White v. Clements
39 Ga. 232 (1869)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Citizenship in the state of Georgia confers upon an individual all rights associated with that status, including the right to hold public office, unless a right is explicitly denied by positive law. The absence of a specific grant of a right does not constitute a denial of that right.
Facts:
- Richard W. White and William J. Clements were the only candidates in an election for the office of Clerk of the Superior Court of Chatham County.
- White received the majority of the votes and was subsequently commissioned into the office.
- Clements initiated a legal challenge against White's right to hold the office.
- Clements's challenge was based on the allegation that White was ineligible because he had one-eighth or more of African blood.
- At the time of the legal challenge, White was actively performing the duties of the clerk's office.
- Clements, the unsuccessful candidate, was eligible to hold the office.
Procedural Posture:
- Clements filed an information for a writ of quo warranto in the Superior Court of Chatham County to challenge White's legal right to hold office.
- White filed a demurrer to the writ, arguing that having African ancestry was not a legal disqualification for office under Georgia law.
- The trial court overruled White's demurrer, thereby ruling as a matter of law that persons of color were ineligible to hold office.
- The case proceeded to a trial on the factual issue of White's ancestry, and a judgment was entered against White.
- White appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person of color, who is a citizen under the Georgia Constitution of 1868, have the legal right to hold public office in the absence of a law explicitly granting or denying that right?
Opinions:
Majority - McCay, J.
Yes. The fundamental law of the state guarantees that all citizens have the right to hold public office unless that right is expressly prohibited by law. Under the American theory of government, rights are inherent in the people and are protected, not granted, by constitutions. The Georgia Constitution of 1868 made persons of color citizens, and as such, they are entitled to the same presumption of rights as white citizens. The Georgia Code explicitly lists the 'right to hold office' as a right of citizens and states that all citizens may exercise their rights unless specifically prohibited. Since the Constitution of 1868 contains no provision disqualifying persons of color from holding office, and in fact enumerates specific disqualifications that do not include race, they are eligible. To argue that a right must be explicitly granted to Black citizens would create two unequal classes of citizenship, a concept repudiated by the Reconstruction Acts and the new state constitution which Black citizens themselves helped create.
Concurring - Brown, C. J.
Yes. The Georgia Code confers upon all citizens the right to hold office, and the Constitution of 1868 made persons of color citizens. The Code, prior to 1868, limited citizenship to 'white persons' and then granted citizens the right to hold office. The Constitution of 1868 expanded the definition of citizen to include persons of color, effectively amending the Code's limitation. By making them citizens, the Constitution automatically extended to them the rights defined in the Code for all citizens, including the right to hold office. Therefore, based on a straightforward reading of the adopted Code as amended by the Constitution, White is eligible for the office.
Dissenting - Warner, J.
No. The right to hold office is not an inherent privilege of citizenship but a grant of authority from the state that must be conferred by positive law. The Georgia Code, when it granted citizens the right to hold office, was written when only white people were citizens and was intended to apply only to them. The Constitution of 1868 made persons of color citizens but did not grant them the right to hold office; in fact, the constitutional convention explicitly voted against such a provision. While white citizens possess a common law right to hold office based on immemorial usage, newly enfranchised citizens of color have no such history and must point to an affirmative grant of this right, which does not exist. The absence of a prohibition does not create a right that was never granted in the first place.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant, though temporary, legal victory for African American political rights during the Reconstruction era in Georgia. The majority opinion established a powerful presumption of equality, positing that rights are inherent to citizenship and do not require an affirmative grant. This contrasts with the view that the rights of formerly enslaved people were limited to what was explicitly given by law. The case highlights the deep jurisprudential divide over the nature of rights and citizenship following the Civil War, with the majority adopting a broad, natural rights framework and the dissent adhering to a strict, positivist interpretation that would severely limit the political power of new Black citizens.
