Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1871-09-16

decision yet rendered py TIE SoutI VI
Appeals of West Virginia, has met with
more general condemnation, or inspired
a stronger conviction of the incompe-
tencv of that tribunal, than that recent
Nv announced in the case of John d. Sta
ley, &c, VS. Logan Osborne, &c. The
Wheeling IatsAigencsr, in an article OF
great ability has exposed its striking III
consistencies and absurd conclusions
The Richmond papers have both de-
nounced and ridiculed it. Mr.. Faulkner
in his Convention speech, at Bunker
Hill. on the 10Th of August, as we learn
from the Martinsburg Statesman, thus
speaks of 1T
The point presented for argument and
decision before that Court, was whether
INV hill could have the force and effect
ola Inc unless concurred III by The rep
,e,eainfioes of the mejority Of The people
at nest Tirginia? He regarded that
~ one of the most important limitations
mon Legislative power centainedinthat
Instrument, and one of ourmOst valuable
safeguards against partial or corrupt
legislation That limitation was now
Destroyed by this decision, and any
scheme no matter how deeply affecting
the rights and interests of the people OF
West Virginia, might now become
law by vote of seven III the Senate,
and Is in the House of Delegates. I'm
der that decision one Of the most bene
fetal provisions in our present Constitu-
ton had been annihilated. A breach
had been made in the Constitution,
through which, to use the remark OF
celebrated English Judge "a coach and
four might now be driven. This was
another illustration Of the subserviency
of the judiciary to the Legislative pow
er, and OF the difficulty in getting the
Judge to pronounce the acts OF body
null and void, which has the arbitrary
power to remoue them from office at
pleasure. Had such a decision been
made six weeks ago, it would have
reused all West Virginia to the necessl-
tv of a Convention. We had now but
a single valuable limitation left to us in
the Constitution, and that is, the article
which forbids the contraction of Pub
lie debt; and how much longer that linn
itation can be any protection to us,
with judiciary made by the Constitu-
ton dependant upon the Legislature for
their offices, the people Of West Virgin
la can determine.
And lately we find in the New York
World. the leading Democratic Press
of that City, the following strong con-
demnation oft. Liberal and enlighten-
edmen of all parties disapproveit while it
receives no countenances except from
such partizan papers as the Wheeling
Register and Charleston Courier
From the New York World, Sept. s.
MAJORITY LEGISLATION.
A curious decision upon a point of
constitutional law has just been render
cd by the West Virginia Court of Ap-
peals. The constitution of that State
provides that ''no bill shall be passed by
either branch without the affirmative
vote of majority of the members elect
ed thereto" a full Senate having %
members and a full House 81, it would
appear as if II Senators and 20 Repre-
sentatives must, under this requirement,
vote in favor of any given bill to insure
its passage, but the decision OF the court
is that "a majority Of the members elect
ed" means majority exclusive OF any
vacancies there may be. The case came
up on law objected to as having only
received ii votes in the Senate instead
of II, rs il was maintained the constitu-
ton required, and the cOurt held that
IL votes were enough. The improprie-
" OF the decision is best seen by ref
erence to another part of the same con
stituton. \ quorum is declared to be
"a majority of each branch and if a
majority here mean, not II out of the
constitutional number of % Senators
and % out of the 81 Representatives,
but majority of those actually holding
certificates of election, then a quorum
might be less than II in the upper house
and 20 in the lower, with the result that
majority of these small numbers
could pass bills The Senate might
have but : members and the House but
Is, and under this decision Senators
could-legislate for % and Representa-
tives for 81. An absurdity like this
was never meant. 1t has been often
objected that where quorum was a
majority Of all the members, and ma
jority of that majority was competent
10 pass bill, the bill could become a
law by the votes of about one member
out OF four-as may be thus seen: Full
house, say, so; majority, or quorum, PC;
majority of majority, or number sutfi-
cient to pass bill, IA, or % per cent Of
the entire body-and as the West Nir-
GINA constitution was framed not so
many years ago, and when this griev-
ance was well known, there is every rea-
son to believe it was meant no law
should pass but with the approval of a
majority of all the members allotted to
each house by the fundamental law.
The court itself, in delivering its remark
able opinion, said:
The true theory of representative
government is that a majority of the
representatives of all the people to be
bound nv any law should assent to it;