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

the Judges, who are to inform themselves
in the best way they can" and this Is cl-
ted By the courts with approval.
In People vs.. Auditor &C., Ills lsoaJ
McCulloch va. The Stale IL Ind. Ala
STATE vs.. Moffat 5 Ohio 35s-Gteen vs..
Graves Doug. (Mich.) 35l-FerRu'on
W. Miners &c.. Bank 3 Sneed ( Tenn.
6O9-Soulhwark vs.. Palmyra K. X. Co
S Mich. 2s7-4 Mo 3O2-snd 81 Miss
65O-slI establish the principle that the
cou:s will 90 behind Tue published stat.
u,es and inquire if they have been passed
with ,he proper Constitutional solemn
lies. and by The requisite number OF votes;
bu, rule or indicate the opinion, that Inc
journals which the law requires each
house 10 keep are The only proper EVIL
dencc OF legislative proceeding; at least
tina, parol evidence Is incoDpeteni;though
in Fowler vs.. Pierce ID Cal. 100 paroI
e.idence was allowed and sustained ana
tina, case is cited and approved by the
Supreme Court OF u. S. in case OF Gard
ner VS.. tho Collector. 6 Wallace $40. In
Spsngler VS.. Jacoby IA Ills, The court
held that where, on The final passage OF
bill, the Constitution requires the ayes
and nays TO be entered on the journals II
the journal fails 10 show tina, these re-
quremsbls were complied with, the act
fails. and the journal IS conclusive evil
dence; and this case is cited and approx
ed by the Supreme Court OF U. ). IN
said case in 9Th Wallace. In some other
case.-lhe State Courts have presumed
in favor Of the legislative proceedings
when the journal, are silent, but hold the
journals 10 be conclusive OF all iacls
which they sffrmsiiveIy show. IL Bank
OF Penn. vs.. the Commonwealth 7 Harris
l56-Souh wsrk Bank vs.. same 26 Penn
446-,nd Warner We. Beers, % Wend.
l37-and III. the Courts held that the
journals Of HE Legislature are The highest
evidence OF The ume-msnneT-and elf
cums,snces OF the passage Of bill and
may be used to show that il did not re-
ceive the constitutional majority requIr ed
or ihst il was never enacted.
The Supreme Court Of U. S. in said
case, 6 Wallace, after endorsing and sp.
proving the opinion OF Dwsrris above CIV
en-; and referring TO Sir Matthew Hsles
history of The common law, and 10 Lord
Coke. says: if The proposition deduced
from these authorities be sound, OF which
there seems 10 be no reason 10 doubt.
"how can it be held that judges upon
whom is imposed The burden OF deciding
what The Legislative body has done, when
i, is in dispute. are debarred from resort.
ing 10 the written record which that body
makes OF lis proceedings in regard 10 any
particular statute; and alter endorsing as
authority, Sedg wick or Statutes ana con-
snIulionsl law p. "a, and the cases above
referred to. in 4Ih Hill Denio.-l9
lll.-and 2 CAL. and number OF Others
OF like import, not above referred io-Ihe
Court Gays 1--WE are OF opinion, therefore,
on. principle as well as authority, that
whenever a question arises IN court OF
law OF the existence OF a sis,ute-the time
il took eTecI, or Of lis precise terms, The
Judges who are called upon to decide It.
have a rlphl to resort to any source OF ~
formation which in lis nature IS capable
'ot conveying TO the judiclsl mind a clear
and satisfactory answer 10 such question {;
always seeking first for that which IN lis
nature is most appropriate. unless the
POSITIVE aw has enacted dliferen, rule.
Whilst the rulings in The courts 10 The
different States, and even in The same
States have been conflicting, and by dl'I-
ded courts. this recent ruling by the high.
eel Judicial tribunal. was by unanimous
court. and upon consideration Of III ose
various conflicting authorities.
In Cooley's constitutional limitations.
1876, published in 1863 upon a review
of the authorizes on the questionable
doctrine Of Spangler vs.. Jscoby. and 9TH
er like cases, is affirmed. and on page
l4O. same work, the author says: Where
the Constitution requires that on The final
passage Of bill the yeas and nays shall
be entered on the journal; such provision
is designed, amongst other things, to iur'
nish definite and conclusive evidence az 10
whether the bill has been passed by the
requisite majority or not. The Constr
tuition 'prescrIbes this as the test by which
10 determine whether The requisite num-
Der OF members vote in the affirmative.
The office OF The journal is to record. ao-
lhenlicsle end preserve the proceedings
of the House. 1t mus, appear on the face
Of the journal that The bill passed by
constitutional majority. These require
nenls are clearly imperative. They are
expressly enjoined by The Fundamental
law. and csnno; be dispensed with by the
legislature and refers 10 People vs.
Campbell Sd Gllmer, McCulloch vs..
STATE, | l,h Ind and Other cases.
Other cases and elementary authorities
are presented and relied on by complain
ants counsel, but we think 1t unnecessa.
ry to amplify. The legislative and judi
clsl are cu-ordInsle departments in our
system OF government. each, IN sense.
independent OF the other. with their re.
speclive powers and duties. and neither
should encrosch upon the province Of The
other. Blu, both are The creatures Of, and
derive their respective powers from. and
under The Constitution. (which is the
supremG kr." "lhe voice Of the people
in their original and unlimited capacity.
c ,;,, Ito ,,m,,. IF lao;sI.tya and othar