The Nevada journal., 1854-04-07
The Capital Question.

late decision, have, we believe, removed to San
jose We have heard this matter discussed by
several persons during the past week, some Of
whom were inclined to the belief that owing
10 the imperfections to be found in the several
laws removing the seat of government, the
question Of" Where is the Capital the State 2
legitimately came before the Supreme Court,
on the order of the Legislature t. remove
thither.
But on careful perusal of the powers grant
ed to the Supreme Court, the opinion Of Messrs.
Heydenfeldt and Wells, and also that of Chief
Justice Murray, we cannot see even shadow
of authority vested in them to make such
decision. The jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court is strictly appellate, and as no appeal had
been brought before them, they had no right to
assume the powers expressly granted to the
legislative branch Of our government. 1t
would seem that our sage justices Of the Su-
preme bench had changed entirely the manner
Of constructing legal enactments. Let it be
remembered that the legislative power Of
making power Such is the absolute design of
all governments and in all republican gov
ernments, all other powers--the executive and
judicial the creatures of the legislative,
designed to carry out their will. This they
have full power to do; but our constitution, as
we'll as established maxims of law, positively
forbid any interference, on the part of the jul
dietary, with the legislature. In view Of this
fact the rule Of construction has been laid
down. and we believe, until the California ju-
dietary was established, has been folowned,
that all courts in construiug law, which, on
its face was ambiguous, the intention of the
legislature must be aimed at. Thus, horest
and wise jurists have argued, that in republi-
run governments, the Legislators are necessarily
10 some extent, inexperienced men. They know
the wants of the people, whose will they are to
represent, but lack that skillful formality be-
longing to judicial regimen. From this in
connection with the fact that laws are made 10y
large body of men, often in the midst Of heat
cd debate and confusion--it would be wonder
full if imperfections, omissions and even contra
dictions did not sometimes occur. When such
things do occur, aud questions Of law arise
therefrom in the inferior courts then it is, the
assistance OF wise, learned and clearheaded
superior courts, isolated as they are and should
be from the confusion of examining numerous
witnesses, the stratagems of lawyers and the
e. ~ 4bo
n,mnlnc and intentlt OF the legislature, and to
eup'y it to the case in hand. 1t is rather un.
Drecedented, as well as absurd for Supreme
Court first, 10 assume 4 power never granted to
IT, to call in question the formality Of the leg
islature in its mode Of making laws, and then
to misconstrue its acts so as to reverse their
intended meaning. There is another power,
vet distinct from both Of these, whose duty it is
10 have guardianship over the acts of the
legislature, to operate as q check in cases of
rash legislation-the executive, who, is EN-
powered with negative, by which he can
send it back, with its defects pointed out, that
the legislature may properly amend and har-
nonise its parts.
But in the decision referred to, evidently the
intent and meaning of the legislature was not
sought after but rather some defect or infor-
mality by which they might conceal on indl-
vidual and selfish design. In large city there
are numerous sources of pleasure, as well as
means Of aggrandisement, not to be had IN
smaller ones Men in high positions possess
extended means of securing these sources OF
enjoyment and consequently, any attempt to
remove them to more retired place will meet
their individual disapprobation. The leglsla-
ture doubtless had this matter in view, when
discussing the question, but felt it their duty
rather to obey the people than the dictates OF
their own desires But the Supreme Court
have 50 long been allowed to assume unpre-
cedented and uncontrolled powers, that they
reem to regard themselves beyond the limits OF
restraint.
The two associates in their decision base their
whole conclusions on the fact that the con-
ditions Of the contract entered into between
the State and NJ. g. Vallejo, were never full
filed, and consequently, the law OF removal
was void. Moreover, they presume to say the
motives by which the Legislature were ac-
tuated, in making that contract were impure,
and consequently the law of removal was void
1t is certainly novel idea for courts to enquire
into the motives of the legislature in making
law and is equally absurd whether heir al
legation be true or false.
Section l, Art. H. Of the constitution pro-
vides that the first session Of the Legislature
shall be held at the Pueblo de San Jose, which
place shall be the permanent seat OF Govern
ment until removed by law. Provided how
ever, that two thirds of all the members elected
to each house of the Legislature shall concur
in the passage of such law"
BY this it will be seen that there is no limit
To the power of the legislature to remove the