Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-02-22
No FEMALE N0TARIES
,yr GOVERNOR REFUSES TO APP
PROVE THE BILL.
IT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONAL
The opinion Of Acknowledgement
,fonfaeuc Against 1.-THE Veto
couscs the disappointment OF 81
N,mber OF Anxious Applicants.

Tho bin allowing women to serve as
ro.ar.cs public in Virginia was yesterday
,.toea by the Governor.
Governor Tyler had held the bill several
f,rs and while 70 is believed he rather
5...r,l 90 see 50 become a law. he has
l-5m the beginning been OF the opinion
tt.f us constltuuonalty was az least
s.as,uL He secured the opinion OF At
r.y-Gonoral Montague. which confirm
"a hs doubts. and the bin was returned
r hc House. in which IL orieinated
without executive approval. Mr.. Duke.
su OF the delegates from Albemario. was
ths patron of the bill.
had the bin become a law there Is no
Doubt but there would have been great
many female notaries public in Virginia
a- ilo girls had been applying for an
r.numcnt ever since the measure passed
th. senate. The applicants were chiefly
gHosraphers and typewriters. who saw
Oh opportunity TO increase their income
ly receiving % share of the fees which
orc now monopolized by the horrid men.
THE VETO MESSAGE.
Following Is The text of the veto mes
s-. also the opinion of the ATTORNEY
General which accompanied IL:
commonwealth Of Virginia,
Governors once.
Richmond, Va, February 81. lS9S.
- tha House of Delegates:
When House bin No. 29. i'm regard n
I.0 appo.ntmont OF nOtaries public was
PIES utcd for my signature / had some
DOUBTS as 20 the constitutiOnality OF the
sure, ana as vast interests might be
involved ln the legality Of acknOwedg-
u.rts by such notares as would be an
pointed under The bill, / felt il nv duty
O. refer the matter to the Attorney
General for his opinion / accompany this
message with copy OF his reply. when
l1umunication.
For reasons SO clearly set forth in tins
opinion OF the Attorney L am
.'n. trained 20 return the bill to the
House OF Delegates, in which body II
originated. without my approval
dp not feel that IL is necessary for me
t0 discuss the question Of sentiment or
Nrlliency when this one question of the
uncnsutuuonality of the measure is so
plainly set forth.
Very respectfully.
J. HOGE TYLER,
Governor.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OPINION.
The Attorney Generals opinion is as
follows:
Commonwealth of Virginia,
Governors once.
Richmond. Va. February 10. 1923.
His Excellency, the Governor of Virginia:
Sir.-I am this day in receipt OF your let
Ter of the 18TH instant, requesting my
opinion upon the cOnstituuonality or
House bin No. 287. "in regard 20 the APP
po.ntment Of notaries public"
faa. in.
state Is a public office. Royal VS.. Thomas,
N Graft. 100: section 923. Code 1887. in
decd. 20 is a public Office of ancient origin
0f great Importance, and known TO an
civilized nations. opinion OF Trustees, 80
Mass. 5S5.
Are women eligible 10 this Office as pre-
scribed by this bill? The Constitution IT.
self must supply the answer IL says. All
lersOns entitled 10 vote shall be eligible
20 any Office within the gift of the peO-
,le." Article III. section 2 Is the office or
lOtary within The gift of the people
n my opinion ii is our Supreme Court |
las held that the word office in this |
action includes offices both elective and |
ppointive. Black vs.. IroWer, % Va, lZ5. |
( not. a slight reflection viii show that !
'ur form of government could be almost |
ntirely changed by legislative action. |
lanifestly. therefore, the word "oi1ce |
must be interpreted in its generic sense |
IS an of our public Offices are directly or |
."il fNAAa N-Nt-++A ~--N 3d.
le."
This is an office. therefore. the qualin- |
alton for which is fixed by the Consti- |
ur.on. This qualification is the condition !
.recedent that the appointee must be
entitled to vote" But women are not |
entitled to vote" (Article III, section y,
,ud therefore. they are ineligible 10 the
fhle fin question. And to this extent the
nm is. i'm my judgment, unconstitutional
Very respectfully, .-..,,
a. j. MONTAGUE,
Acknowledgement.