Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-12-06
The Electoral Boards.

We have quoted from the proceedings Of
the two houses Of Congress precedents to
show that those houses pass concurrent
resolutions at will, which are not submitted
10 the President OF the United States foi
his action upon them. But 1t is contended
that these resolutions are In the nature o.
joint rules for the government Of the two
houses under certain circumstances. So Of
the proceeding In the Virginia Legislature
recently when the Electoral Boards were
chosen. A constitutional law was passed
In a constitutional manner. which law pro-
yided that these Boards ssonld be elected
by Joint resolution. II that law had pro-
yided that these Boards should be elected
by o Joint vote Of the two houses OF the
General Assembly, instead OF by JOINT
resolution, no question would have been
raised on the subject. The contention Of
the Republicans Is based upon the words
"joint resolution" Now, Is 1t conceivable
that the Supreme Court OF Appeals will
pronounce invalid an election held under
these circumstancess
The two houses Of the General Assembly
are IN the habit Of adopting Joint resolu.
tons providing for the election Of the base
ment officers. without asking the Governor
TO approve Of them. They do the same when
they elect judges. They have been known
TO elect us many a. FIVE judges at once--that
Is. ut one balloting. Were these elections
lawful Nobody has even thought Of rails
ing such q question. Wherein did the
election OF i've judges In those cases dif-
fer from the election Of an Electoral Board
for each OF hundred countless II Is
q clear case that II II was constitutional
to elect five county judges at once. 1t would
have been q constitutional election II all
the county Judges in Virginia had been
elected at one balloting. And it would
seem equally clear that IL hundred county
Judges could be constitutionally elected at
one balloting, hundred Electoral Boards
could be constitutionally elected at one
ballotiDg.
1t will be replied that the county judges
were elected by ballot, whereas the Elec-
toral Boards were elected by u joint resolu-
ton. But this is stumbling over mere
words. The schooLteacher answered that
sort Of argument WHO told his pupils that II
they called calls tail leg the calf would
nevertheless have but four legs. II the
General Assembly had the constitutional
power to elect the Electoral Boards, the
mere fact that the law said they were to be
elected by "ioint resolution instead OF
on "joint ballot "or by "joint VOTE" would
seem to be an insufficient reason for adludg.
ing their election invalid. The words
employed were employed to describe a
mode OF election-to indicate manner OF
election. The fact that "ioint resolu-
ton /" which IL intended 10 become law
cannot become law unless the Governor
acts upon 1t does not argue that the Gene
raj Assembly cannot without such action
pass "joint resolution which Is not In
tended to become law. We repeat what
we said the other day, that there is nothing
In a Joint resolution providing mere rule
Of voting upon which the Governors veto
could take effect. Suppose the joint reso.
ton under discussion had been sent
TO Governor CAMERON. What action could
he have taken upon It.? Ii was not bill
that could become law within the mean.
ing OF the Constitution. 1t was mere
list Of names. Wherein did that list of
names differ from ballot containing five
namesi And yet II il had been called a
ballot. and the law had provided for the
election OF these Boards by ballot. no Ques-
ton would have been raised as to the valid
ity Of the election.
We are not at all afraid to leave it TO the
Supreme Court Of Appeals to decide upon
the constitutionality of the law before us.
The Judges OF that court will not allow
themselves TO render a decision merely
partisan. Many good lawyers were con-
cerned In the passage Of the bill, and their
opinion cannot but be accorded all the con-
sideratlon to which II is entitled.