The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-07-05

s4ca that the duty IF the Judge was
4 urely ministerial, and that he should
Theoretically order the election with
cut regard TO the consntuHonaluy Of
the act Judge EundICy, IN a some
X sat lengthy opinion, handed DC W.T.
toGaT, takes the position THAT the act
IS unconstitutional and declining I"
paf the county to tho expense IF an
e}ec*9an under law which may ha
- vein and useless thing"
Judge Hundiey bases his decision
upog7 q technically In the title Of the
aet which fails 70 set forth compre-
hers3veiy all the objects for which
tha election Is to he called. The
counsel for the act @4ll 'aka lbs case
~ tho Supreme Court Of Virginia for
review without delay and arc con-
feen1 OF winning victory n the
hleher eourt
Judge Hundiey's Opinion.
Judge Fl Hdleys opinion. In part
follows:
Application having been made 70
me. the judge Of the Circuit court
fer the county of Prince Edward 70
designate a day for an election % he
{ held IL Prince Edward county. Viz
rtnga under ar act OF the general
) assembly, approved March ~, 1919.
entitled IAN act to repeal an act, en-
titled an act 70 establish a dispensary
fer the sale Of intoxicating liquors In
rarnville Magfsterial district In
, Prince Edward county Virginia, APP
proved February Ia. 1901. and also to
repeal an act for the esta b.
itshsnent of a dsspensary for the sale
Of intoxicating liquors in Leigh Magis-
tar5al district. at Meherrin, Va. APP
ssroved December II, 1903. provided
that the qualified voters of Prince Ed
ward shall so elect ON the first day
~ July. iSi4, counsel for and against
tho repeal Of the said acts requested
and were granted leave to appear aud
discuss the constitutionality Of the
said repeating act. After hearing alfd
duly considering the arguments adj
vaneed pro and con, have decided TO
refuse to designate any day for the
said election under the said repeating
act. the reason for which are now
gwen;
Counsel for the act took the position
THAT the dusy OF the Judge under said
act was purely ministerial; that he
was simply "a aptomatom. without
perception tr reflection, and should
autornaticailv order an election with
cut regard 80 the constitutionalitg Of
the act. but / cannot take that view
or my duty IA he premises. The very
fact that The legislature designated
the 3udge 81 the Circuit court of
Prince Edward TO discharge this auty
instead of sr43e one who could post
notices of the election. but who could
not be expected 10 exercise any dis
erection In the matter. would indicate
that ii did not intend that he duy
should be automatically performed. In
the case OF Campbell VS. Bryant, l04
Va. page hl6. the court says The
act being unconstitutional, II is not
Law; II Monfers no rights; II imposes
no duties Il affords no protection.
It creates no Office, II is In legal con-
temptation. as imperative as though
IL had never. been passed"
The Trainer Of the act in question
Intended that IL should accomplish
two objects: Il should he the means
az repeating the act Of February -
1901. establishing dispensary in
Faru1ViIle Ylaaclsterial district, and the
act of December u. 1909. estab
Nsning Il dispensary N Meherrin IN
Leigh ma%yiFfsfial district, and sec
onq.y, Il sshotld establish absolute
prnhSSisson In the county CT Prince
ward from ard after the approval
lire ant fy q vote ef tho people.
10 fret osseot was plainly expressed
So tne tide, bat therein there IS not
fc slightest aliusion TO this second
Tts4ars IL NTH eff these objects had