Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1871-04-22

cases OF Stale vs.. Young. 9Th American
Law Register. 679. (Ne~ Jersey esse)
and tho people VS.. Dev!in. SO N. Y. X.
269. In this latter case the Constitution
of New York s,ihe time. provided mo
bill shall be passed unless by the assent
OF majority Of all The membe" elected
to each branch of the Legislature, and The
question upon the final passage shall be
,sken Immediately upon lis last reading.
and the yeas and nays entered on Tho
journsl.'
This i, in effsc. The same as the Con-
stlulon OF Yves. Virginia, Att. 4. Sec.
81. ln,hs case The journal OF both
branches Of lbe Legislature were inspect.
ed aid found TO be regular in every re-
specl, so there was no necessity TO rule
on this point, and hence the ruling will be
| regarded in some measure as a mere obi.
Ter dictum entitled 10 little weigh. except
as the reasons given may commend Them
selves TO the judgment OF Others as wise
and sound. But The Cour, expresses The
opinion that the journals Of The Legisla.
ture cannot be received as evidence to
impesch or invalidaie statute duly su-
tbeDlcsed and certified by the proper
legislative authorities; and cites with ap.
prevail Ed vs.. Graham.20 Conn.in which
the Court said OF statute authenticated
as above indicated "it imports absolute
verify, and is in itself conclusive evidence
Of what il states, and can neither be con-
nadicied or varied as 10 any OF the facts
OF which it processes 10 be The memoir
al"
In The former case, (S,a'e vs. Young
the Court says: II. is directed by the
Constitution (of New Jersey with regard
to The form of enacling blIs,thal the yeas
and nays Of the members voting on such
final passage, shall be entered on the
journal" and in The opinion in The case.
this provision i. treated as merely direc.
tory; and Beasley Gu. in delivering the
opinion of the Court says "My general
conclusion is, tina. both upon the grounds
of public policy. and uron the ancIen. and
well sened rules Of law, The copy Of
",
lioned, (signed by the speaker Of each
house, authenticated by the signature Of
The Governor ard Tie great seal Of HE
Stale, certified by the Clerk OF tue House
in which i. originated, snd filed in the
office OF me Secretary Of State) is the
conclusive proof Of the enactment and
contents of statute OF this State; and
tina, such aiesled copy cannot be contra.
Diced by the legislative journal. or In any
other modes" and TO sustain this view ref.
erence is made to Fouke vs.. Fleming 18Th
Md. The Pacific Railroad Cows. Gov.
ernor, 23sd Mo. Duncombe vs.. Prindle
- Iowa. People VS.. Purdy. ID and
Hill. and ED vs.. Graham, 20 Conn up.
on all Of which. except the cases IN 2nd
and 4,h Hill. defendants in this case rely.
ln ssid last named two cases, the opinion
Of The Court was doubtless Influenced by
the existence Of a law prescribing. that
"no bill shall be dee ned To have passed
By the assent Of Two thirds Of the mem
bers elected 10 each House. unless so cer-
tilted by the presiding officers of each
House." And the CoUr, looked back Of
The printed statute to the original engross-
ed bill on file in the office Of Secretary
OF State, and finding it certified only as
ordinary majority bills, held it invalid
10 Fouke vs.. Fleming and Douglas 3
Md. the Court recies the various specific
acquisitions and practice as 10 ihs anthem
,ication and evidence OF the passage OF
statutes. and these all appearing regular
and com plole. the Court merely says:
"All hi. would seem to be better evil
dence OF what the law is, than the jour
mails Of the two branches Of the Leglsls-
lure. KEEP, and at'esled only by their re-
speclive Clerks
In Duncomb vs Prindle IL Iowa. Pa
cific Railroad vs.. the Governor. % MIS-
sour and Evans, Auditor. VS.. Brown 80
Indiana. The Court held it incompetent TO
contradict The authenticated and certified
act. by an appeal to The legislative JOUR
nails. In these and the case Of Fouke vs.
Fleming and Douglass ,here is however
no such constitutional requisiuon as 10
entering the vote upon the journals, as Is
found in Sec. 81 Art. Of our Conslltu-
lion: and in some OF them HE Courts
seem TO attach significance 10 The aulhen'
,ics,on by The signature OF the Governor
and Seal Of The State: neither Of which
by law or practice. are required or had IN
West Virginia. In The case of Virginia
VS.. West Virginia Supreme Court of the
United States. relied on by Defendants
the ruling We think does not reach the
question in this case. The Couri .here
simply held that the Legislature Of Viz.
GINA having delegated TO its executive
certain powers and duties. wha, he done
in the premises was in eGec, done By The
Legislature itself. and could not be ques-
toned TO The prejudice Of Others interest
ed.
In the case OF Lusher vs.. Settles 4 w.
Va, Rep. mol having access to the re-
por, mot We. published) have reference
only 10 me brief Of the case used by
Gov. Stanton in his recent argument be.
fore The Supreme Cour, Of the United
States in the case Of Virginia vs.. West
Virginia and from this, do not see that
the ruling in that case necessarily, il q.
all. reaches the question in This case.
Willis, The constitutional provision as TO
the number Of inhabitants and square
miles REQUIRED for creating a new county