The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-12-31


The chssge thai the journalists OF new
York city almost invariably utter nonsense
when they undertake to discuss consti-
tu,ioual questions may be only Joke, as Is
Of course that other charge that 1t Is ne
eessary qualification Of Journalist IN tha'
civ that he shall be unable to write upon
such subjects without manliesting an ig-
norance which would he incxcusable else
whore. But we had never supposed that
The Nation would be caught mapping
when II undertook to discuss sueh SUD-
iects. Yet such is the fact. That impar'in
and fair wcekly--impartial and fair II any
Republican paper can be so designated
after ridiculing numerically the Virginia
duellists whose disabilities are about 10 DC
removed, actually lays down the absura
proposision that II any duellist ran Tor
Office IN Virginia last November. ms oppo-
rent was elected whether the latter re-
ceiyed five votes or five hundred, ana OF
course even though the duellist received
majority OF the votes east at that electioh'
The yation's proposition is untenable. 10
vote for an ineligible candidate Is not gene
rally held to be the same thing as Young
for his opponent. And we cannot imagine
nv what process OF reasoning the conciu-
sion is reached that vote cast ior an
ineligible candidate should be counted
for an eligible one whom the Voter
had done all he could TO Vote
against. II JOHN SMITH, being ineligible,
rims against Tow JONES, who is eligible,
and receives a large majority OF the votes
east. II would seem that Ton JONES Is the
last man in the community for whom those
votes should be counted, seeing that he Is
the very man against whom all those votes
were intended to be counted. The voters
cast them for SMITH because they were I'M
willing TO have JONES as their officer or
representative.
We add that the Virginia Constitution
does not render duellists ineligible to
oftice-that Is, does not declare that they
shall not be elected TO Office, but merely
that they shall not hold Office. We take
this 10 be distinction with differ
cncc. We hold that duellist might
have been elected Governor in November,
and if the Legislature had removed his dis
abilities in December, he could take Office
on the 1st Of January. We admit that this
might not be a good precedent to set; and
that there is a good deal to be said on the
other side. But ii has been over and over
again decided that young men under twen-
ty-onc years of age might be elected to
Office, aud take the Office afterwards, II only
they became Of age before their term OF
Office began. The case under consideration
seems to be similar one.
But the whole edge OF The Nations criti-
cism is bIunted by the fact thai not one ~
the gentlemen whose disabilities are about
to be removed was elected &c any c'tce at
The late election. We have not the list OF
heir names before us Just -cw, Ia we are
confident that our statement l. oriect We
cannot recall the name OF a sbis'o gerscn
mentioned in the bill for removing dIsabil-
titles who was candidate for any office at
that election.
so that The Nation must admit that 1t has
blundered all the way through. We beg it
not TO refer us to the celebrated British
case OF JOHN WILKES; for though WILKES
was over and over again refused seat in
Parliament, and by law declared ineligible,
and though his opponent was once seated
OH the ground that the votes east for WILKES
were void, yet WILKES persisted in his de-
mand for seat, and it was but few years
before he gained it and caused to be eX-
plunged the resolutions concerning himself
towhich he objected. This would be poor
precedent for The Nation to cite, as it was
so soon rendered the reverse OF prece-
dent on that side Of the question; but even
il il had not been reversed itwould not ap-
ply in Virginia, seeing that our Conslitu-
ton, as we have said, does not render duel
lists neligible-unelectable merely
provides that they shall net hold Office
unless their disabilities are removed.