Take your
choice. and whichever you take destroys
YOUR conclusion.
Again, suppose the Constitution hao sara
that whoever shall thereafter commit noun
eide shall be punishable with fine ana I'D,
nrisonmcnt ONLY. would that have pardoncd
an who had been convicted OF murder III
the second degree or man>laughfer surrey
not and vet why not. if you be rlSht is 10
duelliues The fact is the Constitution re-
peaIed no law except the law OF slavery,
and therefore the Legislature had to repeal
the laws furnishing slaves.
If YOU ask why then was this antl-dueitihs
clause nut into the Constitution. reply De-
ca,,se in no other way could the power OF
repeal be taken from the Legislature.
will YOU allow me, in all respect, to ask
why YOU thus defend the eligibility oil
Hughes Is it because you think him the
easiest man to beat? Ii SO, you sacrifice an
mportant principle for nothing; and II he
should be elected (Which God forbld) there
will be an interregnum, tor no negro-Wor-
shipper can be elected in Virginia. LEX.
Our correspondent is distinguished law
ver. This is our apology for publishing his
communication, which is based upon mis-
of both the facts and the law
If the case. 1t is evident that he wrote the
under the impression that the law
Mr.. HUGHES had not been re-
)ealed. We repeat, therefore, that that law
las been repealed by the General Assembly.
4 prospective law does not relieve every
,ther offender because it relieves Dir.
HUGHES. ''LEX" fails to see the difference
between the two cases. If the Constitution
If 1870 had provided that no man should be
Kept in the penitentary for an offence COM
nittcd before 1869 the parallel would be more
nearly complete. The convict would have
O be discharged. That is just what in
fleet the Constitution provides as to MIR.
namely, that he shall not be dis
lualfied for an offence committed before
he ratification of that instrument.
"LEx" asks " Would you hold him IA
luelist guilty Of homieide) pardoned of the
homicide because the Constitution has de-
;lared him eligible to the LEGISLATURE"
Certainly not But we would hold him so
1ardoned if the Constitution declared him
o he so pardoned, as it does declare the
of Mr.. HUGnEs.
Again, Lex asks: " Suppose the Con
;titution had said that whoever shall here
,fter commit homicide shall be punished
With fine and Imprisonment only, would
hat have pardoned all who had been con-
ficted Of manslaughter? Surely not. But
f the Constitution had said, " No person
who has heretofore been guilty of man-
slaughter shall be kept in the pcnitentiary"
he convicts sent there for that crime would
have to be discharged. That is what it says
n effect as to Mr.. HUGuEs--namely. that no
nan who has heretofore fought duel shall
be disqualified.
The Supreme Court of the United States
bas decided as TO the fourteenth amendment
hat its disquaitications do not prevent il
nan from being otherwise punished for trea- !
;op. The converse of the proposition is |
equally true. The removal OF di.qualtica- |
ions for office would not relieve the duellist !
guilty OF homicide from the punishment |
prescribed by statute for his offence.
We defend MI. HUGuEs's eligibility as we
would any other truth, without regard to |
he man. The principle is important. And
o us personally it is important that the |
public should not have occasion to distrust
,ur utteranceS. '.n
So much for the points raised and the
questions put by "LEx." Now for the case
IN its merits. We think we can make it so |
,lain that LEX" even will agree to be con- |
Iinced by us. A constitutional provision
declaring that no man who fought duel
previously to 1870 shall be eligible to office
Ices in effect declare that every man who
las not fought duel since 1870 shall be eli
ible to Office. Mr.. HUGHES has fought no
luel since 1870. Therefore it declares in ell
ect that he is eligible to Office. Now, this
provision cannot possibly coeXist and have
simultaneous or contemporaneous operation
long with one declaring that man who