Opinion. creditors of such debtor over whom the attaching creditor obtains priority, must upon its face show that the requirements of the statute have been substantially complied with. 4 Minor's Inst. 404-5 (Last Ed.); Thatcher v. Powell, 6 Wheat. 119; Tate v. Liggatt, 2 Leigh at pages 99 and 100; Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; Daniel on Attachments, secs. 11 and 12. Objections to attachment proceedings on this ground may be taken advantage of, not only in the trial court, but in an appellate court, although not raised in the trial court. President Tucker said, in Jones v. Anderson, 7 Leigh 308, 313: "It is obvious that the very jurisdiction of the court depends upon the regularity of the attachment." It therefore becomes the duty of the court to examine into the regularity of the proceedings in attachment cases, and it may, of its own motion, dismiss an irregular attachment, and ought to do so when there has been no appearance by the non-resident debtor, and no personal service upon him, as it is the duty of every court, ex officio, to disclaim a jurisdiction which it is not entitled to exercise. Jones v. Anderson, 7 Leigh 308, 314; 4 Minor's Inst. (Last Ed.) 576, and cases cited; 2 Bart. Law Pr. 985; Coward v. Dillinger, 56 Md. 59 and 61; Drake on Attachments (7th Ed), sec. 89 a. In the case of Craig v. Williams, decided by this court and reported in 90 Va. 500, the question arose whether an attachment returnable to rules, issued under secs. 2964, and 2965, of the Ccde, was valid or not. That was an attachment in equity against a non-resident debtor, and the attachment or order to attach was endorsed upon the summons. The summons was returnable to rules. In that case this court held that an attachment issued under those sections of the Code, in a pending suit, whether it was a regular attachment, or an order to attach endorsed upon the summons by the clerk, must Opinion. be returnable to the court in which the suit is pending, and that if it was not so returnable, it was invalid. In Grinburg v. Singerman, it reaffirmed the doctrine laid down in Craig v. Williams, and held such an attachment to be void. 90 Va. 645; Kyles v. Ford, 2 Rand. 1; Lavel v. McGurdy, 77 Va. 763, 770-1. This assignment of error therefore must be sustained, and the attachment held invalid. There being no personal service upon the non-resident defendant, no appearance by him, and no valid attachment of his property, there was nothing for the jurisdiction of the court to rest upon. Its decree was therefore coram non judice, and void. Drake on Attachment, sec. 5 (7th Ed.); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714. The Circuit Court ought to have dismissed the bill for want of jurisdiction. We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree appealed from should be reversed, and the bill dismissed. REVERSED. VOL. XCI-41 Syllabus. Richmond. PEARSON AND OTHERS v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF BRUNSWICK COUNTY AND OTHERS. APRIL 11, 1895. 1. ELECTIONS-Suffrage-Constitution of Virginia—Legislative Powers.-The right of suffrage is derived from the Constitution of the State, and to it we look to ascertain who may, or who may not, vote. The legislature cannot, directly or indirectly, prescribe any qualifications additional to those found in the Constitution, and, as no educational qualification is prescribed by the Constitution, none can be required by the legislature. The sole function of the legislature, with respect to the exercise of the right of suffrage, is to provide the method of voting, and to guard against improper, illegal or fraudulent voting, and to this end it may adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations. But a regulation which virtually establishes a test of qualification of the voter, additional to those prescribed in the Constitution, is unconstitutional, and therefore void. 2. ELECTIONS—Act of March 6, 1894-Independence of Voter.-The act of assembly, approved March 6, 1894, "to provide for the method of voting by ballot,'' does not contravene any of the propositions stated above. The general scheme of the act is to secure the independence of the voter, by the safeguards provided by the act, which appear to be not only reasonable, but well adapted to secure the end in view to all classes of voters. 3. ELECTIONS Act of March 6, 1894-Special Constables-Blind and Illiterate Voters-" May" in Section 15 Mandatory.-The special constables provided for in said act are sworn officers, charged with a duty to the public of the gravest and most delicate nature, in which every citizen of the Commonwealth is interested, and severe penalties are denounced against them for a violation of their duties. Amongst these is the duty to render to him who is blind, or unable by defective education to read, every assistance asked for and required by the elector to aid him in pre Syllabus. paring his ballot. The word " may," used in the fifteenth section of the act, relating to the duties of special constables, is mandatory and not merely permissive and directory. - 4. ELECTIONS Act of March 6, 1894-Special Constables-Secrecy of Ballot.The oath of office of the constable appointed under said act binds him to the performance of the duties imposed upon him not only by statute, but by the Constitution. He must observe and respect all the rights of the voter, and amongst these not the least important is to have the secrecy of his ballot kept inviolate; and for a breach of this duty upon the part of the constable, he will become amenable to all the pains and penalties provided by law. 5. ELECTIONS—Act of March 6, 1894—Secret Ballot-Special Constables.—A vote by ballot ex vi termini implies a secret ballot. The secrecy of the ballot is a right which inheres in the voter and of which he cannot be lawfully deprived against his will. But the right to vote is the main object to be attained, and it must not be defeated by too rigid an observance of the incidental right of secrecy. A blind man, or a man unable to read, must, in the nature of things, so far compromise the secrecy of his ballot as to invoke and obtain the aid of others in the preparation of his ballot. This aid the law requires the special constable to render, and this confidence the voter is required to repose in him. But these requirements do not violate the secrecy of ballot guaranteed to the voter. 6. ELECTIONS Act of March 6, 1894-Booths-Voting Precincts-Limit of Time to Prepare Ballots.—The act places no limit on the number of booths that may be supplied, and the county courts have full power to multiply the voting precincts to meet the necessities of the people. A limit to the time for the preparation of ballots was an obvious necessity for which the legislature had a right to provide, and the court cannot, as a proposition of law, decide that the time allowed by the statute is inadequate. 7. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Act Valid in Part and Void in Part.-An act may be constitutional in one part and unconstitutional in another; but if the unconstitutional parts are unnecessary to the main purpose of the act, and are separable from it, so that they may be suppressed and yet leave the residue of the act in full force and vigor, this will be done, and the unobjectionable parts of the act will be upheld and enforced. If the provision of the act of March 6, 1894, which authorizes special constables to make arrests on the verbal order or warrant of the judges of election be unconstitutional (a question not decided), the unconstitutionality of that provision would not invalidate the other provisions of the act not in conflict with the Constitution. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-Act of March 6, 1894-Not in Conflict with Certain Sections of Constitution of Virginia, nor with Amendment XIV to Constitution of the United States.-The act of assembly, approved March 6, 1894, Statement. entitled "an act to provide for the method of voting by ballot,” is a valid act. It is not in conflict with Article III, sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution of Virginia, nor with Article I, section 20, nor with Article I, section 8, of said Constitution. Nor is it in conflict with Article XIV of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. 9. CHANCERY JURISDICTION-Adequate Remedy at Law--Claims Against County.-A plain and adequate remedy is provided by section 836 of the Code, for relief against the improper allowance by the board of supervisors of a county, of a claim which for any reasons ought not to be allowed. And a bill in equity will not be entertained to enjoin the payment of any such claim. Petition for an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of Brunswick county, in a suit in chancery, wherein the petitioners were the complainants and the Board of Supervisors of Brunswick county and others were the defendants. Appeal refused. The object of this suit is to test the validity of an act of the General Assembly, approved March 6, 1894, entitled, “An act to provide for the method of voting by ballot." The sections of the act which were drawn in question are 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15, and are in the following words: "3. The ballot shall be a white paper ticket, containing the names of the persons who have complied with the provisions of this act as hereinafter provided, and the title of the office printed or written as hereinafter provided. None other shall be a legal ballot. "4. Any person who intends to be a candidate for any office, State or national, to be elected by the electors of the State at large, or of a congressional district, shall, at least twenty days before such election, notify the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in writing, properly attested, of such intention, designating the office for which he be a candidate. Such written notice shall be signed by the said candidate, but if he be incapable of writing his proper signature, then some mark adopted by him as his signature shall be acknowledged before a justice of the peace, or other officer authorized to take acknowledgments to deeds, and in the same manner. Any person who intends to be a candidate for any office not embraced in the foregoing at any |