The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-05-17

that q person can not lawfully hold such an office unless he is a qualified elector of the state. The grounds of that de- cision are stated in the opinion of Dixon, c. J., to be. that as to all independent popular governments, it is an acknowl- edged principle, which lies at the very foundation and the enforcement of which needs neither the aid of statutory or con- stitutional enactments or restrictions, that the government is instituted by the citi- zens for their liberty and protection, and that it Is to be administered, and it's powers and functions exercised by them and through their agency" In that case the defendant was an alien, and had en- tered upon the discharge of the duties of the office of sheriff. to which he had been elected without having become an elect or by declaring his intentions to become a citizen; Indeed, he had not done so when the action was commenced. Under this state of facts this court held that he could not lawfully hold the office, but did not decide, either expressly or by necessary implication, that he could not have held It had the disqualification been removed Intermediate the election and the commencement of the term. 1t Is true that it Is said in the opinion that the de- fendant was ineligible; but it is not said that he was ineligible to be elected to such office, and the obvious meaning Is that he was ineligible to hold the office. The term Ineligible" means as we'll dis qualification to hold an office, as dis qualification to be elected 10 an office
 Another Ruling.
 ''The same doctrine is reaffirmed and adhered to in a still later Wisconsin case. Justice Lyons, delivering the opinion of the court in the case of the state vs Trumpf. 90 Wis. pp. 103, holds as fol- lows
 Only two cases have been adjudicated by this court which have any direct bear ing upon the Guestions to be determined on this appeal These are state, ex rel, vs. Smith, IA Wis, 497, and state, ex rel. Schuet vs. Murray, 2S Wis, 96. In the first of these cases it was held to be fundamental principle of our government that d person not an elector of the state is ineligible to hold q public office there in, although our constitution and stat utes do not expressly so ordain. In the latter case 1t was held that, in the ab- ,senee of any constitutional or statutory provision on the subject. such 1neligibil- ity goes only to the holding of the office, and hence that. if an alien who Is not an elector receives plurality of votes for an office he may lawfully hold and ex- ercise the same; if. by naturalization or declaration, his disability Is removed be- fore the commencement of the term of office to which he has been elected
 ''In a treatise on the law of public officers Neehem lays down the following general rule:
 Where no limitations are prescribed, however, the right to hold public office under our political system is an implied attribute of citizenship, and is presumed to be co-extensive with that of voting at an election held for the purpose of choosing an incumbent for that office; those and those only who are competent to select the officer being deemed compe tent also to hold the office
 Under the influence of the authorities cited above. l can reach no other con clusion than that the right to hold Il public office which is elective, should be limited to those citizens who are qualified electors of the state and county, over which the jurisdiction of such office ex- tends The courts have evidently been governed to some extent by considerations of public policy (and l think very prop erly sol, in deciding cases of this char acter and the doctrine that the right of suffrage and the capacity to hold office must co-exist appeals to me as sound and conservative principle of law. There fore, II Is my opinion that a citizen who is not qualified elector of Russell coun- ty is ineligible to fill an elective office of said bounty"