The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-04-24
THE CAPITAL REMOVAL.
Message Of the Governor Re-
garding the Constitution
atty Of the Act.
He Will Not Respect the
Injunction.
CHARLESTON, March %, 1875.

CHARLESTON, March %, 1870.
GExTLEMEN:-I have received your
communication, in which yos, as citizen,
OF the State, protest against any action
on your my part, to remove the Seat o.
Government temporarily to Wheeling, Us
contemplated by the recent act of the
Legislature, because we you believe the
law is unconstitutional and void The
very high respect | entertain for your
opinions on legal questions generally,
and nv feelings Of friendship towards
YOU personally, both demand at my hand,
something more than the mere acknowl.
ment of the receipt Of your COMMUNE
cation.
Before proceeding to notice the points
made by YOU, touching the alleged uncon-
stitutionality ofthe act Of the Legislature
| must correct very grave mlsappre-
henSon on your part rs to the character
Of the act itself. and OF my powers and
duties in the premises. You say that "the
execution of this act Is coniided 10 you
.meN. and your protest seems to rest
upon the assumption that this act cannot
take effect until put it in form, or in
other words, that It's force and
effect are made contingent upon some
official act Of mine. The mere
quotation of the lirst clause OF the
act will show that this is not the case
1t is as follows: That on and after the
expiration OF ninety days from and after
the passage Of this Act, until hereafter
otherwise provided by law, the seat Of
government ofthe State Of West Virgin
ia shall be At the city of Wheeling.
Therefore, by mere operation OF law,
without the performance of any act on
NV part, the seat OF government Will be
in W heeling on and after tho expiration
Of ninety days from its passage. 1t Is
true that the act makes it my duty to re-
move the books and other property, now
i'm tho State House nj Charleston, 10 the
city Of Wheeling, and also to provide
suitable accommodations there Tor the
Legislative, executive and judicial de-
partmeuts of the government, but re-
iuss on my part to discharge these duties
imposed on me by the legislature would
not defeat nor render nugatOry that part
of the law locating the seat Of govern
ncnt in the city of Wheeling On and
after ninety days from the passage OF the
act. the seat of government will be IN the
city of Wheeling, whether or not any &C
Communications shall have been provided
for the different departments of gov.
eminent. or whether or not the public
propcrty shall have been removed there
The removal Of the public property, and
the preparations of accommodations io'
the officers of the government, are mer,
incidents to, or sequences OF, the main Tact
declared by the legislature The place
where the seat OF government may be l.
determined neither by the place where The
public records and other public property
NAV be. nor by the question where the
public buildings may be, but by the cx
press declaration of the Legislature
Therefore, refusal on my part to exc
cute the duties imposed upon me by the
/ Legislature would not retain the seat OF
| government in Charleston. If | should
/ take the responsibility of refusing 10 obey
the net OF the Legislature, so far as il
( imposes duties upon me, as Your protest
| implies, it would not produce the result,
desired by you; tho main, the primary
clause of the act would remain intact
. | have So far shown that whether or no
| the act is Constitutional my action OF
non-action in the premises cannot, from
/ the nature of the case, decide the point
But is it true, that it IS UnconStitu
/ tIonal? Aud if it 10, who l. authorized
| So to decide? You say that 1t Is uncOn
stitutional, first, because "the object o
the act is not expressed in ITS title; ol
the contrary, the title and the body o
the law are in direct and irrcconcllab
conflict. The title Of the act Is, TO re
movcthc seat ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The body Of the bill, ifitmeans anythn:
provides for Il permanent location a
Wheeling. 1t is settled principle o
statutory construction, that if no perio,
or limit be imposed for the continuance
of a law, it is necessarily permanent ant
enduring so far rs the Legislature cal
give permancncy to its acts.
l. Admitting for the moment thatyou
construction of the title and body OF tn,
net is correct. does il follow that th'
whole act is void? The Constitution q"
1853 declared that "no law shall cmbrac,
more than one object, which shall be cN
pressed in its title" and your argument
seems to rest upon the assumption thai
This is still the supreme law. But Suct
isnot thecasc The language otthe present
Constitution is very different. It's this
M net hereafter passed shall embrace
more than one object, and that shall be
expressed in the bill. But II any object
shall he embraced in an act which Is moi
.ncyn-rsscI. ti.arf shall be rod oaigGS {.
$. m"-it Ler,ofas shdRHotbt 50 GIlr',.ss,@:
Now. if in fact there is an "lrret'HciI"o'
conflict" between the title and the act IL
self: if the title merely expresses th'
object as temporary removal, WINE 'n'
body provides for permanent iocn'io"
applying the foregoing constitutions"
provision AS a test, what follows sun
ply that 50 much of the act ~ provides
Tor permanent removal would be VOID
and that the removal To Wheeling Wou!o
be merely temporarily. a. expressed II
the title. Suppose the act had declared
IN terms that the seat of government
should be 'permanentIy' established in
Wheeling, while the title spoke only
OF Il temporary location. the result
would have been the same, the loca,
tion would be temporary, and So much
Of it MS contemplated Il permanent
location, would be void, and that is
all. In all candor | do not see how
il is possible u escane this cnnclusinn.