Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1871-04-18
THE DECISION,

ILL O0SI94SAO
We have before Us, iu the Berkeley Eaion.
the opinion of Judge Hall on the questions
arising 10 the case recently argued before him,
. now quite familiarly known as the County
Seat case" A thorough discussion Of the
whole subject was had before Judge 81. in
chambers, some three weeks ago, on motion
to dissolve the Injunction granted by Judge
Maxwell of the Court Of Appeals, restraining
and enjoining the commissioners named in the
act removing the county seat, from disSharging
the duties assigned them.
The chief points presented in tho case
aud affirmed on one side and denied on the
ofher-Were first, that the private citizens
who are plaintiffs in the action were not COM
potent to sue, having no peculiar or special
interest involved; secondly. that it is not
within the power of the judiciary to inquire
into the mode aud manner of the passage of
the act by the Legislature of the State-the
act itself certified according to the require
ments of the Constitution being comclHsire
eSideRce of lite enactment aud cGnteuts; aud
thirdly, that even although such an invcstiga
ton as is referred to in the second proposition
could be made, the act received the necessary
vote to make il 4 laW-it having received the
votes Of majority of both branches of the
Legislature excluding the vote of a member
who had resigned his seat in the Senate prior
to the passage of the bill ky that body. The
decision of Judge Hall negariVcd the points
above stated, and goes to the extent of even
intimatine, (althOugh the point is not made
in the pleadings,) tina. although there were
no controversy about the sufticieucy of the
vote, the act would be regarded by him as un-
constitutional by reason of the designation of
commissioners to carry out its provisions in
stead Ofthe Board of Supervisors, upon whom
he thinks that duty is properly devoIved.-
This view is predicated on Sec. /, Art. 7, of
the Constitution, and is as follows: The
Board OF Supervisors of each county shall,
under such general regulations : may be pre-.
seribed by law, have the suPerinteudence aud
administration of the internal affairs aud fiscal
concerns of their county," &c.
Judge Hall in commenting upon this pro-
vision OF the Constitution, saws:
The Legislature may prescribe general
regulations tor the direction aud CON rol of the
Board Of Supervisors in the discharge Of it's
duties, but can it Supercede the Board, or del
esate to others the rights, powers and duties,
which by the Constitution is vested and re-
posed only in the Board OF Supervisors aud
If not, is not said act, on its face, uuconstiuu>
tional, and so, void -
It strikes an unProiessional mind that even
if the exposition of the law thus given by
Judge II. (Which We are prepared neither to
admit or deny,) be correct, that it would be
an outrage upon common sense, (aithouah in
view of the decision We ere bound to believe
1t would not be upon the kItc.) to defeat and
Dullify an entire act because particular Sec
ton not affecting its main purpose aud iuten>
tion happens to be illegal. The real object of
the act in question is to remove the equity
seat from ShepherdstOWn ard restore it to
CharlsstOWu. But says the decision you have
selected. improper agents to do this; the law
desigDates the Board of Supervisors As the
proper parties. Be it so. The result, then,
would be that the commissioners would stand
aside aud the Board of Supervisors would
come forward to discharge a duty which the
Law imposes upon them.
The case We learn will go to the Court of
Appeals, which will meet on the 18th day of
July next.