The Seattle Republican. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1???-1915, 1909-02-12

/ for the elector that would bar the res
spondent in this case from assuming the
duties of the office to which he has been
elected. Bal. Code, Sections 1320-1-2-3-4.
Section 2S of the direct primary law
clearly puts upon the citizen a test of
eligibility not contemplated by the peo-
pie when adopting the constitution. AL
though the respondent published an ar
ticle or statement prohibited by Section
2S, this cannot be made, by mere statu-
tory enactment, a disqualification, for
the constitution leaves no room for such
action on the part of the legislature
Many states have passed corrupt practice
acts and made the expenditure of money
by a candidate, beyond certain prescribed
limits, a misdemeanor or ground OF
contest, or have deprived the candidate
of the emoluments of the office. These
laws have generally been sustained But
any attempt to add additional qualifica-
lions or to impose any limitations on the
terms of eligibility fixed by the consti-
tuition has found no favor except in two
instances, to which 1 shall refer
Hence, whenever any public office of
any kind is made elective, the
constitution becomes ex proprie vigore
applicable and operative, and fixes the
qualifications for eligibility. This is a
denial of power to the legislature to
impose any greater restrictions or to
add other qualifications for eligibility
to those prescribed in the constitution"
State ex rel. " Holman, 5S MINI. 219.
The constitution of the State of Mime
sofa provides that any person having the
qualifications of a voter shall be eligible
to office. In the old case of Barker VS..
The People, 8 Cowen, 6S6, it is said, in
discussing the principle which L con-
ceive to be involved here
eligibility to public trusts is claimed
as a constitutional right, which cannot
be abridged or impaired, The
constitution giving the right of election
and the right of appointment; these
rights consisting essentially in the free
dom of choice; and the constitution also
declaring, that certain persons are not
eligible to office; it follows from these
powers and provisions, that all other per-
sons are eligible. Eligibility to office is
not declared as a right or principle, by
any express terms of the constitution;
but it results, as a just deduction, from
system The basis of the principle is
the absolute liberty of the electors and
the APPOINTING authorities, to choose and
to appoint, any person, who is not MADE
ineligible by the constitution. El1gloll-
ity to office, therefore, belongs not ex-
clusively or specially to electors, enjoy
ing the right of suffrage. 1t belongs
equally, to all persons whomsoever, not
excluded by the constitution. L there
fore conceive it to be entirely clear, that
the legislature cannot establish arb1-
trary exclusions from office, or any gen
eral regulation requiring qualifications,
which the constitution has not required.
See also:
McCrary on Elections sec. BIZ;
Mechem on Public officers, Sec. So;
Thomas " owens, Md. 189
In the case of Page VS.. Hardin, b,
Mon 649, it was held that statute re-
curing the secretary of state to reside
at the seat of government could not
work a forfeiture of the office in the
face of a constitutional provision saying
that he might hold the office for pre-
scribed term, 'if he shall so long behave
himself we'll" The supreme court or
Ohio, 20 Ohio st. 1902, and the supreme
court of Colorado, 8 Colo. AIT, under
constitutional provisions like our own
in that they say mo person shall be
elected" etc., have held that this state
ment. being in the negative form, could
not be taken as an inhibition upon the
power of the legislature to add such
reasonable qualifications as it deemed
necessary in order to ensure an eff1c-
lent and proper discharge of the office
and, I may add, to ensure an 1ncumoent
who has the interest of a taxpayer In
the execution of his trust
The rule adopted by these courts is as
follows:
eve do not believe that the trainers
of the constitution, by this provision
intended to say that the right to vote
should be the sole and exclusive test OF
eligibility to all civil offices, except as
otherwise provided in the instrument
itself: that no additional qualifications
should ever be demanded, and no other
disoualif1cations should be imposed. H.
as has been we'll said, they had INTENDED
to take away from the legislature the
mower to name disqualif1cat1ons Tor
office. other than the one named in the
constitution, it would not have been lett
To the very doubtful implication which
is claimed from the provision under con-
sideration."
State VS.. Covington, 20 Ohio ST. 1O2.
I am not willing to admit this to be
the better rule, but if it be the rule II
in no wise initiates against my attitude
toward the case at bar 1t cannot be
denied that, if the legislature has power
to add other qualifications to those liked
in the constitution, they must be reason
able. It must be within the spirit II not
the letter of the constitution. Now, IS
the provision that one who publishes an
or+ic1a or statement as provided in Sec