The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1902-09-18
sTENGLE VS.. REGISTRARS.


prevented us from saying anything in
these columns concerning our recent
Acknowledgement by the Board of
Registrars OF this city. but a. the
case has been the subject ofcOmment
throughout the State il will not toe
amiss or unseemly for us to allow
one OF our most valued contempora-
ries to speak for us on the subject.
The esteemed Staunton News correct
ly states the facts in the case and
argues somewhat along the same
lines followed byus when we address
ed the court.
For that reason. we take the lib
erty to publish the News editorial in
full
1t is as follows:
The case of Mr. Stengle. who was de-
MED registration at fredericksburg.
seems to be a hard one and il is not ex
ceptional. He was a registered voter at
Richmond and moved to fredericksburg
and he got a transfer and was placed on
the registration books at fredericksburg
and actually voted there in the city cleo
ton last spring. But when be presented
to register last week he was denied regis
tration because he had not been a year
in fredericksburg. and on appeal to the
city court he failed TO secure a reversal
OF the decision of the registrars Ii Is
not denied that he had all the qualiica
tons necessary to be registered except
residence. and the strange thing about
flfS i hot 10 k,I Ill -.
Tor residence under the old constitution.
he was an actual resident of Fredericks-
burg and was SO recognized; he had not
done anything to forfeit this residence
and yet the Interpretation put on the
new constitution does deprive him OF
residence already legally established and
recognized
We have our doubts of this decisions
standing. il the matter l. carried TO the
higher court. lt does seem that the new
constitution must recognize established
facts, and an Interpretation put on it by
which something that really exists IL de-
clared not to exist. does violence TO
sound principles.
The case is not PARALLEL with the case
OF depriving n man of his vote who has
acknowledged residence, but fails to have
the qualifications laid down in any one
OF the four conditions There was no
purpose in the new constitution 10 de-
domicie man. If we may coin a word.
but there was plainly defined purpose to
take the suffrage from those who have
not one of the four social or educational
requisites.
Col. Anderson names a. one of the ad-
vantages OF the strict Interpretation OF
the section which he sanctions. that the
section was wisely designed TO prevent
floating and cOlouizing The point j.
well taken for the future. but is not well
taken for the past. The section should
not be interpreted as retroactive to undo
floating that took place before the birth
of the constitution. There can be no sim
liar situation dating after the constitu-
ton, Tor no one can acquire residence at
ter July 10th, except under the new con
stitution, and any floater after that date
cannot possibly put himself ia the same
position as one who fioated before july
10th, actually acquired residence and
voted in the very place where he IL now
denied residence
The more we study the case the more
untenable Col. AndersOn's contention
seems TO US to be. and the more we are
inclined to believe that no man who had
voting residence before July 10th can
now be deprived of such voting residence
by the registrars. We may say that at
hrst Col Anderson's contention seemed
plausible, but further study convinced rs
otherwise