The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1868-03-02

uant.the Legislature declares, in effect
that the law of West Virginia is OF
srperior authority TO n law of the
Tinted States. If we mistake not, u
was some such doctrine as this that led
20 the late rebellion. JEFF. DAVIS Ii
70 he congratulated upon his new al
lies.
The Impeachment OF Judge HIindinan
Judge W. l.. HINDMAN, of the oth Ju'
dicial Circuit. has been impeached and
removed by the Legislature of West
Virciuia. He has been tried i'll his alb
sspce. without the benAht of counsel OF
defenca, aud convicted and displaced
without having committed any offence
against any law. The brute force of q
Radical majority, in obedience to sup
posed party necessity, has overridder
law. Justice and humanity to CRAFTY
The insane clamOrs of loyalty"
The pretext for this indecent proceed
ing was the action of Judge HINDMAN
in admitting certain rebel lawyers to
practice without taking the Test Oath
Did this action constitute an offence
What appears in its justification' The
Supreme Court OF the United States
had declared this oath invalid. The
Court of Appeals of West Virginia mad
declared that the oath was cOnstltu'
tional. In making his decision Judge
HlSpMAS was compelled to choose be-
tween these two authorities. The one
was the tribunal of q State
the other was the highest Court
of a nation. If 'lOyal'y's" pro-
fe4sions be sincere, it regards
the Departments of the General Govern
ment as paramount in authority to the
analogous Departments of a State Gov
ernnsnt. Ii the General Government
is supreme in authority over the States
it possesses that authority in all its
branches, the Executive, the Leglsla'
tive and the Judicial. If tie Lr2isla'
turc of our State is subordinate to Con
greSs, the conclusion il that the Court
ofAppeals of West Virginia is of infe
rior authority as compared with the
Supreme Court of the United States
and in the eveRt of a conflict, the supe'
rior authority must prevail.
Reasoning from these purely "loyal'
premises, Judge HINDMAN's action IN
respecting the decision of the Su-
preme Court was fully mp to the ortho'
dox standard of "loyalty." To no pnr
pose is tho. Federal Government para
mount in authority, if it does not pos
sess that supremacy in all its parts
For "loyal" Legislature to claim thai
the Federal Government is collectively
supreme, and yet subordinate in its Ju
dicial Departments, is to commit an act
of fself-stultiication TO which nothing
but passion could blind its members
and nothing but party discipline drive
them.
But suppose, for the moment, thai
Judge HINpMANs decision was an er
ror. "DId it," to use the words of {
member of the Legislature, constitute
an offence!" We submit that the es
Senco Of a legal offence is wanting il
the case. 1t nowhere appears that h'
erred deliberately and Intentionally
The question with him was not whethe
he should obey or violate law, bu
whether the Test Oath Act was or wa
not law. If it was not law, then in
obeying it he would have committed
an offence for which there was no justi-
fcation; an offence of equal moment
with that of active disobedience to
law.
As TO the validity Of the cath ther
was a conflict of authority. Upon tn,
one side stood the opinions Of Judge
BEowN and LOOMS; the first membe
of the Court of Appeals, the secord
Circuit JHdge from one Of the rura
districts. Upon the other side was re
corded the opinion of the Suprem'
Court of the United States, and il vii
not be derogatory to either of the gen
uemen named to say that tn
members of that tribunal viii
not compare unfavorably with them
selves in point Of reputation, exps
rience, learning or ability. Betweel
these two conflicting decisions Judg
HINDMAN must make choice. VIII
shall say that in his final conclusion b.
committed an errOrs And who shal
say, if he did err, that he did not com
nit ar error to which any man of com
moh sense was liablei Above all, VIII
can claim that in holding the law o
the Supreme Court to be the suprem
law Of the land, he committed an offenc
which justified his inhuman trial, an,
his precipitate displacement
We believe that Judge HINpMAN com
mitted no offence. We believe that h
did not even err. We believe that b
respected his oath and discharged hi
duty, and we cannot say as much fo
the parties who arraigne6 him 80 sun
marily and iudecently. and thrust hin
from his place with so much of passio
and malignancy as was manifested b
his prosecutors. - ~ak-t
We say this without partisan bias Q
motive Judge HINDMAN was not th