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

point, would. be soutee Of serious con-
Alteration for the people, and as We
think would clearly defeat the purposes
and objects Of the trainers of the Con-
stitution. Itwas suggested, however, in
argumen by at least two Of the counsel
| for the defendant, that the officers con
tenn plated by said 9Th section were only
tie officers Of the State and State in-
situations. The section contains no
such limitation on its lace. Whether
| it should be construed in that way to
avoid what otherwise might justly be
regarded as a public calamity, Is
another question. That question, how-
ever, ia not before us in this case for
determination. On mature deibera-
ton and reflection, we think after read
ing and considering the 9Th section OF
article 7, the Slh section OF article a,
the 10th section OF article 6, and other
articles and sections OF the Constitution,
and making just and proper epPlica-
ton of tie we'll settled rules governing
in the construction OF State Constitu-
lions end statutes, that prescri6-
ing the "manner" in which public
officers shall be elected, appointed and
removed as expressed in the Sth section
OF article 4 when read and considered in
connection with article 7. Sec 8 and /,
and article 6, Section 40 and other sec
tons OF the Couititution before cited,
includes the agent or person who may
appoint as well az the tormality With
which it should be done.
Among others the case o. Clark vs.
Stanley, 66 North Carolina r. 50. has
been brought to our notice. We have
examined and considered the case. But
one section of the Constitution OF
North Carolina is quoted 10 the case,
and while it is similar in important re-
spects TO the Sth section of article ! OF
our Constitution, it il not altogether
similar. The questions do not seem
to have arisen in that case that arise
here. Whatev"r tbefe were or are
other sections the North Carolina
Constitution which do or do not modify
, or qualify the one quoted and similar
10 those in our Constitution which have
been cited end discussed here, we are
unable to cay, % we have not been furn'
ishei with o copy Of that Constitution.
In the absence OF copy of the North
Carolina Constitution ard OF knowl-
edge on our part OF what contempora-
ueous practical construction may have
been given to the language employed
in the section quoted in the report Of
the case or to similar provisions by the
legislative and executive departments Of
the government OF North Carolina, we
feel that we are not authorized to
give the case much weight in arriving at
our conclusions in THE csse.
The csqe OF the State Of Ohio, On re.
lation, &c. V. William Kennon and
others, contained in 18th Ohio State Re.
ports commencing on page 5i6 has
also been brought before us in argu'
ment by the counsel on both sides. II
appears in that case that there is q pro
vision in the Constitution Of the State
OF Ohio providing that mo appointing
power shall be exercised,by the Genera
Assembly" The legislature o! Ohio
Notwithstanding this provision, confer
red by an act or acts upon three private
citizens, who held no Office, the power
and authority to appoint certain officer;
OF the state house and the peuitentiary
and the court in tine case cited decided
that the act WAC unconstitutional, ant
therefore null aud void. Bat the cour
held in its opinion that the question or
authority o. the legislature to confer
the power OF appointment TO an exist
ing office or officers did not arise in tina
case, ard was therefore not decided
But ore of the judges of the court die
discuss the question in his opinion de-
livered in the case, and that was Judg;
Swan; and he held and announced
these views as Judge, to wit: But il
is said that, inasmuch as the Genera
Assembly have power to direct BY law
the manner in which elections, AID ap.
pointmen,s to Office shall be made
and may, in the exercise
of this power, annex il
by law TO some eqisting Office, such a:
the Governor virtute ofcii there il
practically no difference between thu
General Assembly vesting the power
in indissiderals designated by came, az
in the laws before as On annexirg TIT
power to an existing office. This lint
OF argument will not in this case bea
the slightest examination, for il it were
! if it were true it would have nj
application to the case before us
But it hes not, perhaps, the usua
merit OF ialae position-plsusibility
Let US examine it. III be conceded
that the General Assembly could, or i
it be conceded that it could not, anne,
to an existing Office. such as the Office
Of Governor, with the consent Of tn,
Senate, the power of appointing dircc
tors of the penitentiary and STATE
House Commissioners, it would not il
any manner touch the question before
us; for the laws we are now considering
instead of anuexing to any existing
office the power of appointment etc
have in the first place, provided for 6
Board OF Appointment, clothed with
public functions, and without providing
for the manner in which the Offices O.
this Board should be filed. have di.
rectly elected and appointed the mem.
bers Of the board, thereby exercising
in respect to the Board, the appointing
power. Whether therefore, there be any
difference between the general assem-
bly, creating an Office and appointing
the incumbent thereof, or annexiug the
power OF appointment to an Office al
ready existing and filled, has no appli-
cation whatever to the case before us.
But ii may be proper to inquire wheth-
er there is not q difference in this re-
spect; that is whether the general as
sembly in fact exercised the appointing
power by annex;ng to an vfiice already
existing and filled, the power OF making