The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-05-21
CRUMP REFUSES TO
ISSUE INJUNCTION
SCOTS Effort to Hold Up Elec-
ton Blocked in Law and
Equity Court.

Holding that the judicial department
or the state government cannot inter-
fere with the process of legislation or
constitution making. judge Beverly T.
Crump. Of the Law and Equity Court,
yesterday handed down a written opin-
ION denying the petition of James y.
Scott. of Lynchburg, for an Injunction
restraining the secretary of the Com
monwealth from taking the usual pre-
urinary steps to cause an election 10
be held on the amendments rcsubmi,-
ted to the people by the General AS
semblN OF 1917, the purposes of which
are TO allow city treasUrcrs and city com
missioners of the revenue to succeed
themselves indefinitely These two
amendments were submitted together
as one proposition to the people In
1910 and defeated. and the last Gen.
cral Assembly rcsubmitted them sepa-
ratalN, TO be voted on this fall. The
purposes OF the present amendments
strictions which permit city trcasurcrs
but two successive terms and city com
missioners NJ the revenue, when elected
by tho people. but one term.
Bnsc,l on Two Gre unds.
The decision of Judge Crump Is
based upon two main grounds: (a)
the courts are not authorized to inter-
th) courts of equity will, In exceptional
cases only. interfere with the holding
OF AN election. The history Of the
amendments is fully covered in the
first part OF the opinion. Judge Crump
refrains from passing upon the consti-
tut!onality of the act of the General
Assembly OF 1872 in rcsubmittinG tha
amendments as he considers that itself
would be an unwarranted intcrfcr-
encc with the legislative process.
Holding that until the vote OF the
people is mad on Il constitutional amend
inent it is stili in process OF enact
inent. Judge Crunp points out that in
submitting Il constitutional amendment
10 popular vote the General Assembly
is not passing Il general statutory law
but is establishing the highest law for
the people, an action in which the pco-
pie must act conformity. Until the
result of their Joint action is aseer-
tanned. no amendment is finally refused
or adopted"
No Authority to Interfere.
The chief ground upon which the de-
cision was rendered is:
II do not think that a court Of
equity or any tribunal Of the judiciary
department of government is author
lied to interfere with the process of
legislation. After legislation has been
completed and its validity is questioned
before any court in a proper proceed
ing, the duty OF the court is 10 pass
upon its constitutionality wherever
the rights OF parties litigant depend
! upon solution OF that question. II a
bill Is passed by both houses Of the
General Assembly and is about 10 be
transmitted TO the Governor for his
| veto or signature, IL is very clear that
the judiciary department OF the gov
eminent could not enjoin the trans
mission OF the enacted bill TO the Gov
! ernor on the ground that 1t was un-
| constitutional, such a proceeding
would man!fcstly be an unwarranteu
| Interference by the courts with the
/ constitutional processes OF the i,gisla-
! tive department. So in the case at bar
the amending of the Constitution is tile
! making Of Il permanent law for the
people of the State. by which they arr
u be governed in the future, and the
courts cannot interfere to stop any OF
/ the proceedings while this permane mt
law is in process of being made If
| the amendment is not adopted of course
no question will ever come before the
court. II upon completion OF the pro-
cecdinss the validity OF the amendment
IS assailed on the ground that the sew
eral provisions OF the Constitution have
not been complied with, then the courts
can pass upon the validity OF the
| amendment. The judiciary depart
| ment has the power. and it is it's duty,
! to pass upon the validity Of a consti-
tutional enactment when put in force,
as we'll as upon the validity of an act
OF the Legislature regularly passed and
put in effect.
Holding of Elections.
The second ground concerns the ju-
risdiction of an equity court with ref
erence TO the holding Of elections. 1t is
held that either the proposed injunction
would prevent the election or taat IT
would have no effect at all. In some
cases equity courts have enjoin.d the
| holding OF an election in which the
property rights of the plaintiff were in
| danger, but that cannot be said 20 be
| the case here" Judge Crump says fur
| Their on this point:
II think 1t would BE- extending the
| power of the process of injunction too
far to interfere in a case OF this char
acter 10 prevent an expression of the
popular VIII by an election ordered to
be held under the general election laws
of the state. The court cannot say in
advance in this case that the property
rights of the plaintiff are affected, nor
can 1t say in advance what might be
the result of the adoptio nof the amend :
ments in general, for the cl ,ction might
result in favor OF those voting against
adoption. AS the matter now stands,
the election about to be held will be
hsld under the general election laws of
the State, with reference to a political
question or matter of public policy,
with which the judiciary and particu-
| larry court OF equity, cannot inter-
fere."
! A decree may be entered denying the
| Injunction and sustaining the demurrer
| TO the BILL the court therefore holds.
Robbed of 800.
c. ID. Jones. OF Beaver Dam. Va. yestcr-
uay rnportcd TO the police that he had hi.