The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-28
SATURDAY. MARCH %. 1905
THE SHACKELFORD BILL sUlT>'
CONSTITUTIONAL.
9 ~, n. renaivad tha folloWlng go

It'll E RSHACkELFO<D Dill -. ol>-
NJ CONSTITUTIONAL. ..a
4 s5E -. have received the following COM
4 munication: . /, A
i Editor OF The Times Dispa ton: ~ /.
& e e.,r . rrnr, q n article In your paper, II
"a .aar,,s u the General Assembly has passed
Nh !, AIT prohibiting the state Board o.
~ Tducation from elecung, under sectloA
4 ! m iof the Constitution, any division supe,-
\. intandent OF schools who may have writ
Il ~, and published a book or invented u.s
\ appliance that might be used IN the the puo-
lie schools. ~, ,,,,a,o,
Il a very brief consideration VIII develop Il,
sS8 fla ENTHUSIASTICALLY as well as the
q ahs,,rdity. Of that piece Of Legislation The
sta ia Board of education is as much q
y constitutional body as the General Assem-.
* NV itself, That Is, It Is created ny anu
I hence derives Its powers from the Con-
n atit,rtton! and It's duties and J ts powers
are specifically defined by that lnstru-
h rnent. (see section 1927 Therefore. u
"A Is beyond the power OF the iegi .s'l IVY
\ department to circumscribe its duties ana
4 attach conditions to the free exercise u
ITS constitutional powers.
The Constitution provides that the board
h; ..shnll select aud associate with Itself two
u division superintendents OF schools II
Y 4 therefore, not only a constitutional
right and duty of the board TO select Two
9$divisioh superintendents OF schools but
n they may select any two mon who meet
Y the constitutional requirements. me at
Il tempt Of the act In question to contlno
&the board to the selection Of such supeer-
&.atendents as have not written BOOK
4 SO. is an unauthorized interference with
the powers and duties Of the board. As
Judge Lewis we'll said In Bla elk VS.. TroW-
Y er * rs va. Reports, p. 1876: For II q right
h conferred BY tho Constitution were not
nheyond the reach Of legislative interfer-
4 ence, the constitutional guarantees would
\ be "a dead letter, and the. Legislature IN
stead OF being controlled by. would be
\ superior to tho Constitution, and unre-
strained In the exercise Of It's power. - Is
ANT Besides, each division superntcndent1n
THE State is BY the Constitution eligible
Y 10 this office whether no has already writ
& ten a book or should choose thereafter
10 write one or a hundred. Tho statute
law attempting to render him ineligible
III Is invalid, for as the Same court said
& In tho case above cited:s3 Is q we'll
e es Established rule Of construction as laid
IN down by an eminent writer. that when
the Constitution defines the quallfica-
4 tions for office the specification Is an
Implied prohibition against Legislative In
II terference to change or add to the quail
& fications thus defined"
Furthermore the net is absurd In, this:
JSIf 1t were otherwise valid, the Governor,
The Superintendent OF Public Instruction
u and the Attorney General might each be
the eminent author of sundrY books. and
& the owner OF divers appliances used In the
4 schools, and as they cannot be excluded
from service on the board. they would be
Y allowed, nay compelled. to keep out their
rival brethren Of tho quill. II our es-
35teemed Governor should happen to have
& written as many good books as he has
n made good speeches. with what grace
+ and good conscience could he afford to
n approve such a piece of legislation?
Another pertinent inquiry is: Does this
II bill attempt to prohibit tho Boards Of Wis
itors from nomlDating TO the Senate. and
the Senate from electinE, any Inexperienced
n educator" who may have written and pub
I lished a book. or be the fortunate owner
8ot a patent blotter, or ink eraser7 And
Y II not, why not?
4. CUT BONO, 7
n Lynchburg, Va. March 2e. 1908.
This letter comes from a distinguished
Y Virginia lawyer and the argument Is sc
h clear and convincing that 1t cannot be
4 ignored by the General Assembly, If
{ that body may go outside the Constltu-
ton and put one restriction upon these
eligibles. why not another and dozen!
why may 1t not make the restrictions so
I severe as to exclude all "diyision superin.
Il tendent." and thus defeat the intent OF
the Constitution? Why may 1t not say
that no division superintendent" shall
be eligible unless he has written school
( book?
In conclusion our correspondent asks
II this bill attempts to prohibit the
* Boards of Visitors OF the several pub
\ lie institutions OF learning from noml-
mating to the Senate. and the Senate from
electing, any experienced educator who
may have written and published book
\ So far from that each one OF the three
Inexperienced educators selected by the
Senate to be members of the Board Of
Dducation Is author or editor OF book
and would have been excluded under the
Shackelford bill, Stranger still. Of the
y six Inexperienced educators from whom
these selections were made, three were
authors or editors OF books and three
!. were not. and the Senate chose the for.
mer!
such Is the case. #lF
Again, SO far as VIC know there Is no
.'diyision superintendent" In any OF the
counties who is author OF q school book
4 or Interested In the publication OF such a
book, so that the Shaclslford bill could
only apply. II It shouid become law, to
( enc member Of tho Board Of Education.
~
able members OF the board as now con-
stltuted. There Is no ground for Senator
shackelford's fears. There can be no
innger OF a book scandal from our love-
\ nrn school superintendent
We have the keenest interest In popu-
ar education and for that reason We do
i jlncerely hope that this bill viii not be
4 easged over tbs Governors veto.
~ =--E----------
THE COUNTY JUDGE,