The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-09-18


which was not intended by said section
We materially considered the said pro
( vision of said Goth section us to its tru,
meaning more than year ago in tht
case of Preston i Shields rs. Benne
Auditor not yet reported, and they arriy
ed at the same conclusion in reference
I thereto Us now and Us also declared, bu
as it did not become necessary toIthe de
( clsiOn Of the questions arising in that
case to state our conclusion therein 1t wa
then incorporated into the opinion il
that case.
We think the principles in Cerly OF
Constitution Lin, Side page l7s, rs
and 2nd Gray Mass. page 80 and 90, or
agreement by Plaintiff counsel and dc
/ not apply TO this question whether the
/ Legislature usually exercised its jsdge
ment MS 10 the truth or effect in which
| or in part Of tn" facts recited in the pre-
amble and act alleged or supposed t.
have induced the enactment of the law
in question. Notwithstanding the in,
| dustry aud zeal of the learned counsel
of the Plaintiff, supplemented by our
/ own research, they furnished no authority
and we have found none, authorizing
Us tU look into the preamble or recital
OF and act for alleged or supposed fraud,
| mistakes or errors of judgment in the
legislature upon which to declare the
enactment of the legislature void or
that could jnstigy US in declaring it void
for such cause. The absence of authOri-
~ on the subject at this late and fruitful
day in the history Of our jurisprudence,
apart from the manifest policy of the
! subject is strongly pursuasive that no
such principle prevailed in the law
OF this country And we are of opinion
that 1t would be dangerous in the eX.
tremc for Us 10 declare such principle
to be law. But if we as court could
properly look INTO the facts which may
have influenced the legislature to pass
the act in question and find nothing
rccitsd in the preamble or any part of
the the act or otherwise eStab-
lished BY the record which
would warrant US in holding that
the Legislature was mistaken AS to any
such facts, or that if they had possessed
any more accurate or extensive knOwl-
edge upon this subject than they did,
such knowledge would have prevented
them from cnacting the law, or induce
them to modify its provisions. 1t Is also
argued BY council of the plaintiffs that
the act in question is unconstitutional
and VOID bccaEsc it shows upon its face
that the Legislature was inluned 10 pass
it by reason of pecuniary Considerations
In evidence of this question We refer to
the rrcituls and contents OF the preamble
of the act, which we have already set
forth, and consider how far we may en-
quire into the questions which the argu-
nents present Both the Constitution
and statute substantially prohibit menu
bers OF the Legislature from taking a
bribe or for receiving for themselves any
benefits to influence their action n such
members. Bat is one OF the important
objects OF legislation to receive benefits
10 the State, and diminish as far rs pos
siblc the burdens of taxation. Courts
will not presume fraudulent intent and
corrupt purposes IN the Legislature, but
will presume the contrary. THE mo-
livcs oi - member Of the Legislature in
moving, or OF ii body OF which he is a
member in passing legislative act, Is
not proper subject of arguing, CIlar-
pending rs. Ilnight, 80 Cal. K. $50, 2U2,
and 80 California 2G6l. In the case OF
Lee and others rs. tie R2cle and TORI
ington Junction Railroad Company
Is vol. Court of Common Please,
law reports Of 1870, lo7D
Judge Wells says: at WAS once
said, ] think in Hobart, that j: an act of
Parliament were TO create a man Judge
in his own case, thecourt might disregard
it; that doctrine, however, stands as q
warning rather than authority to be fol-
lowed. We sit here II, servant, Of the
Queen and the Legislature. Are we to
act a5 regents over what Is clear by
Parliament, with consent OF the Queen
Lords and Commons deny that such
authority exists. fan act OF Parliament
ha, been obtained improperly, it is for
the Legislature to correct It by repeating
il. but 20 long as it exists n law, the
courts arc bound to obey it. The pro-
cccLings here are judicial, not autocra-
tir, which they would be if We could
MAKE laws instead Of administering
them
"From what examination has been Civ
es to the subject, 1t appears that whether
a statute is constitutional or not Is al.
ways question of power that Is wheth
er the legislature in the particular case,
in respect to the subject matter Of the
act. the manner in which its object Is to
bc accomplished, and the mode Ol enac..
Jag it, Is kept within the constitutional
limits and observed the constitutional
conditions, if 50 the courts are not at lib.
bcrty to enquire into the proper cXcrcls"
of the power in any case. They must
assume aha: legislative discretion b
been properly exercised. Cooley Com.
D lS6 and ls7, and authorities there ci-
ted in note /. And although 1t hs-
sometimes been argued at the bar, that
our courts ought TO enquire into the mo
tvcs of the legislature when fraud and
corruption fare alleged, ana annul their
action if the allegation were established
the argument has in no case
bttU G't'I'l ~ NV JUN '.'' =
and they have never allowed the inquiry
to be entered upon Same author, page
lS7. Mayor X Co., Baltimore V. State,
cxrel &c, 18TH, Maryland railroad 31G,
the Saubcrry and Erie Railway Compa-
ny vs Cooper, 35d; Pennsylvania rail
road. 27s IN this iu-t cas-" the judge
also declared that the opinion of the
Court on page 2oi says: Here again,
ana under another aspect, the sincerity
and honesty Of the Legi,laturc,in in the per
turmaurc OF their duties, Is attempt
cd to be made question Of judicial cog
niZance; aud again We say, tina. We have
10 jurisdiction of such a question, and
can have 40 right to express an official
opinion in re.utlou tp 1t. Official nor
alty in u, require, that we shall not as-
same authority to Judge Of the official
morality Of the Legislature. For the
tru,u.uinc., and honesty of their pubic
acts, We repeat, they are responsible to
tine public alone. and hot by meals o.!
trial before the courts. In the same
case N page 2s6 the same Judge, m
-,,..,l,5 5,,., - tho s.,r-. -oy-. .. o.. that