Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1880-01-20
A Precedent.

The Legislature. at its session ending
in the spring of 1878, elected the county
judges who went into Office on the 1st
day of January, 1874. They were elect
ed for the reason that the Constitution
provided that their term of Office should
begin on the 1st day of January next
following their appointment. On the
25th of March, 1878, in discussing ques-
tons more or less intimately connected
with the subject, the Dispatch said:
whenever elected they 1.-THE county
judges] 60 into office on the 1st of Janu-
airy afterwards"
So the question raised by our Pittsyl-
vania correspondent is not a new one,
as we had supposed before we investi-
gated the matter, but an old one. 1t
arose in 1873 when the Conservatives
postponed the day for the meeting ofthe
General Assembly until the 1st day of
January, 1874. AS in consequence of
the postponement there was to be no
session of the General Assembly before
the 1st day Of January, 1874, and as the
term of the county judges who would
otherwise have been elected in Decem-
UGT, 1910, was W VII 5csiu ASu
day of January, the Legislature decided
to elect them at the session ending in
the spring of 1873 some nine months
before that day. Aud remember that
this was done by Legislature whose
term was then about to expire. and that
a new Legislature was to be elected
nearly two months before the new coun
ty Judges would go into office, though,
as we have said, it could not under the
law assemble before the 1st day of jan
uary, 1874 !.
1t may therefore be assumed as settled
by precedent based upon the opinion
of the best lawyers in the State in 1878,
that no matter when the county judges
are elected, their term of office can be-
gin only on the 1st day of January next
following their appointment. Let US
put down peg there; and go On with
the argument.
The next question is as to the right of
a county judge elected after the lst day
of January in any year to qualify before
his term of office COMMENCES. The &C
ton of the Legislature above recited set
ties this question also II under the
Constitution the county judges could
have been elected in January, 1874, and
CCuiU uaVC SoAC lLbo OilCC iOA III ith \SS
is now claimed for those just elected by
the legislature Mr.. Coghili and the
other distinguished lawyers with whom
he was associated in the General Assem-
bly, in 1873 would never have commit
ted such an outrage upon the people as
would in that case have been involved
in the election of the county judges by
an expiring Legislature when new
Legislature was to be chosen in Novem-
Der, and would assemble the very day
the judges terms would end. The Con
stitution requires that the judges shall
remain in office until their successors
are qualified and there would have been
no interregnum. The lew judges could
all have been elected the first or second
week in January, and could have gone
into Office at once. The conclusion is
irresistible, then, that the lawyers in the
General Assembly of 1873 were of the
opinion that no county judge could take
Office before the first day of January
next following his appointment. On no
other theory can we fluid any excuse for
the action of the Legislature of that
year. And what the Constitution re-
quired in 1873 it requires now.
We discuss the question to-day, as we
discussed it in 1873, without any regard
to its effect upon parties.-Rich. Dis
patch.