The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1884-03-27
Freeholders as Ofiice-Holders.
The following letter explains itself
n,y.ry II . nrsrptcT ATTORNEY,

hithEVNbt Ast 'sesSfs -"f
Editor Richmond Dispatch:
Dear siT,--Referrlng to your editorial In
to-day's issue on the constitutionaliiy OF
| the recent law enacted by the General AS
sembly Of Virginia providing for an electo-
raj board In every county and city OF the
State, TO be composed Of freebolders, &c.,
and in which you say you would like to be
referred TO any provision OF the CoEstitu-
ton which prevents the Legislature from
providing that such offices shall be held
only by freeholders, / beg to refer you 70
section 9 of article OF the Constitution,
which Is az follows:
"Aii elections shall be by ballot, and al PER.
sons entitled 20 rote shall be eligible TO anu oce
Soithin ne gin Of ne people, except as restricted
| In this Constitution"
This section provides that all persons
entitled to vote shall be eligible to any
Office within the gift OF the people. There
Is no such qualification on the right to vote
as that Of being q freeholder, therefore II
the offices in question are offices within
the Gift OF the people. then the law that
attempts to place them only within the
reach OF q certain class-yiZ., freeholders-
| is clearly unconstitutional.
twill scarcely be claimed that 1t was
the purpose OF the trainers OF the present
! Constitution TO extend the elective fran
cbise, and at the same time to limit the
qualification TO hold office. The language
- within the gift OF the people" is very
broad and comprehensive, and was clearly
used IN the said section TO indicate that
every voter was entitled to hold every
Office unless specially restricted In the Con-
stitution; and there seems TO be no re-
striction on the right OF the voter TO hold
this class OF offices. Had II been intended
hy this section to limit the right OF the
voter to hold only such offices as were
voted for directly by the people, then the
language "to hold any office elective by
the peOple" would have been used in
stead of any Office ''within the gift OF the
people"
The language used clearly embraces
every office, of every character, whether
filled by the people or by their representa-
tiyes. II the Legislature has the right TO
provide that these three hundred and sixty
offices shall be held only by freeholders,
why might II not provide that all other Of
fees created by it shall be filed by the
same or any other prescribed class onyI
Very respectfully. &C.,
EDMUND WADDILL, Jr.
OF course we had examined the section
OF the Constitution quoted by Mr.. WAD-
DILL. IL so clearly refers to elections
by the people, that we are surprised
that it should be quoted to show that
all voters are eligible to all legisla-
tive offices. It's rdiSOn detre-the very
reason for It's beiug-is that when the peo-
pie are called upon to choose officers they
may choose whom it may please them to
choose. No qualifications are required eX-
cept those required in the Constitution
itself. The same section provides that
call elections shall be by ballot" What
elections? Elections by the people, not
elections by the Legislature, nor elections
by boards of directors, nor any other cleo
tons except elections by the people.
The words "within the gift OF the
people" are mere surplusage IL Mr..
WADDnLs construction OF the sentence
is The right construction. They have no
meaning whatever. The intention Of the
trainers of the Constitutional such was
their intention-would have been much
better expressed If they had made the sec
ton read:
"All elections shall he by ballot. and all
persons entitled to vote shall be eligible to
any office"
Why were the words "within the gift
of the people" added? Plainly for the
reason we have already stated.
Again: If Mr. WADDELL is not mistaken,
the Legislature has no power to require
any qualification for any legislative office.
The laws which provide that the superin-
tendents of the several lunatic asylums in
Virginia shall he physicians are all uncOn-
stitutional. All voters are eligible to all
offices The laws providing that the
Governor may remove inspectors of to-
bacco, -four, fish, &C., for {" incapacity"
are unconstitutional; because the Consti-
tuition provides that call voters" shall be
eligible to every Office, whether capacitated
for it or not. The law providing that the
Governor may appoint a "suitable and
competent" person State Assayer and
Chemist is unconstitutional because the
Constitution allows no test of suitableness
or competency to be applied, but secures
to all voters the right to hold every Office !
In fact, If Mr.. WADDILL construes the Con-
stitution Alright, Virginia is blessed with q
large number OF unconstitutional laws.
And il the General Assembly should pro-
10 L. hot tl,a tof ont Of n
lunatic asylum for women should be a
woman physician, the law would be uncon-
stitutional
Again: Whilst the second section OF Ar
ticle III. reads as above quoted, the third
section 0he next one to it, uses the very
same words as to jurors. Let us quote:
"Section 2. All - = persons entitled to
vote shall be eligible to any office"
"Section 8. All persons entitled to vote
and hold Office shall be eligible to sit
as jurors"
1t Is a clear case that if the Legislature
lacks power to prescribe qualifications for
legislative offices, it lacks power to pre-
scribe qualifications for jurors. And vet
the Legislature has by law prescribed the
qualifications of iurors-that is, has desig-
mated certain classes of voters as disquah-
fed for serving as jurors.
1t is universally conceded, We believe.
that the Legislature may pass any bill
which 1t is not prohibited from passing
either by the State Constitution or the
Federal Constitution. 1t would, there
fore, be perfectly competent for the Legis-
lature TO pass bill providing that all the
members Of all the boards Of directors Of
all the State institutions of charity and
learning in Virginia should be freeholders.