The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1865-09-28
The A,1oIney General aud Suffrage.

defence of liberty and the sacred right OF
suffrage. There is no question, bnt that
the act of the Legislature, requiring a
test oath of every voter who is objected
to by any one, is void. 1t alters that
part of the constitution which defines
the right Of suffrage. 1t adds to it, by
creating disqualification unknown to
the constitution. 1t is contrary to the
constitution. II isrepugnaut to the, con
stitution, and therefore rholly roid,
If law be enacted, which is contrary
to the. constitution, ii is void. Hamper
VS. Hawkins Va. cases y. 30; 6 Rand,
245 and Leigh ll3. In support OF the
same proposition, Chief Justice Marshall
says, that an act of the Legislature
| which is repugnant to the constitution is
void, 4 Cranch p. l37 and l76, 3 Dallas
300. 1t is admitted on al hands, that
| an act of the Legislature which is repng-
nant to tho constitution, is>void 1t is
waste of time to moie authorities in sup
port of so plain proposition IT mere
act of the Legislature conflicts with the
constitution, which must go down? The
statute certainly-not the constitution.
The court says, in 2 Dallas, 800. "The
constitution of State is stable and per-
manent, not to DO worked upon hy the
temper of the times. nor to rise and fall,
with the tide of events, notwithstand-
ing the competition ofopposiug interests,
and the violence of contending parties,
it remains firm, and immovable as a
mountain, amidst the strife of storms, or
wreck in the ocean amidst the raging
of the waves. 1t is a clear position,
(says the judge that if Legislative act
oppugns constitutional principle, the
Legislative aet must give way, and be
rejected on the score of repugnance." z
All this I understand, even the Attor-
ney General to admit; but he adroitly,
like all mere party inen, shifts the real
question and makes a false issue, by pre-
tending that the judges of the. election
are bound to presume the law constitu-
tional till the courts decide that the act
is unconstitutional. This is mereshift,
an artful dodge: For if none but the
courts can look at the constitution. then
the party which wickedly departed from
the constitution, will toice accomplish
its purpose, for another election after the
present one must tcomeround before such
case could reach decision by the
Court of Appeals, And if no individual
sues, it will never reach the courts, for
tho law makes nd provision for the decis-
ion of such question by the courts, un-
less some person chooses to sue. If the
judges of electiop can not look at the
constitution it iS little or no restraint
upon the Legislature. The members by
changing the lawof suffrage every year,
can always secure reelection by legis-
lating the opposite party, or sufficient of
them, out OF thelr VOTES under one pre-
tence or other. Acase cannot reach the
Court of Appeals I'LL after second cleo
ton and by the time the Court of Ap-
peals can have declared q former law
void, another and, different law may be
artfully devised aud passed, equally dis
franchislng the voters.
But if the Judges of the election cannot
look at the constitution in order to de-
termine what is their duty, and who may
and wko may not vote, why did the con-
stitution declare that the judges of elec-
ton should be sworn to support the con-
stitutionl If they may not look at the
constitution, how Sare thew to keep, or
obey the constitution when deciding who
may votel This is all the duty they
have to discharge and all they have to
do, is to Judge who may vote. But if
they may not look. at the constitution
when discharging the only work or duty
committed to them it is strange indeed
that the constitution should demand
that they shall be sworn to ob-
serve the constitution before they
shall enter on their duties But if the
makers of the constitution intended
that the persons they declared to be
voters and none others should vote, then
we can see very sound and satisfactory
reason why the constitution required
that these judges of election sohuld be
sworn to keep and observe the con-
stitution when passing Judgment on
the right of one to vote. Ii Is clear.
that a Judge of election violates
his oath who attempts to act rs
such, and yet does not look at or go by
the constitution, when deciding who
may vote. But let us look at the At
torney Generals opinion little further.
The Judge of the election is not sworn to
observe and keep the act of the Legisla-
ture, but he is sworn to observe the con-
stitution. 1t seems to me that the Oon-
stitution, or the Attorney General must
be very absurd fellow, if the constitu-
tion is not to be looked at, but the law is
this is swearing a man to observe that
he is not to look at and not to swear him
to observe and keep that according to
which he is to Judge. This l suppose
may be called patentright 'for max
ing oaths easy" and possibly, explains to
us how it happened that the Attorney
General saw no objection to requiring
| that man should swear to keep the con-
stitution rs often as he ate his break
fast. But this is no place for levity.
When the sacred rights of suffrage and
the solemnities of oaths are involved,
| Jest and satire are ont of place