The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-28
Freeholders as ofHce-Holders.

FreeEolQSrS as OtncS-faOiOSAe.
The Alexandria Gazette says:
"There need be no trouble about the AZ
lepcd impe,fectlon Of the law creating the
electoral boards. There can be no possible
djfirulty about the word 'freeholder,' be-
cause the only effect OF The use OF the word,
N n be unconstitutional 10 prescribe such
\ qualification, would be 10 allow any
uualifed voter, resident In the city or coun-
ty, to hold the position, and not to defeat
she whole law"
But u Is not unconstitutional TO prescribe
such a qualification. The Constitution
merely provides that all voters shall be
capable OF being chosen to ill all offices
within the gift OF the people. The most
that can be said by the Mahoneltes Is that
the Legislature had right 10 choose men
that were not frceholders. but preferred to
choose freeholders. Non-freeholders are
" choosable," "eligible," "capable OF
being chosen or elected" They have no
title 10 any Office. SO freeholdcrs are
" choosable," "eligible," "capable OF
being chosen or elected" The General
Assembly chose freeholders. Hadn't 1t
the power and the right to do soI
Suppose the election had been one by
the people instead Of by the Legislature,
and ali the persons chosen had been free
holders: would non-freeholder have any
right 10 complain? Would he apply to
the courts for mandamus compelling the
people 10 elect him?
The very same word that is used in the
case Of officers is used in the case OF jurors.
All voters are "eligibe" that's the world
to sit as jurors, just as all voters are "ellgl-
BILE" TO every Office within the gift OF the
people. No one can be "eligible" unless
there are electors. No one can be "choosa-
BILE" unless there are choosers. Who Is 1t
that has this privilege Of selecting" or
"ehoosing"S The Legislature in the case
OF offices which that body has the right to
fill 1t might have chosen nOn-freeholders'
but il didn't. II chose ireeholders. Is any
body wrongedY
But above all else. and conclusive, is the
fact that the commissioners elected by the
Legislature were not elected to an office
"within the gift Of the people," 1t was
an office created by the present Legisla-
ture-one with filing which the people
had nothing to do. Let us illustrate:
The Constitution prescribes no qrlalifca-
tions for either the Judge Of the Hastings
Court or the Judge Of the Probate Court
OF this city. Will Judge ATKINS, or any
other Judge, say that the Legislature cam
not prescribe by law that these judges
shall be lawyers, "learned in the law y?
Well, then, II the Legislature may consti-
tutionally prescribe one qualification, 1t
may constitutionally prescribe another. 1t
might in fact require these offices to be
flied by freeholders.
Judge ATKINS himself holds an office.
We repeat, for which the Constitution pre-
scribes no qualifications. II then it is I'M
constitutional for the Legislature to pre-
scribe:qualifications for an office. Judge
ArKrNs,holds Office under an unconstitu-
tional LAWN other words, is not lawfully
in Office, and therefore is no iudge-that
is, of course. il the electoral boards are
not lawfully in office. Here is the law I'M
der which Judge ATKINS holds Office.
Chapter 154, section %, Code of Virginia,
reads:
"22. There shall be for the city Of Rich
mond bustings court, to be held by the
city Judge of said city, toih like quqlifcd-
tionS and elected in the same manner as
Judges of the circuit courts"
The Constitution, we repeat, prescribes
no qualifications for the Judge OF the Hust-
ings Court Of Richmond. The Legislature
has prescribed such qualifications. Is the
law constitutional? Yes. Is Judge At
KIYs lawfully in office? Yes.
But he Is mere usurper-has no title to
the Office Of judge-was elected under an
unconstitutional law--if the Legislature
OF Virginia has not the power to provide
that The men who appoint election officers
shall be ireeholders.
But Judge ATKINS may say that he holds
Office lawfully and constitutionally be-
cause the Constitution requires no qualifi-
cations; that the act of Assembly pre-
scribing qualifications is null and void so
far as it prescribes qualifications for a city
Judge, but in all other respects cOnstitu-
tionaI. We admit it. So it is with the
electoral boards. Though so much Of the
act as prescribes qualifications may be I'M
constitutional, yet all the rest Of it b con-
stitutional. Now, gentlemen, what say
your Look al any side of the question
and we are right.