State v. George

• Decision Date: 12 November 1887
• Citation: 23 Fla. 585,3 So. 81
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL, etc., v. GEORGE.

3 So. 81

23 Fla. 585

STATE ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL, etc., v. GEORGE.

Florida Supreme Court

November 12, 1887

Quo warranto.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

When the government of a city or town is controlled by the general municipal incorporation act, neither six months' residence nor registration is requisite to eligibility to office in such city or town.

It is apparent, from the proceedings of the convention which framed our present constitution, that it was not intended to make the qualifications of officers, other than the governor and members and senators of the legislature, dependent on the qualifications for voters.

The requisite qualifications for electors do not necessarily apply to officers, in the absence of any constitutional or statutory provision to that effect.

COUNSEL D. S. Walker, Jr., for relator.

Arthur G. Hamlin, for respondent.

OPINION

MAXWELL, C.J.

The attorney general of the state files an information against George for a writ of quo warranto, alleging that George illegally usurps the office of marshal and collector of the town of De Land, in the county of Volusia. The basis of the complaint is that George, though elected to these offices, is ineligible, because he had not resided in the corporate limits of De Land six months prior to the election, and was not a registered voter in said town at the time of his election. An alternative writ was issued from this court, to which George responds by a demurrer, founded partly on alleged defects of the information, but mainly on the insufficiency of the facts to sustain the proceeding.

Passing by unimportant matters, we address ourselves to the vital question in the case, to-wit, Is a man eligible to office under the constitution and laws of this state, in a town of which he has not been a resident for six months, and in which he is not a registered voter? The argument for the relator against eligibility dwells considerably on the idea that the office of marshal of a town is a state office, and subject to the same rules applicable to other similar state offices. The authorities cited seem to sustain the view that municipal officers charged with the duty of preserving the peace and good order of society, and of bringing offenders to punishment, are at the same time state officers. Dill. Mun Corp. §§ 58, 60, 210; Burch v. Hardwicke, 30 Grat 24; People v. Hurlbut, 24 Mich. 44. But to our apprehension it makes no difference in regard to the question here whether the office was a state office or a strictly municipal office. There is nothing in the constitution or statutes to distinguish between them in respect to qualifications necessary to eligibility. The simple question, therefore, is whether, not having had residence in the town six months, and not being registered therein, the respondent can hold the office to which he was elected.

The constitution prescribes no qualifications for office, except for governor, senators, and members of the house of representatives, and judges of the supreme and circuit courts; and, as to these, only the governor, senators, and members are required to be qualified electors. It is silent as to the qualifications of all other officers. We do not infer from this that the framers of the constitution were unmindful of the importance of having only such persons put into office as would be endowed with suitable qualifications. Our inference rather is that they deemed it best to leave that without rigid restriction trusting that those who were to have the selection of officers would take care that none but fit persons should be selected or appointed,--fit, not only in re spect to capacity and character, but also in having citizenship to identify them in interest with the communities in which their official duties were to be performed. Considering the conditions of population in the state, this would not seem an unreasonable course. The fact that large portions of the state were sparsely settled, but were filling up more or less rapidly with new inhabitants and that new towns and cities were emerging from the woods and in many instances growing at a rate that left the people of one year a minority of those of the next, naturally suggest that it would be impolitic to narrow the field from which officials...