The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1870-12-20

! enacted them.
Laws are made by the people, in one
or some of the modes in use, to secure
and regulate their persons and property,
and prescribe the duties and control the
conduct of public tunctionaries and pri-
vate individuals.
The Constitution is the paramount
law on all these subjects Where it ap.
plies it is the only law A statute in.
consistent with its provisions, is as abso-
lutely void as If ithad not been enacted.
1t is not law for any purpose or during
any period. In the nature Of things,
there cannot be two inconsistent laws
that regulate the rights and control the
conduct Of The same people ar the same
time. As well might two men occupy
the same spacea once, or two locomo-
tives pass each other on the same track.
Necessarily the actual law excludes the
mere unauthorized, contradictory enact
ment that is not law-from the time Of
its passage (unless some other be speci-
fed, till it shall be repealed.
Laws are made by the people for
themselves. Whatever is the law for
the regulation of their rights and con-
duct is that by which they are to be
adjudged by the courts There is not a
void law for the people, but different
valid law for the courts The inconsis-
tent notion that an unauthorized act,
which is nudity, is fora time a law to
regulate the rights and acts of the peo-
pie, while the Constitution is different
law ordained by themselves for the
judgments Of the courts on the same
right and acts Of themselves, is the es-
sence of the Radical pretense on this
subject
The courts must interpret the law
before they can pronounce Judgment for
or against persons whose rights or con-
duct are questioned They must first
construe the Constitution, if 1t applies
next, the legislative enactment if any
has been passed; and, if not, then the
common law. Meantime they must in
quire whether the statute harmonizes
with the Constitution II it does not, it
is not rule Of property or conduct for
the people, and for that reason mast be
disregarded by the courts.
All that is in the Constitution is law
for the people, and mu st be applied by
the courts. Anything that is in the
statutes, but repuguant to the Constitu-
ton, will not be rule of property or
action for the former, or Of decision for
the latter
The courts expound and pronounce
the law that regulates the rights and
duties of the people. They declare what
the law was from it's enactment-or
when the right existed or act was done,
that is ques,ioned-not merely what
shall be the law after the PRONUNCIATION
of the decision. The courts have no
power to make or repeal, or validate or
annul a law They confer on the peo-
pie no new right, impose on them no
new duty, punish no new wrong. Ac-
corling to the law adopted by the peo-
pie, or by the authority of the people
enacted by the Legislature, courts de-
eide the rights, declare the duties, or
condemn the wrongs, that existed or
were imposed or forbidden by the law
anterior 10 the adjudication,
The purport of the opposite theory,
however-if it be at all intelligible-is
that though the people have made the
Constitution to be the supreme law of
the land, the Legislature created by
themselves to enact laws in conformity
with that paramount law may repeal
the Constitution, and, against the prohi-
bition Of the people who created it and
conferred on it whatever power it has,
may enact repugnant law, which in
stead of the Constitution that it will dis
place, shall regulate the property and
duties of the people, until the courts
shall repeal the legislative enactment,
and re-enact the Constitution.
When the Constitution secures to the
people their lives, their property and
their liberties, but statute repugnant
to the paramount law directs ministerial
or other officers to destroy or overflow
all or any Of them, is it the inevitable
duty Of such officers-who know the
statute to be contrary to the Constitu-
ton and therefore invald-to obey its
mandate as il it were the law? II they
tail to do the irreparable injury prohib-
tied by the Constitution yet commanded
by the void enactment, shall they be
punished for the failure ? Such, as has
been mentioned is the purport Of the
late legislation in this State.
When the Constitution secures prop
erty, but a void enactment-which, how
ever, we are told, is rule Of right till
annulled-would divest the property ont
of the owner and vest ii in another, does
the title pass to and remain in the lat
ter, with all the rights and burdens in
cident to ownership? II so, when the
validity of the statute which was the
rule of property when the transfer was
effected, is terminated 10y the court, is
the title Invested out of the latter and
revested in the former owner?
When the Legislature usurps the
power, and without authority, enacts
a statute, if, as pretended, it be never
theless rule of property and action for
the people, till court shall decide otn-
erwise, is it the duty of the people to
observe andobey it? If they do so, how
will case be brought before court for
its decision? But until this be done, 1t
cannot be decided that the unauthorized
enactment is not law; and the people
will not be excused from its observance
and obedience. Thus the performance
by the people of their duty to disregard
the Constitution and obeya void statute
would effectuate and perpetrate the
usurpation of the Legislature, and for
ever deprive themselves Of the inaIlena-
ble right Of seli-government.
Is it ineligible political ethics, that
men shall break a statute, which, though
it inf-inges the Constitution, it is their
duty to obey, in order to obtain the
Judgment OF a court whether they shall