Judge Goff's Opinion

A court case from 1902 involving John Brickhouse, a black man who was refused the right to vote, is reevaluated and Judge Nathan Goff declares that “the validity of the present constitution of Virginia was attacked.”

Judge Nathan Goff handed down an opinion in the United States circuit court this morning in the case of John E. Brickhouse against C.T. Brooks and William Jessop, in which the validity of the present constitution of Virginia was attacked, on account of the failure of the member of the constitutional convention to take an oath to uphold the constitution of the Unites States and the constitution of the State of Virginia before entering upon the work of the convention. The opinion holds that the contention presented by Brickhouse was without merit and that as the constitution had been declared valid by the legislature of Virginia, it was in fact the constitution of Virginia. The suit brought by Brickhouse has been under the consideration of Judge goff for more than a year and before delivering the opinion he apologized to Major Anderson, who with R.C. Marshall and the late Frank W. Christian, was attorney for the defense, for the delay, but said that he had been ill for a greater part of the time and unable to give the matter the proper consideration. The case has been in the State and Federal courts for several years and has been hotly contested by attorneys on both sides. John S. Wise and Carter and Hayes were counsel for the plaintiff. The opinion rendered this morning marks a signal legal victory for Major Anderson and his associates. The suit arose out of the refusal of Jessop and Brooks to allow Brickhouse to vote in a congressional election held in Norfolk county, November 4, 1902, on account of his not being registered on the books for the Huntersville precinct of that county. It seems that Brickhouse’s name on the registration books under the old constitution had been obliterated by having a bottle of ink spilled over the page on which it was written. When the list of registered voters was made up under the new constitution, Brickhouse’s name was not carried on the new books, because the ink completely concealed it on the old. When Brickhouse came to vote on the day of election his name was not on the list of registered voters, and Brooks and Jessop, who were the judges of the election in that precinct, refused to allow him to vote. Shortly after the refusal, Brickhouse brought suit through his attorneys and claimed $5000 damages, because of the loss of his vote. Brickhouse took his case to the United States Court of the Eastern district of Virginia, claiming, under section 1779 of the revised statutes of the United States, that he had been deprived of a right which was guaranteed to him under the constitution of the United States, and that the parties who so deprived him of his right should be liable to damages. He retained Wise, Carter and Hayes as counsel, and one of the fiercest legal battles in years was begun. Brickhouse claimed that his name was upon the registration books for that precinct which were in force prior to June 10, 1902, and that his name should have been on the subsequent books which were gotten up under a certain “alleged” constitution which the defendants claim to have taken effect July 10, 1902, but which Brickhouse alleged were, together with the registration books, null and void and which in nowise affected his right to vote. In support of his contention that the constitution under which the second set of registration books were gotten up, was null and void Brickhouse declared that when the constitutional convention convened to form a new constitution for the State of Virginia the members of the convention failed to take the oath to support the constitution of the United Stated and the constitution of Virginia and therefore, without taking the oath, could not qualify as officers of the State, thereby losing all right to form a new constitution or to amend the old. The defendants on the on the other hand claimed that it was not necessary for the members of the constitutional convention to take the oath mentioned by the plaintiff and that having been duly elected by the voters of the State to form the new constitution they had the right to do so. The defendants claimed further that as the legislature of Virginia, the governor of Virginia and all the judicial, legislative and executive officers of the State had declared the new constitution the constitution of the State of Virginia and had taken an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States and the new constitution of the State of Virginia and no other was in force after July 10, 1902. Judge Goff, in rendering his opinion stated: “Whether or not this constitution of Virginia is consistent with the requirements of the Federal constitution, relating to a republican form of government, is a question to be determined by the legislative and executive departments of the governments of the United States. In regard to such matters the courts will not take the initiative, but will await the action of the departments mentioned, and when they have acted will be bound by the conclusions they have reached. If such action has not been taken by those departments of the government...

“Judge Goff's Opinion,” Black Virginia: The Richmond Planet, 1894-1909, accessed December 11, 2025, https://blackvirginia.richmond.edu/items/show/748.