Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-08-20
GOVERNORS MESSAGE.
SOME FINANCIAL SUGGESTIONS.

from the special joint comhit'ee appoih'eu
10 consider the condition OF the election
laws of the Commonwealth. submitted the
following report as the result OF their n
bors. Twas read at length from the Clerks
desk as follows:
The General Assembly Of Virginia. at It's
session OF 1894, enacted n law which
took effect February IA, 1884. providing for
the manner OF choosing registrars and
Judges and clerks Of elections, and by ex-
press provision repeating the then existing
laws ,lpon this subject contained In see
tious . and 3 OF chapter I. and sections S
and "a Of chapter 8 Of the Code OF 1873.
The principal change affected by this law
was TO take away from the county and
hustings court judges the power TO ap-
;oint the registrars and other election Off
GERS, and 10 lodge II In an electoral board
for each county and city, consisting OF
three persons for each county and city
chosen by Joint resolution Of the two
houses o' the General Assembly.
The recognized causes for this change in
the manner Of making these appointments
were, first. that the courts might be di-
yorced as far as possible from all connec-
ton with politics; and. second, because OF
the partisan action OF many OF the county
and hustings court judges IN selecting
their appointees, and the just al prehension
that under their further control elections
would not be so conducted AS 10 secure
real freedom to the ballot and fairness in
the count.
The act which became operative on the
14th day OF February, 1884, contained in
its first section provision that the persons
TO he chosen to constitute the several cleo
toral boards "shall he freehOlders and
residents Of such county and city for which
they are appointed"
Without taking formal evidence upon
the subject we have learned from authority
deemed reliable by us that the words free
holders and" were not in the original
draft Of the bill as it was intended 10 be
presented 70 the Senate. but that the sem
tcucc quoted read as follows: "Sbal be re-
sidonts Of such county and city for which
they are appointed"
How these words became n part OF the
law We do not know, although ii is fair TO
suppose that they were in the draft oi the
bill actually offered in the Senate; for the
Journals OF the two houses do not show
that they were inserted 10y amendment, on
motion Of any senator or member, or 10y re-
port OF any COnInlltct.
The bill Is II very long one, containing
fourteen sections and covering four PAGES
Of the Acts The words freehOlders and "
occupy as insignificant position relative to
the Object and purport Of the law as they
do the number Of words which il contains.
Their omission from the bill could in no
wise have Helped or hindered the obvious
purposes Of the act, and that in the sequel
they should have proved a stumbing-block
in the way Of this wise legislation has been
q matter OF surprise TO those who conceived
the laW and were instrumental in its pas
sage.
The presence Of the obnoxious uOrfs
seems not TO have been observed until after
lie bill had passed both houses, had. with
out comment upon this feature. undergone
the scrutiny of the Governor, and nOtwith-
Standing his objections had become a law.
Close upon their discovery the Senate.
and not long after the House also, pa'sed
q bill amending the first section aud strik-
Ing out the Objectionable words. This bill
was sent 10 the Governor, but he saw fit
not TO aid the General Assembly in amend
ing the law in {, Is respect, and hence be-
cause Of he tack o. his signature alone
the Objectionable feature remained part
Of the act.
The constIiutonalityo oithe ac.. rs affected
hv the presence a the two words " free.
h0idcrS dnd," was tested by the ca,e OF
Back rs. Trowcr ct ais, decided by the
supreme Court Of Appeals OF Virginia on
the Sth day OF Nay, 1884. In that case that
court declared that because the General
Assembly had imposed the qualification OF
Icing a trCehOldcr as a condition Of serving
on the electoral boards, therefore 1.-THE en-
tire act was imperative. and the statutes
sought TO be repealed were unaffected there
by"
This. il must he observed, notvithstand.
ing the fact that one oi the sections thus
revised and consequently regarded as
constitutional, provides that the iudgcs OF
election shall, whenever practical, be
chosen from among persons knOtrR 10 BE-
long TO different political parties, one at
least OF whom can read and trrite, and pre-
scribes that when all the judges fail or re-
fuse 10 attend that any three competent
frCehOdcrS Of the district may conduct the
election.
1t is the twelfth section Of the act
which ~ express enactment repealr Sec
tonS eight and twenty-iour OF chapter
eight, and sections two and three OF chap
ter seven Of the Code Of 1873.
The natursl consequence Of declaring
this act wholly imperative and void is, oi
course. equally 70 avoid the twelfth section
and 70 leave tic sections OF the Code which
it "sought to repeal" in full force aad
vicor.
A venerable rule OF action by the courts
has, however. been in times past to handle
tenderly the acts Of the peoples represent
otves, snd in measuring their validity by
the standard of the Constitution to 20 no
further than the letter and just spirit Of
that instrument demands.
In accordance with this view il has been
q rule OF construction ci perhaps hitherto
universal adoption that if III any act OF
legislative body there arc provisions OBJ
roXious 10 tie Constitution, il by wedding
out such provisions the obvious purpose OF
the bill is suli fairly expressed and its
functions are practically unimpaired. the
axe will not be laid at the root Of the tree,
but rather the dead branches viii be pruned
oil. and the net will I've allowed TO stand, 50
that the will OF those alone who have the
right 10 make and TO repeal laws shall be
accomplished.
The Court Of Appeals, in substance, APP
proves this rule Of construction, and yet
declares that it could not be presumed that
the Legislature would have passed the act
without the freehold qualification
ing this mere incident as il IL was the very
pith and msrrow OF the bill.
In Difference we submit that II not here,
then In 10 case can ii be presumed OF any
act by any legislative body that it would
have been passed without features found
therein by courts 10 be unconstitutional,
aud the rule, distinctly recognized by the
Supreme Court OF Appeals OF Virginia that
"a statute in some OF is provisions may be
Unconstitutional and void and In others
unotiectionable," could never in any case
have practical application.
In this case. moreover. the Journals OF
both houses show that each house oil the
General Assembly did IN fact pass bill
eliminating the forbidden words from the
act. and thus showing that their intentions,
beyond question, was to pass the bill with
out the ireeholder qualification. Ii was
because the Governor failed to sign the
bill That the intentions OF the Legislature
did not find expression in Ia law.
With difference. again, we suggest wlr-
thcr in the Journals Oi the houses the
courts will not find the intentions oi the
General Assembly against the force OF any
evidence Gliunds, il there be any such. Just
as the courts ore shut up 10 an inspection OF
The acts OF the Assembly 10 find what was
done by the Legislature and the Governor
together.
such obvious suggestions leave Il IN
doubt whether the court, not unanimous
in lis decision already rendered, may not
in another ease deem il its duty To recon-