The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-03-30

IN tnlHQellluia SEOusu sIiSn LIZ tne e"A o's|
Of those who utter them. Independents
and liberty indeed What crimes have moi
been committed in their names
The Petersburg Charter.
The Indes-Appeal thinks our authorities
not to the point. 1t says:
For indeed there Is no proper analogy between the
inst ,nces quoted by the OlspQtch aud the case OF
t 10 make sn " Ia ali cited
offices declared 10 be subject 10 the popular election
were so designated specifically by the Constitution
nesignated as such in the Constitution were still
mace dependent On The popular vote while Other
fuue.ions not deaea S ne GSxtaon o' ToT n
aoeTe made elective by che peopte, ana are now pro-
posed to be chosen by oth.r authorities than The
City Council. All Of which was In strict obsery
marks evidence Of an ignorance OF tnat document
or Of the general constitutional law by when the
issue OF such charters Is regulated. ..
We 50 not care to handy words with the
Appeal. It would be easy for us to pro.
nounce it entirely ignorant of constitutions
Law. II the question is to be decided By q
dict,ns, that Of the Dispatch would possibly
outweigh that Of the Appeal. We have
had controversies on law point: with mum
Der of prominent lawyers, but never dis
courteous phrase FROM one Of them. We do
not resort to that sort Of "argument." We
will content ourselves with showing that it
| is the appeal that is in the dark. The words
the Appeal puts in italics shows that it has
| not read the authorities we cited. Here, for
| instance, is a quotation We made:
IN the case OF the State rs. Br7tnSt. the Supreme
Court Of Wiscor sin he q that where state Con-
stiulon i,rovids for tho election OF sherln'' Hes
the term of Office, &C., tuf does not GENE 1chdt
uo,ceTs righks and t,uties shall attach or belong
10 tie office. The Legislature has no power TO take
| from y tnerif a part of the duties and functions
Usually appertanis to the Office and transfer 1t to
! an officer appointed In a different manner and
holding the Offce by a differcul tenure"
The words which are ia italics we put in
italics when we quoted them. And they
exactly answer tue words which the appeal
puts in italics. .- .f
The appeal says that by the new charter
the people were allowed to elect their Off
GERS, but Functions not defined IN the
Constitution nor In any way recognized
by it" were entrusted to the newly-created
officials. This is eractly ,ohat the Supreme
Court Of Wisconsin says Legislature con-
not do. And the appeal acknowledges, by
implication, that the decision is good law"
when it tries TO SHOW that the points made
are not applicable 10 the Petersburg charter.
But the TACT is, that the two case. are as nearly
identical as it is possible FOR two to be with.
out being the same. The Legislature Of
Wisconsin passed law making an inspec-
tor of house of correction the jaiIor Of
Milwaukee county. Che sheriff refused to
surrender the Jail. The court decided that
he was right, and laid down the law as
quoted above. Hear the court:
The Constitution provides that sheriffs shall be
in every Two years" "No", it is quite true that
tie Constitution 9,otcheTe defines Iohdt pUaoers.
rights. and duties $haH attaeh or 6etong To me
u the Constitution had reference to the Office with
those generally recognized legal dulles aud func-
tiuns belonging TO IL IN this country, and in the
territory when rho Constitution was adopted
So the court decided the law to be ,lneon-
stitutional. Now, that is exactly the Peters
burg case. The Constitution provides that
city sergeants shall be chosen by the electors
of the various cities once in every two years.
"Now, it is quite true that the Constitution
"nowhere defines what powers, rights, and
" duties shall attach or belong to the office.
&C hut there can be no doubt that the trainers
" of the Constitution had reference to the
" office with those generally recognized du.
"ties and functions belonging to 1t in Wiz.
:. g;pia." And as in the counties the sheriff
il er.oficio jailor, SO in the cities the city
sergeant (as in RichmoaD is er.oticio jailor
Yet the Petersburg charter-bill provided
that the city sergeant should not he jailol
| unless appointed by the Judge of the Hust
ings Court, and also provided that tina,
Judge should have power TO remove the
TAILOR from Office and to appoint jailor over
the head Of the city sergeant. 1t will be
seen at once that the cases run On all fours
The appeal has repeatedly said that PEG,
pie who condemn the new charter have MOI
read it. Let the reader remember that thu
Constitution recognizes common councils a:
the proper bodies to govern cities, and tha
under the decision quoted this means tina
thew shall have the powers usually possessed
BY councils, and let him suppose that it i
Richmond We are speaking of instead or Pc
tersburg, and then perhaps he may realiz
what the new charter was to be when VI
tell him Of few of its provisions.
| First. 1t gave the Hastings Court powe
to divide the city into wards, and, in re
quiring the court to follow streets and alley
|"phereg practicable" did, by necessary in
plicatiop, give that court power 10 divid
the squares so as to put one-half Of squar
in one ward and the other half in auothe
ward! "
Secondly. 1t gave the Hastings Cour
power to appoint the Mayor in case of va
cancy. ........
| Thirdly. 1t gave the Hastings Coul
power to ren,ooe the Mayor, and thus Great
a uacancy, sllhough the Constitution "a
pressty provides TINT the Mayor hmsel
shall have power to remove The "variou
city officers THAT is, all of them. $50
Fourthly. 1t gave the city judge the powe
to appoint board Of municipal commits
sioners, aud tried to take from the Common
Council ga part of the duties and function
usually appertaining to their place, az,
"transfer 1t to these officers of its own ere
cation"
Filthy. 1t made the term OF the Council
one year, and that of these commissioner
two years.
Sixthiy. It gave the city judge power
to remove these commissioners in yioIutinn