The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-05-08
Is Il Commemorative Attorney EfiSi
BILE to the Legislature?

Editors Dispatch: To my Judgment
your law-points are very seldom wrong,
and I hope you will excuse me now If L
show you and the Judge of Manchester how
far you are both wrong when you think
"the lucky lawyer cannot be dislodged."
You will find that the Constitution OF Vir-
ginia reads:
members OF Common Councils shall
hold no other office in cities, and no city
officer shalt hold a scat in the General as
Senlbty."
Consequently you will, think. conclude
that when the Court Of Appeals decided
that the Commemorative attorney of Man.
chester was not city officer they proclaimed
strange law, taken in conjunction with its
opinion in the case OF Bunting Us. Williss,
in 9th Grattan, page l53.
Bunting, while holding an office under
the United States Government, was elected
sheriff at the May election in 1875. On the
10Th day of June he rendered bis resigna-
ton OF the United States Office, to take eff
feet June Goth. On the 25th day OF June he
qualified as sheriff. On the 1st day OF July
he completed his duties as United States
officer, and for this act he was removed
from office as sheriff, and on his taking his
case to the Court of Appeals Judge Mon
cure, delivering the unanimous opinion OF
the Court, says:
GA question might we'll be raised whether
a person who holds lucrative office under
the Federal Government is eligible TO the
office Of sheriff under the State law. To be
sure that law does not expressly declare
that he shall not be eligible, but only that
he shall not be capable Of holding any such
post, &c. We can see some reason for
using the latter rather than the former lam
guage, rs it may have been intended 10 have
the effect Of preventing rot only 4 Federal
officer from being elected to a State office,
but also q State officer from receiving Il
Federal office without ipSo tacto vacating
his State Office. IT may seem strange that a
person should be eligible to a State office
which he is incapable Of holding after being
elected. The law says nothing about his
rt signing before entering on the duties OF
his State office any Federal Office which he
NAV hold at the time OF his election. Ii
is at least optional with him whether he
will resign his Federal office or not, and
whether his election to the State office
would be etfectual Or not would de-
pend on the contingency Of his future
resignation in time to enter on the duties OF
bis State office. The Federal office might
be held by fraud contemporaneously with
that such was the case here, but there is
danger in such case; and the best way to
guard against it would seem to be that the
Federal officer should not be eligible to the
State office until he has clearly and entirely
rid himself OF the Federal Office. Other
wise, there will be painful uncertainty al
ter the election who the State officer Is until
some unmistakable act of resignation shall
have been executed. There is q manifest
difference between Offices held under the
same government and offices held under
different governments, as under the State
aud Federal. In the former case the whole
matter is under the control OF one and the
same government, and the acceptance OF
one office Is ipso facto vacation OF an
other Incompatible MereUith and previously
received"
Such is the language OF our laW-givers, and
by looking to the Acts OF Assembly 1S74-'75,
page 342, chapter 269, section 5, it VIII be
seen the law makers are equally as positive.
1t reads: "No person holding the office OF
attorney for the Commonwealth shall hold
any other office in his county elective by
the people, and il any person shall be elected
to two or more Of such Offices his qualitica-
ton in one shall be bar to his qualification
in any other" &c.
From this law, Messrs. Editors, you may
see that there is no necessity OF judge dis
lodging such an officer. The law dislodges
him.
Assuring you that no contempt OF court
is intended, I am, very respectfully, &C..
The HEATHER CHINEE.