The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1872-10-02

l SieStCu VIC vuoitueu w toho shSh ploNoo,
and the people approved Of the propo-
sitiol, ratified the Constitution and
made Che elections. The Convention
could hsye submitted any other propo.
sition IL that respect to the people. II
could have suggested that the present
officers should hold sout their present
terms, or that their terms should be
shortened OF elongated, Of declsred that
their functions were at an end. and
suggested the names OF others to take
their places. or propose q more reason
able 8nd proper course. which they did,
| to, retsin the present officers for time
and to elect others 10 take their places
at convenient and suitable times.
The Dorr case Luther agsins! Bor-.
deny reported in 7 Howard report. p,
lst Is unearthed to support the opinion
OF the IntelAqeneer, that the, general
government should interfere in this
State affair Of ours, but had the wise
men Of that journal read that case with
care they would have perceived that the
court decided that it had no power
whatever to interfere in such matters.
The case related to the Constitution Of
the State Of Rhode Island. That State
had lived under its colonial charter
which WAS regarded as its Constitution
up to about the year 1910. Dorr and
his associates conceived the idea OF
changing the Constitution Of the State
BY calling a Convention OF their own
act, and in opposition 10 the authorities
of the State. A Convention was
called, q Constitution adopted, and
by provisions made by the Convention,
submitted without authority to the
people for their ratification, and it was
in that way ratified by part Of the
people. An attempt was made to put
It into operation in opposition to. and
in defiance Of the authorities OF the
State. The Supreme Courtdecided that
the matters involved were to be settled
by the recognized and known suthori.
ties OF the State, and that there could
be no interposition on the part OF the
authorities Of the United States Gov
eminent in such cases, except when
called upon by the authorities Of the
State to aid in suppressing instruction
and maintaining the peace.
cannot see the consolation that the
HtelEqere.r can find in the Dorr case.
Had not that paper better apply its
exertious to promote harmony and re-
spect to the Constitution and authorl-
ties OF its own State, instead Of tanning
the flames of discord, Reorganization,
strife and Ill will WARSAW
Another Article on the Same Sub
iect-The Law Clearly StHied-rhe
Prirciples upon which the Valid.
tty OF the August Election IL Main
tained
Editors of the Register:
The Mtetigeneer Of your city having
failed in it's most vigorous efforts to
defeat the Constitution, now starts the
most startling proposition that the elec-
ton OF officers on the ODD OF August
was void. I have, with some care,
looked to the grounds of these sugges'
tons. The whole proposition as stated,
in substance, rests upon the allegation
that the election of officers took effect
on the day Of their election, and that
the authority under which said election
WAS held was retrospective that the
election WAS ''retrospective" in its oper-
alton and effect, and there fore void
when subjected to the test OF the lst
section OF the 18th Article Of toe Con-
stitution OF 1868.
l shall insist that the election OF
officers, on the authority under which
they were elected, has no Retrospective
operation or effect" but in advance OF
a consideration OF this question / pro-
pose to look to the inhibitive provision
OF the said first section. 1t provides
how a Convention "having authority to
alter the Constitution OF the State may
be called. After this is completed the
following further provision is incorpo-
rated: "And all acts and ordinances Of
said Convention shall be submitted to
the voters OF the State for ratification,
and shall not have any validity what
ever until they are ratified, and in no
event shall they, by any shift or device,
be made to have any retrospective op'
Grafton or effect" To give to this the
effect claimed is in effect to deny to the
people the right to adopt such form OF
government as may best suit them. The
power to do this has not been granted
and parted with, and when a Conven>
ton has been legally called, the people,
having all the powers not granted to
some other authority, may in adopt
ing Constitution and Seized
ule incorporate retrospective pro-
visions, not technically er post tacto
1t must be admitted, in relation 10
previous crimes. the punishment by
constitutional sanction could not be in
creased, or individual acts done, not
crimes, and not punishable at the time,
could not by constitutional authority,
be punished. This would be RETROSPECT
tive it is true, but it would be void be-
cause it would be technically er post
facto and prohibited by the Constitution
ofthe United States. In other words,
tor the people, by Constitution or
schedule, to do this would be to exer.
else power, which. we have contracted
with another government not to do. To
say that the people cannot adopt Con.
stitutton retrospective in matters not
er post tacto, leads to denial Of the
power of the people to change their
government. For the people to exercise
the power by the Constitution to incor-
porate retrospective provisions not re-
iating to crimes might be regarded as
an abuse OF power, but if not violative
of the Constitution oftbe United States
ey would be effective.
1t 10 not necessary that the validity