The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-03-19
0keGtttsltigeuetr:
The Printing FTaudS...Judgment
without Execution

It would seeem from the telegram ol
our Charleston correspondent "Henry"
that the House OF Delegates refused Mon
day to lay on tho whitewaSh prepared ior
the adornment OF Mr.. WALKER, the
Public Printer, by himself and his emf
nent counsel. The House declined to
vote, as they had proposed, that the char
ges were not sustained. That was
equivalent to voting that they were suS'
tanned. This Is a complete though reluc-
tant vlndicatlon Of the report made by
Gov. JACOB and the three other Demo-
Gratis who Investigated Mr.. WALKER's &C.
counts last summer. After this vote OF
guilty" the House acted very inconsis'
tently in diminishing the matter by an In
definite postponement and attempting to
shoulder the responsibility for failure to
prosecute upon GoE JACOB. We do not
see that there has ever been time since
charges were preferred against Mr.. WAL
KER when Gov. JACOB could have assum.
ed the responsibility Of prosecuting
him without q want Of due Difference
TO the Legislature which that body
would have hotly resented. The Legis.
lature was in session when charges were
first made. II undertook to deal with the
matter and appointed q commission to in.
vestigate and report to the next Legisla-
ture. Il did not suspend Mr.. WALKER
meanwhile or direct the Governor to do
so. Perhaps the Governor might have
done that much upon his own resporsi.
billty; but In view Of the fact that the
Legislature was fully acquainted before
its adjournment with the character Of
Mr.. WALKER's offence but had not sus'
pended him; Of the further fact that
printing needed for the public iniOrma'
ton and for prosecution Of tho public
business would have been delayed and
embarrassed; and Of tho further fact that
such action by the Governor after the
Legislature had declined 10 suspend
would have subjected him to the
charge of prosecuting Mr. WALKER
for personal reasonS-we do not see
that His Excellency could well havo
done anything in Mr. WALKERS case
more than he did, which was, by instruc'
ton Of the Legislature, to sit as the head
Of tho commission investigating his ac'
counts. When the result Of that investi'
cation was communicated to the present
Legislature, we do not sec but the Gov
ernor's responsibility in the matter was
at an end. If he had suspended MIR.
WALKER, or directed the Attorney Cen
eral to prosecute, at any. time after tho ad'
Journment OF the last Legislature and be-
tore the meeting Of this, the present Leg.
islature would have been furious over his
want Of Difference 10 the legislative au-
thority. Ifhe had done so since the meet
ing of this Legislature, with the report Of
his commission yet undisposed Of, proba'
bly, nothing short Of impeachment would
have satisfied the offended legislative dig
nifty. The Legislature when in session IS
the supreme directory power in the State.
The Governor Is only an executive officer
who must obey itS direction. The Legls'
lature took this case out Of the Governors
hands in the beginning and undertook to
deal with it. Tho Legislature, therefore,
and not the Governor is responsible for
the failure to do.anythIng.