The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-03-17
SUNDAY, MARCH II, 1901
ELIGIBILITY OF DELEGATES.

we print elsewhere {: communion
ton from Mr.. A Il. Ihomas' Oh
Lyncliburs. in which he raises the
question as TO the eligibility OF con-
gresham or State Judge and SO on
10 a seat in the Constitutional Con-
yention.
The same question was raised III TIE
Illinois Convention of lS62, says
Jameson. BY The Constitution OF tiiat
State. III was provided that the Judges
of The Supreme Court and Circuit
Court should not be eligible L" any
other office or public trust Of profit
in tic State or The United States dur
inc ull. term for which they were
elected nor for one year thereafter
One OF The delegates having been i
Judge OF The Circuit Court within one
year prior no his election 10 tie Con-
yention, his competitor contested his
sead on the ground that he WAS M
eligible. The Convention ut 1irSt de-
citird that he should retain his seat,
hut a motion WAS made Tie follow
ing day 10 reconSidci. and 4 spirited
debate arose. The question being
whether 10 be a member OF "A ConTcn-
ijon WAS 10 hold All office or pubic
f,7lst of profit in The State. 1t WAS
argued and the Convention SO decided
that The words office OF public trust
referred particularly 10 The diStrihu-
zion of powers contained in tic Con
s.itution according 10 The. iir>f section
Of The second article OF Which. the
powers of the government OF the State
were contided 10 three separate bodies
of magistracy-the legislative TO one.
The executive TO another and The judi
eial 10 a third To which OF these de-
partmentS. il was asked, did the dele
gate 10 The Convention heiong: Ger
tafnly. it WAS answered. IL could nor
he contendcd that he belonged 10 eiiii-
er of them. for all the officers belong
ing to each We're especially cnumer-
ated in the Constitution The only
plausible argument that could be
urged against this view, it Was claim
ed. was that there Was another pro-
vision of The Constitution, which pro-
yided for the election of delegates TO
the Convention, from which 1t might
be attempted 10 infer that those per-
sons. being chosen in pursuance OF the
Constitution. We're as much holders of
office or public trust under il as We're
Tho iud"es or the Governor: but the
r-epfv was that the constitutional pro-
a 4 nil in,
ser1ns or spirit define the qualifications
Of delegates, as III did those OF the
iudrcs. members of the Legislature,
etc: ii simply left the people TO choose
whcmsoeyer they might desire. With
out regard 10 age or qualification:
whereas, had the trainers OF the Con-
sritution regarded the members of the
Convention as Stale officers, they would
have inserted particular provisions.
prescribing not only the persons 10 be
elected. bat the time and mode of their
election and perhaps their powers aud
duty.
This doctrine was vigorously contro-
veried by 1hc opposition. aaid Mr..
Jameson says that sin his Judgment
There can be Int little doubt that a
.nenber or The Convention is in the
enlarged and proper acecpation of the
term an officer OF the Stale.
II seems 10 US, however. that a COM
r,eic answer 10 the point raised by
o,,r correspondent is that the people
are supreme and may do anything
that They please. \ Constitutional
fso1,yenfion is in u sense mass-mce.-
ing of the people and il is in sense
revolutionary. The people decide that
4l,e, viii wipe out the organic lazy of
1l,s land. aud that decision in Itself is
revolutionary. The people of the State
sa,,e Greater than the Constitution. and
;ua,,ss Ii. .n.isfs. ,nai,ifess; in the very call
81 Il convention To revise the Gpnstita-
i ION. The plupse, therefore. have alb.
$3.50 a,.ia,oraty To send as their repre-