The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1876-02-04

Richmond from removing the petitioner
from the office to which he was appointed
on the 20,h OF October, 1875. as a judge Of
election for the First precinct OF Jefferson
Ward, in this city The petitioner AYERS
that the appointment vested in him the right,
and padc il his duty under the law, to hold
said office for the space of ore year, and
placed it beyond the power Of aEy tribunal
10 remove him therctrom, except upon con-
yiction bv a jury Of wilfu neglect Of bis
duty or of some corrupt conduct in the exc.
cution Of his Office.
Judge Staples thoroughly reviewed the
law OF appointment. He noticed that 40
provision s made for the rsrnoval OF Judges
except that which is contained in section 4o
Of chapter s Of the Code of 1874 section
which declares that if any officer or other
person on whom 40 election duty is cast shall
be guilty Of any wilful neglect Of such duty,
or Of any corrupt conduct in the execution
of the same. he shall upon conviction be
deemed guiIty Of miSdemeanor, shall be pun
ished by fine and imprisonment, and be re.
moved from office.
POWER OF REMOVAL.
Iud,e Staples said Z" We think that the
county and corporation courts are clothed
yj,h the power Of removing the judges OF
election, with or without conviction, when
,hrv may deem such removal demanded by
thc nnnlir interests. We think that it was
IN, nI,rpo>c Of the Legislature to invest them
with such power. Although that purpose
is not expressed in 30 many words, yet it is
manifest from Il clre:ul survey of the various
statutes, past and present, relating TO the
subject Of ciccliouS.' =
This posi,iou the Judge sustained IN an
able argument and by citation OF various
authorities, and said in conclusion
The provision authorizing the county ana
corporation courts to appoint judges OF elec-
ton was adopted 11th May, 1870. At the
same time, and rs part OF Inc same seuela'
law, the siXtieth section was also adoptea.
That section confers upon the same courts
the power 10 remove from office all county,
city, town, aud township officers elected
under that act in their counties ana
corporations respectively for maleas-
auce, misfeaSancc, or gross neglect OF
official duty, the proceeding 10 be oy
order Of motion before the proper court
upon reasonable notice TO the party TO be
affected thereby. See acts OF 1857 ana 1o'V,
page 3. section a and section 60.
This would Of course include sberlllS. at
torneys for the wealth, county treas
| urcrs, and Supcrintendents OF the poor, clerks
Of the county and hustings courts, super
| visors, assessors, collectors, commissioners
of roads, justices of the peace, and constables,
| officers whose terms range FROM one 10 lour
wears, who are elected by the people, and
whose tenure is in some instances t&sd by
express constitutional provisions.
ABSURD DISTINCTION.
| Each and all those officials it is agreed may
| be removed upon notice and motion; but {
| Judge of an election can only be removed bJ
Indictment, trial, and conviction by jury
The Legislature, we are told, has invested
the county and corporation courts with tul
control of all the town, county, and township
officers elected by the people, but has deniet
the same tribunals The power ofremoving ON
of their own appointees although such re-
moyaI may be imperatively required by th'
public interests. 1t is impossible TO believe
! that distinction so absurd and so opposet
to sound policy could ever have been in
tended by the Legislature.
1t may be asked, then, why was no proVl
sion made for the removal OF the judges o
election, rs was done with reference to tht
county officers: The omission to do so was
certainly not accidental. AS already stated
the section authorizing the appointment 0
Judges of election and the section author
izng the removal of county officers elected
by the people were parts Of the same act
no doubt considered together and adopted
at the same time. 1t IS therefore manifes
that the failure to provide in express term
for the removal of the judges of election ,rd
! Intentional. The most reasonable inlercnc
! is that no such provision was regarded a
necessary. The Legislature no doubt con
| sidered that from the character of the othc
and the nature Of the appointment the coun
ty or CORPORATION courts would respectiyei
| have the power of removing these incum
bents whenever it appeared their longer cor
| tinuance was incompatible with the publ
| interests.
| THEIR TITLE.
These Judges of election, as they ar
| termed, are substantially the same as tn
commissioners of election under the forme
| Constitution and laws. The latter 9TH
commissioners We're also appointed b,
| the county and corporation courts. BeIor
entering upon the discharge OF their du
ties they swere required to take the sam
oath as the judges of election now take
and they performed nearly the same duties
| with certain qualifications and attribute:
adapted to the new system Of voting by bal
| lot. But no one imagined that the count,
| aud corporation cOslrtS could not at thei
| pleasure remove AL or any one Of these com
! mssionerS and substitute others in thei
places. 1t is very true that the present sp
| pointeeS constitute Judges for all elections K
| be h Id during the year, where's the CEN
missioners were appointed merely for tn
| general election.day and the subsequent eX
animation and certifcation of the results
| But by the very terms Of the appointmen
the commissioners had rs valid claim Il
| bold on to that appointment Till the gene
| raj electiou-day, and afterwards till the re
| suit was certified, RS the present judges haV
| for all the elections during the year. Th
difference between the two is simply iR tn
| tenure, or tine of holding, and not iE The
duties to be performed or the right to dis
charge them. so law was ever passed To-
| the removal of these commissioners. None
was ever considered necessary. Like fpcors
surveyors Of highways, and the ike, the.
were regarded as mere subordlnates, npoi
| whom public burden was cast, which an.
citizen might be required at any tame Il
bear as the price of his security and bran
qullity under the Government to Which IN
belongs. Such appointments confer no ape
cial privileges. They do not invest the In
cumbent with the Ui.le to anGttice in the tsala
acceptatiou Of that term.
MERELY aPPoISTR,s.
The Legislature in passing system o
laws adapted to the provisions of che PIE
sent Constitution deemed it more convenient
that these commissioners of election, now
styled judges, instead Of being appointed bs'
ennially for each general election, should be
appointed annually Tor all elections TO be
held during the year. And as no provision