The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-12-23
The Norfolk Bill.

The Norfolk Bill.
when Che Legislature OF Virginia IN
N,rch. 1874. passed a bill taking from the
voters Of the city OF Petersburg the power
10 choose their own officers, the DiSpo'c"
csnoused the cause Of the voters, and s''s-
ta,ned Governor KExPER's veto OF the OBJ
,ectionable bill. The Governor had done
only what we conceived TO be his duty !;
and therefore. though we well knew that
we should displeasc many friends in Peters
burg. vet we felt bound 10 say that the bill
was properly vetoed. Some OF our sao-
scribcrs in the Cockade City were so ln-
d;gnant that they refused longer TO take
the Dispatch from the pcst-office; ana we
don't know but some copies OF it were
thrown into the fire in which Governor
KgxPER was burned In efiigy.
We rccite this little bit Of history to
proye that when we object TO the bill now
pending in the Legislature in regard to the
nolice OF Norfolk we only object TO what
we disabproved OF when somewhat SINH
lar bill was passed by Democratic Legs
laiure. The bill now up provides that
Judge GODwIN, Judge elected by the Le-
gislature--a State officer, and not in any
sense a city oficer-shalI perform duties
which under the Constitution Of Virginia
cannot be deyOlyed upon any other than
CITY officers. The Constitution is clear and
explicit upon this point. 1t says;
"All city, town, and village officers
IL
yided for by this Constitution shall be
elected by the electors Of such cities,
towns, and villages, or OF some division
thereof, or appointed by such authorities
thereof as the General Assembly shall de
signate."
That is plain and unmistakable declare
ton OF the intention Of the trainers OF the
Constitution that the people of the several
cities and towns Of this Commonwealth
should have the privilege OF choosing their
own officers. The language is broad :
sal" such officers shall either be chosen
by the voters themselves or appointed by
their oflicers-their authorties-the eau
tborities thereof "-that is, OF course, APP
pointed, in the case before Us, not by Judge
GoDwIN, but by the Mayor or the Council
The Norfolk bill is also, as Governor
KEuPER said OF the Petersburg bill, a yio-
lation OF the Virginia Bill Of Rights
document Of even higher authority, If pos
sible. than the Constitution. 1t needs no
argument to establish this proposition.
We conclude, therefore, that the courts
will be compelled to declare null and void
an, law which violates the Constitution by
vesting the power to appoint any city Off
GERS in a State officer. More: In regard
TO any city wherein the officials named in
:he State Constitution have always eXer-
cised certain powers, il is not settled that
the Legislature can deprive those officials
OF their usual powers ii the State ConSti-
tuition itself provides, as the Virginia Con-
stitution does, that there shall be such
officers elected in such city. The old
doctrine that State Legislature may
do whatever is not forbidden in the
Constitution has been held to be not
inconsistent with the decision that an
officer named in State Constitution
is protected by that Constitution in
the functions OF his Office as well as in the
mere right to hold such Office. We do not
care to argue this question just now. In
the case reported in the 9th volume Ameri-
can Reports, page 75i, the syllabus is as
follows
"When one of the duties appertaining
to the Office of sheriff was the collection Of
taxes. and during the PLAINTIFF term as such
sheriff the Legislature passed an act for the
appointment of tax-colleCtor; held, that
such act was unconstitutional"
This case was decided by the highest
court in North Carolina, presided over by
one of the most distinguished iurists that
state ever produced. We quote from the
opinion Of the Court as follows:
"The Legislature, without explanation
and without apparent necessity, and,
therefore, in contemplation OF law wan
tonly, takes the duties and emoluments
from the sheriff, and creates a new officer
and gives them to him! The error is so
palpabe that, but for the respect due TO
the Legislature, whose act we are review
ing, and must sustain unless plainly UNI
constitutional, we should think il unneces-
sary TO incumber the case with authori-
ties.
$50 in the State Of New York, there was
the office OF 'clerk Of the city and county
OF New York who was also 'clerk OF the
Court Of Common Pleas The officer vas
elective by the people. The LegislaIur
undertook TO divide the Office, and creatc D
separate office OF clerk OF the court The
Court appointed clerk, and indicted him
into office, just as the commissioners OF
Lincoln did in this case. The Supreme
Court Of New York decided that the Le-
gislature had no power to do IL, saying
In effect this statute divides the Office OF
clerk OF the city and county of New York
into two parts; and, us TO the largest share
in point OF duty and emoluments, takes
the choice OF the officer from the electors
OF the county, and gives the appointment
TO the Court. II this can be rightiully
done. do not see any security for the re-
sidue OF the Office. The Legislature may
take that also, and give the appointment Of
the officer TO some court, or TO the Gov
ernor and Senate; and thus the constitu
tional provision for choice by the elect
ors would be completely nulifed.' > Var
ner Us. The People, DEMO, 272.
''The case was carried TO the Court fol
the correction OF errors, and was elabO
rateIy argued by eminent counsel, and we.
considered by the Court, and the decision
of the Supreme Court was affirmed, tn,
Chancellor saying: But where the Legis
lature, as In this case, assumes the power
TO take from constitutional officer thu
substance Of the office itself, and TO trans
Ter il TO another who is to be appointed il
a different manner, and to hold the Office
by different tenure than that which wa
provided for by the Constitution, il is not
legitimate exercise OF the right 10 regulate