M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1858-06-24
The Penitentiary Law.

The Legislature passed a law, last
winter, providing for the reOrganiza'
ton OF the Ohio Penitentiary, and
commissioning Judges Kennon and
Caldwell, and Mr.. A. MedbeTy, to
carry into effect certain Of its provis-
ions. They were empowered to ap-
point three State House Commission
ers to supervise the work; to appoint
three Directors of the Penitentiary,
remove Cor cause and fill vacancies.
The Supreme Court, Chief Justice
BARLEY dissenting, have decided the
law unconstitutional on the ground Of
the appointment Of said Commission
ers.
The Capital City Fact, speaking Of
the decision, says
Chief Justice Barley dissented in
a clear, forcible and argumentative
opinion, completely demolishing some
of the positions of the decision of the
6ourt as pronounced by Brinkerhof,
IJ. y
This ends the case. The Supreme
Court have poIiticaLIy decided the
two acts Of the Legislature to be un-
constitutional and void. They have
virtually decided that the reserved
rights which are not expressed in the
Constitution, and heretofore supposed
to belong to the people, belong to the
Governor and his Office. holders. We
mean no disrespect to the Court, for
we entertain as much as is necessary
for any citizen to entertain, but we
must say this decision will be received
by the people of Ohio with profound
astonishment, and will contribute as
much as anything that could have
been done to diminish, if possible,
that respect which heSupreme Court
of a State should command.
A legal gentleman who is said to
have an eye upon Congress with the
consent Of his Republican friends, in
the course Of very recent conversa-
tion, observed that the legal points
and authorities were all on the side
Of the constitutiOnality of the acts, but
heshould not be at all surprised if the
decision should be given the ether
way. The Court would only be car
rying out the principle and following
the example Of Democratic decisions,
such as the Dred Scott and others-it
would be only turning the tables up.
on the Democrats! How true this
may be we do not undertake to say,
but the profound depths of legal lore
of the Court are far too deep for US to
reconcile the decision with right, pro-
priety, expediency or the Constitution.
They have exercised power that may
recoil upon them, and pronounced a
decision that cannot stand the test Of
scrutiny and of time.
To US, individually, the decision is
a matter of no moment, but as citi-
zens Of the State, in whose honor and
integrity aud character, at home and
abroad, we feel a deep interest, we
sincerely regret that political purpose
and feeling should have been permit
ted to sway in a case Of so much i'm
portance, demanding the most careful
consideration, and depending proper
ly upon undoubted, unquestionable
and irrefragable evidence, instead of
metaphysical construction and nice
distinctions.
What will now be done, remains
with the Legislature at its next meet
ing. They will probably provide for
the contingency. There may be re-
taliation and retribution. Supplies
may be cut off, and incumbents per-
mitted to perform duties without emOL-
llnlentS.
The decision will be examined,
analysed and discussed. The people
will desire to know What fhe court
thought of the repeating clauses, for
the court on that point was mute,
leaving the inference only that the
laws which in themselves were pro-
nounced unconstitutional, could not
repeal those in existence prior to their
enactment, although specially men,
toned.
We are not surprised at the decis-
ion, although we agree with the Re-
publican lawyer who thought that the
legal points esta bllshed the constitu.
tionality OF the acts. Those who were
fortunate in receiving the appoint
mentS may retire, until called ou
ag ain by some law that is not subjec
to notification by an adverse (not t
say perverse) court.
|