Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-20

many CONSTITUTIONAL pfuNleaous, t.s~.
broad and general in their terms 90 no.
apply 20 municlps, government: and fnan1
OF these authoiities are most pertlnens "
the question AZ issue.
The Supreme Court Of THIS State In TIE
case Of Giikeson 70. The frederiek JneuSea .,e,
u3Grat, 55T,i held that the provision IN the
Cor stitutiOn of 1881 declaring that taxa
ton shall be equal and uniform throoRhoo'
the Commonwealth" &C.. related 10 thxs-
tlon by the General Assembly for purposee
Of state revenue. and did not apply 10 axes
and leyies by counties and corporations Tor
local purposes.
The Consultation OF Missouri gave power
to the Court OF Appeals Of ~. Louis TO issne
certain legal writs. and allowed appess
from the decision % that court 10 the sa-
pIeme Court Of the state in cases isvoiying
the title 10 any Office under the state.
The latter esuIt he'd in Britton -. sire
Der t62 Mo-. S70,l that an appeal taken ~ 70
the title 10 the Office OF mayor did not ~,
because the Office OF mayor was not S,ste
In the case OF Stewart -. Foster q Birm.
1lQO the question presented Was wDetnef
an alien VINO had resided In P1tlsoursh on
Iear next preceding "a election for boroalGn
CjEeeTt and hsd within that time psid =
borough tax, was entitled 10 vote at such
election.
Tie supreme Court of Pennsylvsnia held
that be was entitled 10 vote. as he bad al
the qualifications required by the act ~
cooperating Pittsburgh. such was the de-
cisiOn OF the court, although the CoDstltn-
ton OF Pennsylvania required fico years ~
the state as q qualification OF every voter
"iu elections by the citizens"
See also the ScrantOn Borough Eection,
reported iu Brighuey's Leading Cases OIL
Elections. page i55.
In StEte -. blanchard te Ia. ann.~s-ts.s
the sUpreme Court Of louisiana held AZ foi-
lows: The clause OF the 9jth article oi the
Constitution. which restricts eligibillty 20
paTith Offices 10 persons who have the right
10 vote in such parish. contempates siste
officers. In interpreting the l26th article
which declares that no person shall hold or
exercise at Inc same time more than one
civil Office Of emolument. except tnat OF
Justice Of the peace, we held that IL contem-
plsted State Offices
See also state Ts. Montgomery, . Ia
Ann, lsS; Hespubica -. Dallas. leat7s'
500 state Vs. Lision. Humph., SOB.
The suyreme Court OF Indiana lin state
r. Kirk A. Ind, 406 held IN ourop!nlon
tie Office OF councilman III city, altnough
a lucrative office in the ordinary So OF
the word IS not lucrative oilce Wiialn
the ninth section Of the second article OF
the Constitution, reading ss follows. Nor
thaU any Ierxon hold more than one lucrs-
tive Office Al the same time"
The Constitution OF Delaware contained
q provision that mo OrialBed Clergy man
or ordained preacher OF the Gospel OF any
Denomination shall be capable OF holding
any civil Office IN this state
A clefgy man was elected Treasurer o! The
city Of Wilmington. His right To the once
Was disputed in the case OF The state -.
Wilmington = Harrington, 2sfL Inc su-
yTefGe Court held THAT the terms u-ed IN
The Constitution have reference 10 stale
officers ard not to corporation officers.
The charter Of Milwaukee contained n
provision az follows: If any member OF
The CITY Council shsll. VINE nemoer, %
elected TO sny other Office u said city, such
election shall he void" The question was
IA jsed Gu state -. Ven Baumbach, II MS,
2lO.J whether the law WAS not unconstitu-
tioual. ss adding a qualincaiion not re-
gulI.d by the Wisconsin Constitution. The
supreme Court held that
The Legislature hss power 10 prescribe
the Qualifications Of city, town, or Ni.lage
officers.
~ provision In the charter OF city that
80 Guy member Of the Common Council
shall. while n member, be elected - any
otber once q said city, such election shall
be void g not unconstitutional!
While su tie case OF Back -. Trower.
above cItsd, the question here a. is>ur dii
not arise, yet the language of Judgr Lewis
in plies that he regarded the provision IN
the virginia Constitution as 70 ih3 luaud-
cation for Office "a apply 10 state O',icel
he ssys: 1T IS coufenfed. however. that
an Office within the r.i ~ the peop.e is
en Office 20 he filed by popular vote. and
not one 10 b. 1ned ty tie General Assem-
bly,. But this, We iDiuB; Is an errjneou-
cCIsJunilSu az contrary 10 the manifest
intent Of tie frsmeis Of the Constitution.
The words the PEOPLE are not uufIeg uent
en- YlCyed IN different senses, ana tntr
meaning must therefore be determined ~
the connection ard the circumstances oI
the particular c. 81 IN which ilef are p-efl
in some cases they refer 70 the QVI-.bi
tstsrs. end IN CtLer~ 10 the Si1fT tt - s. ,f' =
s,rl ,dj 0cf'ff. An exam pie o. the i6t'er 4 .na
is fCund Iu The preamble 10 tie Constitution
49, H.n. - aHa.aa al
OF the lniied ~iales. Nnl'n lec.ares lunl
we. the people Of the United States in or
der 10 form a more YeTfeCi Union. SC. 20
eIabllsh tbs Constitution &c. Icfe the
sCrCs refer, ~, &c tue I4ui..iSd 'J-enh N
H.. xGyfotis states. for the Constitution was
pe.ertubmittst fIr adoption tu a popIlar
{ct0s And "a ms cJi4fr1. fsirs scISs - IL
tlsiu The words were u q IN the article OF
ihe Constitution now under review &C.
lntne light ofthe above author ties / am
of opinion mat the oiaess cont e. mpated
10 be rlled iu the Board Of Health by your
rodv are not Offices within the gift o. the
re0uIr." as meant in the Constitution.
Hsrce J am OF opinion that. as 10 Ihose
Offces the said section OF the city orii-
uapcCs IS not Unconstitutional.
90 not deem e proper. howev To stop
with nee xpress on OF the opinion above
given, While the form ~ your inquiry is
whether the section Is Unconstitutional.
presume you wish to know whether II any
sense 70 Is u egal.
Hence have deemed II my iuty 20 ek.
anime into tie question whether u was
within the SCOPE ofthe powers delegated 20
the city Council 10 pass such an ordinance.
u an urt,spuied principe of municipal
law that a council has only suc1 powers ~
are expressly granted. or such as are I'D 10
pied. or necessary 10 carry out those eX-
Yre1sly given.
The charter OF Richmond IN none o. So
roVisious contains any such power q n
true that the charter authorizes the tour-
ell 10 make such ordinances. bylaws. or
ders and regulations as they may deem de-
Srahie 20 carry out the following powers.
which are hereby vested Ia them Among
the ra.Sers specified is one " for toe apDoln nj
Ineut and organization OF o Board OF Health
FOR said city Does the power TO ma Ae
ordinances for the "sppoi ntment" OF n
Board Of Health carry with u the risht 20
REQUIRE twelve months residence IN the
city j. such a power Implied 70 The power
of appo. ntmeni ? $50. u what extent =
tie Council limited IN requiring other and
NOR unreasonable qualifications The
rover 10 require each member nf the Boa.d
cf Health 20 be = physician Is Included 10
the poweT OF appointment FOR IL Slnci'
denial TO the express power.
The rule is that a municipal corporation
"csnuot in yirlue OF its incidental power
10 pass by-laVs, or under any general gIRn;
Of hat authority. adopt bylaws which n
fripc,- the spirit or are repugnant 70 The
uo.icV OF The state a. declared IN IT, gene
raj legislation. - Dill. Nun. Corpt'n. &
SZe.
lis the general policy OF this State TIA;
suV person is elgi bic 10 an ONCE Fno :
qualified to vote forRn Office. The th'ri SO
ton Of chapter OF the City ord finances
coptrnvenes that general policy.
lam of opinion that the power 10 rt-lr n
twelve months residence IS not implied N
the power OF appointment
In Kearpey ts. Andrews q stock. Chan.
Kpt's. 70 ) the Supre Il Court Of New jersey
held that ''the power OF hlling yacsn -
berg Incidental 10 q corporation. u has tne
night by lis bylaws 10 prescribe tue manner
IN which such vacancy shall be flieo, 70
vi6cd 81 is not inconsistent with the des : q
Of the charter and does not infringe =
provisions: hut the City Council has no
tight 20 declare who shall be the electors-
See also Rex 80. Head, BUT, 1921.
The question arose IN State -. Jerse ;
CITY Il Dutcber sS6.) ss 10 the poWr- -
the City Council To disquslify n form =
member from being re-elected who h@1
been expelled for bribery. Tre charter
gave The Council full power 10 expel 70: dis
orderly conduct. The member Was daiJ
expelled. The Court helA that the charter
gave 40 power TO d!squslify. and that 'hs
power 10 disqUglify could not be iMplel
from the power 10 expel.'
The above decisions show the tendency o'
the courts 10 narrow the implied powers
when II Is attempted 10 abridge the ~ =
Of persons 10 vote or hold Office.
Among the knglish csses divers su'Lof4'
ties may be found pegativing the righi ot :
Council 10 limit the numbers OF persons
who nav hold Office.
IN Rex &c. Spencer (3 Burrows. page 1897
the question arose as TO the power oi =,