The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-01-12

the spring OF 1910, e'eS'S~ W"
who went into Office on the ist DAY OF 1anu'
srv. 1874. They were elected for the reason
shst the Constitution provided that their
farm Of Office should begin on the lst day OF
Jsuuary next following their appointment.
On the 25.h OF March, 1873, In discussing
ouestions more or less intimately connected
with the subject, the Dispatch said;
"Whenever elected they tthe county
iudgesl 90 into Office on the Isl OF January
Afterwards
So the question raised by our Pittsy'va-
MIA correspondent is not new one, as we
had supposed before we investigated 'ne
matter. but an old one. Ii arose In 1878
when the Conservatives postponed the day
for the meeting Of the General Assembly
until the lst day OF January, 1874. AS in
consequence Of that postponement there
was TO be no session Of the General Assem-
bly before the Ist day Of January. 1874, and
as the term OF the county judges who would
otherwise have been elected In December
1879. was 10 commence on said LIST day OF
January, the Legislature decided to elect
them at the session ending in the spring OF
ls7S-some nine months before that day.
And remember that this was done by
Legislature whose term was then about TO
expire, and that new Legislature was TO
be elected nearly two months before the
new county judges would 90 into office,
though, as we have said, ii could not under
the law assemble before the 1st day OF JAN
uary, 1874.
The Republicans, led by Mr.. RANsDELL,
protested against the election OF the county
Judges by the Legislature OF 1S72-73. They
asserted that that Legislature had no right
10 pass the law which it did pass postpon-
ing the assembling OF the Legislature until
January, and vehemently insisted upon it
that 1t would be the constitutional duty OF
the new Legislature TO meet In December
for the purpose Of electing county judges
and other officers. They drew up long
protest against the action OF the Legisla-
ture which they asked to have spread upon
the journal. But Mr. CoGBILL made
powerful and convincing speech in defence
OF the course OF his party, in which he told
Mr.. RANsDELL that there were able lawyers
on the Conservative side OF the hall who
knew what they were doing, and were not
at all afraid to take the responsibility.
We have examined our files from January,
1873, to the time OF the adjournment of the
Legislature, and can find no indication that
anybody denied the truth OF the PROPOSE
ton upon which the action OF the Conser-
vative Legislature was based. All men Of
all parties seem to have agreed in the opinion
that il was necessary to elect the county
Judges in 1878 because their term OF office
would begin January /, 1874, and all mer OF
all parties also agreed that il The county
Judges were elected after the LIST day OF
January, 1874, their term OF office could
not begin until January l, 1875. The
difference between the two parties was that
the Conservatives claimed the right TO post
pone the meeting OF the new Legislature
until January, and also claimed that such
postponement would necessitate the election
OF the county judges by the Legislature OF
1S72-'73; whereas the Republicans, who
also claimed that the county judges must be
elected before the 1st OF January, declared
that the election OF them was duty devolved
upon the new Legislature by the Constitu-
ton of " hioh 10 ovuu not be ueprivou, --I
therefore that the Legislature to be chosen
In the following November must meet soon
enough in December to perform that duty.
1t NAV therefore be assumed as settled by
precedent based upon the opinion OF the
best LAWYERS in the State in 1873, that no
matter when the county judges are elected,
their term Of office can begin only on the
LIST day Of January next following their APP
pointment. Let us put down a peg there;
and 70 on with the argument.
The next question is as to the right OF a
county Judge elected after the LIST day OF
January in any year to qualify before bis
term OF Office commences. The action OF
the Legislature above recited settles this
question also. II under the Constitution
the county judges could have been elected
In January, 1874, and could have gone into
Office forthwith (as Is now claimed for
those Just elected by the Legislature0
Mr.. CoGnILL and the other dis
tinguished lawyers with whom he
was associated in the General Assembly
in 1878 would never have committed such
an outrage upon The people as would in
that case have been involved in the election
OF the county judges by ain expiring Legis-
lature when a new Legislature was to be
chosen in November, and would assemble
the very day the judges terms would end.
The Constitution requires that the Judges
shall remain In office until their successors
are qualified; and there would have been
no interregnum. The new judges could
all have been elected the first or second
week in January, and could have gone into
office at once. The conclusion is ire
sistible, then, that the lawyers in the
General Assembly OF 1878 were Of the
opinion that no county judge could
take Office before the first day OF JAM
uary next following his appointment. On
no other theory can we find any excuse
for the action Of the Legislature OF that |
year. And what the Constitution required |
In 1873 il requires now.
We discuss the question to-day, as we
discussed il in 1878, without any regard to |
its effect upon parties.
-
Does our Loudoun friend think that Gen.
eraI MALONE could at once succeed Colonel |
WITurRs by going to Washington and |