Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-02
THAT HENRICO CASE.
= FURTHER OUTLINE or THE pscl-
Son or TIE SUPREME COURT.
II Il Held that the Rssignatssa Of n
Registrar Must Be Aeecpsed Before
re Can yscste the cfaer.

~ view OF the Importance os the opsn-
ION delivered by Judge Lewis in the Sd
prene Court Of Appeals on Thursday IN
he HenTIco registration case. a fuller out
line of the Coart's decision Is here given
than the crowded condition Of the DIS
Parcz's columns would permit yestsrdxy:
The petitioner, Coleman. prayed nan
oaTnus TO ecmpel the defendant. William
n sands. whom be slIeges 20 be the re-
glstrar Tor ShoerEakes's elestIon district. 70
transmit 20 the County Judge Of Heurieo
county statement OF bis reasons for re-
fuzing to register the petitioner when ap-
piiet 20 by the latter on the ID dav Of
April last The defendant answered that
On the morning OF that dsg he re-
signed HIS Office Of registrar. and
ne Fled with hts answer the written
acknowledgment; Of the receipt OF ais r.
s,gra;IOn. signed by the clerk OF the
county Electoral Board. Il did rot ap-
pear. however, tha: the resignation had
been acted on by the boer0. and the Court
accordingly sustained demurrer % the
answer, thereby holding that the resigna-
ton bad not become complete. and couse-
q1ently that the defendant was still IN
oftcs.
NOT Effective USTTL kccxPIED.
The Court recognized the right Of q
registrar % resign his ofiee, bat held that
without the acceptance, expressed or i'm
Pied OF the appointing power the resigna-
uOn was not completed. Many author
ties we're cited IN support Of this ruling.
notably the op.nion OF the Supreme Court
OF North Carolina, delivered IN 1s31 by
ChIefIustics Ruin. IN Hoks q. Hendsr-
son, Dew. 1, IN which case il was said:
An oftcer may certainly resign. but
without acceptance his resignation is
nothing and be remains IN Office. II Is not
true that an Office - held 81 the will Of
either party. IL il held 81 the viii Of both
Generally designations are accepted, and
that has been 50 much matter Of course
with respect 20 lucrative Offices a. 20 have
grown into common notion that % re-
sign Is matter OF right. But il IS other
wise. The public hasa IighE 10 the ser
vices Of all the citizens. and may demand
them IN all civil departments as well a. in
the military. Hence a man cannot lSy
down his Office until the public OF those
to whom the authority Is eonfded are
satisfied that tbs Office il IL a proper state
to be left aud he Is discharged"
The case Of Edwards IS United States
io3. z. ;. Reports AL. was also referred TO
as containing "a very full and luminous
discussion OF the same subject. That
was an application for mands-nus against
Edwards as q township supervisor in the
State Of Michigan. who defended on the
ground that he had resigned. by tendef-
ing MS resignation 70 the township board,
which had been received and fled By the
clerk OF the board The Supreme Court.
however, held the answer insufficient, and
affirmed the judgment Of the lower court
awarding the writ, saving:
BoUsD 70 BElR TEE BURDEN.
As civil officers are appointed for the
purpose Of exercising the functions and
carrying on the operations OF government.
and maintaining public order political
organization would seem % be imperfect
which should allow the repositories Of ITS
power 20 throw Of their responsibilities az
their OWE pleasure This certainly was
not the doctrine Of the common law. In
England person elected 20 q municipal
Office was obliged to accept il and perform
lis duties, and be subjected him
self 10 penalty q refusal.
the appoIntee was bound. IN the interest
OF the community and OF good govern
ment. 70 bear. And from this it followed,
OF course. that after an office Was conferred
and assumed il could not be laid down
without the consent Of the appointing
power This was required n order that
the public interests might suffer no neon
venieuce for the want OF pubic servants
70 execute the laws"
THAr ELSETCo CASE
Bunting r.. Willis, q Grattan's Reports,
III. was next referred 70, 10 show that
notwithstanding the 0bHs- dictlEm OF the
nudge who delivered the opiniOu-namely,
that the plaintiff in error had q right 20
resign his Office as United States deputy
collector Of customs 81 pleasure-tae
dscis0A OF the c2se proceeded on the
ground that the Office was not laid down
until the resignation had been
accepted. although II was not accepted
for several DAYS after the dsy on which i
was rendered 70 take effect IL was said,
moreover. that the Aforementioned 05tisr
oie.,ra was founded upon o similar remark
OF Mr.. Justice Mclean IN United States e.
Wright. l McLean's Reports, which case
was virtually Overruled by the Supreme
Court in the Edwards case decided several
wears after Bunting rs. Willis was decided
vEGT TzE EFFECT Would b.
The conclusion Of the Court, therefore.
was that inasnach o. there Is no statute
abrOgzting il. lie common-lav rule Is IN
force n Virginia. which requlres that the
resignation OF a municipal officer must. De-
fore X can be regarded as complete. DC ac-
eepted. To hold the rule 20 % aoro-
rated. Il was said. would enable every
Ofics-holder, If he were so disposed 70
throw of his official character 81 VIII and
leave the community unprotected
r,rinsiu,le." II was added. which, II scted
an i enable OF leading 20 such result,
surely has no foundation II the law.
A peremptOry mandamus was accord
iugly awarded as prayed tor In the Pc