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


of the word manner" as used in Art 4,
Sec. 6 Of the Constitution Of Virginia OF
1880. See Code Of Virginia, ls4S
chapter "a. -.
The same may be said OF the legisla>
tive construction placed on the same
word as employed in the Constitution
of Virginia of 1851 in article 8. section
10. See Code of Virginia Of 1860,
chapter "a. And the same as to the
ssme-word in article 4, section 50 OF
same Constitution. See Code OF Vlr-
GINA Of 1860, chapters 6. Z, s and 10:
II the case OF Taft vs.. Adams, decided
in the Supreme Court OF Massachusetts,
and reported in Sd. Grays r. l26, Shaw,
C. J., in delivering the opinion OIL the
Court saws, "when it is said in this
statute that County Commissioners
shall be chosen in the manner pres
cribed in the revised statutes, we think
this expression means not only the
warrant for the meeting. and balloting
by the voters in towns, but extends to
all the other provisions necessary to
give effect to the choice; such as re-
turning, examining and declaring the
votes, so as to make a complete election
to the office" The former Copstltu-
ton OF this State in article 3, section g,
provides that AL officers under this
Constitution may be removed from Of
fee for misconduct, iucompeteDcy. neg
lect OF duty or other cause, 10 such
manner as may be prescribed by
general laws" Section 7 OF the same
article provides that vacancies 10 office
shall be filled in such manner as may
be prescribed by law" The word
manner" as used in these two sections
was evidently intended to authorize the
legislature to designate what tribunal
should exercise the power Of removal
from office, and who should fill vacan-
cies in office. The legislature 80 COL
strued it, and acted accordingly by pass
ing appropriate laws providing the tri-
bunsl to remove and who should fill
vacancies in office. In section 10 Of
article 6 of the same constitution 1t 10
provided that the Attorney General
may be removed from Office in the
same manner as the judges" 1t will
be seen by reference 10 the 18th sec
ton OF the same article, that it provides
as follows: Judges may be removed
from Office for misconduct, incompe-
teuce or neglect OF duty, or in conviction
OF an Infamous offence by the concur
rent vote OF a majority OF all the MEM
bers elected to each branch Of the leg
islature, and the cause of removal shali
be entered on the journals. The judge
against whom the legislative may be
about to proceed shall receive notice
thereof accompanied by copy OF the
cause alledged for his removal, at least
twenty days before the day on which
either branch of the legislature shall
act thereon" Here the manner in which
the Attorney General was to be remov>
ed from Office clearly includes
not only the proceedings be-
fore the tribunal having
the power OF removal, but the tribunal
itself to-wit: THE legislature. "
II this is not true the legislature could
have conferred the power to remove the
Attorney General upon some other tri-
bunal. In section 6 and Z Of article 4
OF the present constitution touching re-
movals from office and filling vacancies
therein, the word manner" is used 10
the same sense as in the former cOnsti-
tuition, In article thereof, section 6
and I. and seceton ] of the 4th article
of the present constitution provides that
"the Legislature shall prescribe the
manner" OF conducting and making
returns of elections, &c. Article =, sec.
s, touching Judges OF the Supreme
Court of Appeals, provides that They
shall be elected by the voters OF the
State, and shall hold their Office for the
term OF twelve years, unless sooner re-
moved in the manner prescribed BY
this constitution" Section Is of the
same article prescribes the "mauner."
thus Judges may be removed from
office by a concurrent vote OF both
Houses of the Legislature" &c. Here
again the word manner" as employed
in the constitution clearly mean not
only the proceedings before tine tribu-
nal, but also, tbe tribunal having pow
er OF removal. See also article 6, sec.
81. Article s, sections 10, and 10 OF
the present constitution when referring
to a limitation therein generally
uses the words therein" thereby" or
this Costitution.' See article 4, section
6, 7. 8; article 6, Section 5, IL, SO, 40;
article 7, section 10, 10; article s, sec.
ton 10, 23. 81; article 9, section 5;
article IL, section 3. 9; article II; eec.
ton 4, 9; article Is, section 4; schedule
section 4, II, II, 90. From this appar-
eHtrule OF the Constitution in regard to
limitations created on its face,st would
naturally be supposed that il fine
trainers Of the Constitution intended
to cut off from the legislature the
power and authority to confer by law
the power to appoint to office upon
officers already elected by the people
in accordance with the Constitution
and laws, or appointed in pursuance OF
law; they would have done it by the
employment OF clear and express words,
and left no room for doubt. II in the
said Sth section OF the It'll article the
frsmers Of the Constitution had insert
ed Immediately after the "ior" the
words "in this Constitution" then there
would have been more plsusibility for
the construction commended for by the
defendant. But they did not insert these
words, and not having inserted them
we do not feel authorized in the dis.
charge Of our duty under the authorities
to insert them by construction and read
the sections as though they were there.
IN contained. live felt authorized to
interpolate the words Gin this constitu-
ton" after the word "for" with equal
propriety we skeuld follow the words
''in this constitution" with the further