The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1873-07-21

standard, to test them by it's provisions
when question is made touching tbeil
validity, always remembering, that
only in clear case and pal lpable CASE
will the court pronounce against the
validity of an enactment. II it be
doubtful, the doubt is usually solved
and should be, in favor OF the legisla-
tive power" In the case Of Bum, el
al .. the people ex rel, As Illinois r.
All and 412. Chief Justice Breese who
delivered the opinion Of the court again
holds and reannounces the came views
as those just quoted from, 3Oth Illinois
R., and he also refers to 44th Illinois
R. 229. On referring to the report last
named we find this principle held by
the court, viz: Statutes will not be
held unconstitutional except in the
clearest cases. This court has repeat
edly declared that it will not pronounce
a statute unconstitutional. except in q
case where the violation is plain and
palpable." In the case Of the people
vs Simson Draper, Is New York re-
ports 543. Judge DEMO lin delivering
the opinion OF the court holds that, "ln
the first place, the people in framing
the constitution, committed to the leg
islature the whole law making power of
the State, which they did not expressly
or inpliedly withhold. Plenary power
in the legislature for all purposes OF
civil government is the rule. A pro-
hibition to exercise q particular power
is an exception. In inquiring,
therefore, whether q given statute
is constitutional, it is for those
who question its validity 10
to:show that it is forbidden" ut has
been said by an eminent jurist that
when courts are called upon to pro-
nounce the invalidity of an act OF leg.
islstion, passed with all the forms and
ceremonies requisite to give it the force
of Jaw, they will approach the question
with great caution, examine it in every
possible aspect, and ponder upon 1t as
long as deliberation and patient atten-
ton can throw any light upon the sub
ject, and never declare statute void,
unless the nullity and invalidity OF the
act are placed in their judgment beyond
reasonable doubt" 16 Pick 95, per
Shaw, G. J. Cooley. con. lin. lS2.
"a reasonable doubt must be solved IN
favor OF the legislative action, and the
act be sustained. Cooley's con. linn.
lS2, and the many authorities there
cited. In the case OF Ogden vs. San
ders 18th Wheaton r. go Judge
Washington says, "but il | could rest
my opinion in favor of the consttu-
tionality of the law on which the ques-
ton arises, on no other ground than
this doubt 40 felt and acknowledged,
that alone, would in my estimation, be
satisfactory vindicstion Oft. 1t ls but
decent respect due to the wisdom, the
integrity and the patriotism OF the Leg
islative body by which any law is pass-
ed, to presume in favor OF its validity,
until its violation of the Constitution
is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Cooley's con. linn. 1S3.
In the case of Dow vs.. Norris, 4, n.
H. II, the Supreme Court OF New
Hampshire recognize their obligation
$50 to construe every act Of the leglsla-
ture as to make it consistent, il 1t be
possible, with the provisions OF the
Constitution" and proceed to the ex.
animation Of a statute by the same
rule, without stopping to inquire what
construction might be warranted by
the Datural import of the language
used" "a legislative act is not to be
declared void upon mere conflict OF
Interpretation between the legislative
and judicial power. Before proceeding
to snnul, by judicial sentence, what has
been enacted by the law making power,
it should clearly appear that the act
cannot be supported by any reasonable
iutendment or allowable presumption,
So says Harris, j., in delivering the
opinion Of a majority OF the Court IN
the case OF the people vs. Supervisors o:
Orange county, II, N. Y. 24l. The
people by the adoption OF the Constltu-
ton created a legislative department
upon which they conferred the legisla-
tive power, and in granting it in general
terms, they must be understood to ratgn
the whole Legislative power which they
possessed. except 30 far as at the same
time they imposed restrictions. THE
government OF the United States is one
Of enumerated powers the governments
OF the States are possessed OF all the
general powers of legislation. When q
law Of Congress is asssled as void, or look
into the national constitution to see
if the grant OF specified powers is broad
enough to embrace it; but when q
State law is attacked on this same
ground, it is presumably valid in any
case, and this presumption is a conclu-
siye one, unless in the constitution Of
the United States or OF the State we are
able to diecern that it is prohibited. We
look in the Constitution OF the United
States for grants Of legislative power,
but in the constitutions of the State to
ascertain if any limitations have been
impoeed upon the complete power with
which the legislative department OF the
State was vested in its creation. Con.
gress can pass no laws, but such as
the constitution authorizes, either ex-
pressly or by clear implication; while
the State Legislature has jurisdiction
of all subjects on which its legislation
is not prohibited" Cooley con. linn.
l73. In the case Of Thorpe u.s. Rutland
& Burlington Railroad Co.. q Vermont
R., Chief Justice Redfeld says: at
has never been questioned that the
| American Legislature has the same In
limited power in regard to legislation
which resides in the British Parlia-
ment, except where they are restrained
by written constitutions. That must be
conceded, l think. to be a fundamental
principle in the political organizations
Of the American States. We cannot
| II 11-,ohanl 49, ,-o- al