The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1871-08-21
JEFFERSONCOUNTY
The COnstitutiOnality Of the
Act Removing the County.
seat Affirmed.
Decision Pronounced by the Su-
preme Court Of Appeals.
John d: Staley and others

JUICY oAAA WE'LL PiOuOuuSSu thS VIC
csion of the Court as follows:
BY the second section Of an act pur-
porting to be passed by the Legislature
of this State, on the Odd day OF Febru-
airy, 1871, entitled AN Act to change
the county seat of Jefferson to Charles.
town, in said county" it is provided,
that the county seat Of the said county
Of Jefferson shall cease to be at Shep-
herdstown, in said county, thirty days
from and after the passage of this act
and from and after that date be located
at Charlestown, in said county"
The third section OF the said act pro-
vides that Logan Osburn, James Fl.
Moore, John G. Cockrell, David How
ell, Jr, and John J. Lock be appointed
commissioners to carry out the purposes
of the act, by causing the public records
to be removed from Shepherdstown to
Charlestown, and by causing to be pro-
cured at Charlestown rooms suitable to
contain the records, and to be used as
offices by the county officers. The said
commissioners were required to do GER
tain other things not necessary to be
mentioned.
When the said commissioners were
about to proceed to carry into effect the
provisions of the act, John D. Staley
and others, the appelees here, citizens,
taxpayers and residents of Jefferson
county, applied to the judge of the Fifth
Judicial Circuit, for an injunction to in
join and restrain them from performing
their supposed duty under the said act.
The said judge refused to award the
injunction, and application was then
made to one Of the judges of this Court,
who granted it, and the cause was sent
to the Circuit Court of Jefferson County
to be proceeded in.
The defendants, upon being sum-
moned, answered the bill and moved
the judge Of the Circuit Court OF Jeffer'
son County, in vacation, to dissolve the
injunction, which he refused to do, and
it is from this order the case comes here
on appeal to be reviewed.
The. first cause Of error assigned is
that the compliments are private per-
sons and not acting in any official ca
pacity, and therefore could not injoln
the defendants.
The bill and amended bill filed after
the injunction was allowed, show that
certain of the parties named have
special interests to be effected by the re-
moval of the county seat, and also show
that the bill is filed in behalf Of the
complainants and others in the county
of Jefferson having like interests, which
is sufficient to allow them to maintain
the suit.
Story's Equity pl. z III Lusher VS..
Settles 1, West Virginia ii. Kuhn VS..
the Board OF Education of Wellsburg 4.
West Virginia 400.
The second cause assigned as error is
that the Injunction was improperly al.
lowed by judge of this court, because
it is claimed that the person who en-
dorsed the refusal Of the injunction as
Judge of the Fifth Circuit was not at
the time a judge of the said circuit.
1t is well known that the person who
endorsed his refusal to allow the in
junction was at that time and still Is
the acting Judge of the Fifth Circuit,
and the 18th section OF chapter Of the
Code p. 10, provides that all acts done by
any person by authority Of any office
shall be valid, and such would indeed
be the law without this act Of the Legis-
lature.
The third ground of error assigned
is that "the court cannot, for the pur-
purpose OF impeaching statute, 90 be-
hind the record to inquire into the reg
ularity of the proceedings Of the Legls-
lature in passing such act. The en-.
rolled bill, therefore, authenticated
according to the form prescribed by
law, is the ultimate and conclusive
proof of the legislative will. The jour
mails of the legislative houses are not
competent evidence to show that copy
of a statute authenticated in the man
ner above stated does not contain the
whole law as, in point OF fact. 1t was
enacted. The validity OF such a statute
cannot be impeached or contradlcted by
the journals OF the Legislature.
The proposition intended to be pro-
bounded by this formula is that this
Court cannot 60 behind the bill as en-
rolled by the Clerk Of the House OF
Delegates and signed by the President
of the Senate and Speaker of the House
of Delegates, to look at the journal OF
the Senate to see if the bill was passed
by the number of votes required by the
Constitution. =.
The Constitution, article 4, section
81 provides that ION the passage OF
every bill the vote shall be taken by
yeas and nays and be entered on the
journal, and no bill shall be passed oy
either branch without an affirmative
vote of a majority of the members
elected thereto" Section 80 provides:
Each branch shall keep a journal OF
its proceedings, and cause the same to
be published from time to time.
What is the evidence OF the existence
Of a statute to which the courts must
look, is a question which has been often
before the courts and very much dis
cnssed. The oldest case before us at
present is that of The King vs. Arnn-
del, reported in Hobart, p. lo9. The
first point in this case was TO get rid OF
an act of Parliament which had the
Kings assent unto it" and where
nnto the great seal is set as the course
is in private acts" because it was not
The act of both Houses, the Lords and
Commons as it ought to be: The Court
Examined the journals and could not
find that the bill as amended, ana 70
which the great seal was attached, mao
been passed by both Houses, and pro-
ceeded to state: "But now, supposing