The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-04-11

fact that when he paid his entranc.
fee of SIS the present pledge had nos
been prescribed. but that the plan wal
changed 80 as to make the pledge read
as at present; that he made such
contract that 1t could not be altered Of
amended without his consent.
No Property Right Violated.
"On the part OF the committe. 1t wal
claimed that this first plan was nevef
punished, and 1t was not 80 far techs
nically, at least, as the act required,
so far as posting at the front door OF
the courthouse or city hall. or in
Newspaper. as required by the act local
10 Richmond. But concede. as wa
must, that Mr. Moncure saw printed
plan of tho committee. or was told by
the committee, that the plan was as he
states 1t to be in the bill Did 1t con-
stitute contract which the COMMITTEES
could not change or alter, and IL 1t
did, what would Mr.. Moncures rights
be? In the first place, in the court's
opinion, the committee had q right to
change their plan. II the exigencles
of the party required 1t. or the good
OF the party required 1t. or this Oh ange
MIR. Moncure has had notice. as his bill
shows on It's face. And SO far as
can see no property right has been vio-
court OF equity TO remedy. Mr.. Mon
cure, of course, would have right to
have refunded to him his entrance fee,
and this Is the only property right he
could have had violated, and this surely
does not give him the right to relief
BY injunction. He has no property
right In the right to run for office. And
the contractual rights, IL any he had
In other respects. are exclusively po-
~ hair rI arsn
give the right to relief in equity for
their breach in a case of this kind.
The reasons for non-interference by
the courts in the previous portion OF
this opinion. because the questions are
those OF political expediency and
policy rather than of legal rights. APP
ply with equal force to this contention
OF Mr.. Moncure. II was commended that
because the Constitution prescribed
that only qualified voters could vote in
legalized primaries and because the
general elections for Mayor and Coun-
cilmen took place under the Constitu-
ton In June and the general elections,
State and Federal. took place in No
vernber, that for these reasons the ac-
ton of the committee was illegal. Why
this is so fall to see. The plain
meaning of the constitutional provision
that only qualified voters should vote
in legalized primaries was never in
tended TO interfere with the right of the
the membe rshp of its own party,
otherwise we would have Republicans
voting in Democratic primaries and
Democrats voting in Republican pri-
maries as matter of right.
Careful Deliberntlon.
Can 1t be possible that this was the
n rnyjc
ion2 think not And this is equally
true as to the two general elections
at June and November prescribed in
the Constitution. The question OF
primary was no more In the minds OF
the members Of the convention when
these elections We're ordered, in my
opinion, than was the Balkan question,
but IL am wrong In this the fact re-
mains that nowhere IN the Constitu-
ton Is there any provision directly or
indirectly, expressly or by Implication. in
any way prescribing who may or may
not vote except as above stated in the
primaries of the known or unknown
political parties or sects of this Com
monwealth.
Mr.. Jefferson. the founder of the
Democratic party Gas Alfred the Great
was the founder of the common law of
England), and of whom Mr.. Buckle
dependence should be hung up In the
nursery of every king and bazoned
on the porch of every royal palace is
reported to have said shat the best
governed are the least governed hav-
ing reference to the internal political
affairs OF man. and 1T may be that, hav-
ing grown up In his political school of
philosophy. that / am somewhat slow
in taking jurisdiction in these cases,
for my very disinclination to assume
to govern in questions think OF po-
litical expediency and of political poll
icy, and not of legal or constitutional
right. But at any rate my opinion is
as above stated and l shall adhere to
1t. 1t was not framed except after
careful consideration and elaboration.
have cited no authorities, because
there are none in Virginia nor any
where else in point as I conceive the
facts and law Of this case.
orders will be entered in both
cases refusing the injunction and max
| ing this opinion part of the record"