Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-08-05

Nor is il worth the while Tor us 10
discuss what would have been accom-
plished, il that bill had been passed,
toward the abolition OF the county
courts, whether they would have had
Jurisdiction to a greater or less extent.
We are fully aware that it was not the
purpose of the bill to abolish absolutely
the judicial functions of the
county courts; but what we claim
is that il assumed an authority,
based upon the Constitution, which
might have as easily deprived these
courts of all jurisdiction for the trial OF
causes, as of part. The Constitutional
provision under which the bill was
drawn prescribed no limit. Ii expressly
declares "bs jurisdiction Of The County
| Court shall b. subject 10 such Limitations as
nsay b. prescribed by lar" that the Legis-
lature should "rJOrul, modify, or alter the
County Court established By this Constitution
aud IN hcu thereof
create another court, or other tribunals, as
,reU for judicial as for police and fiscal PR.
poses, either separate or combined"
The clauses last quoted constitute a
part of the alternative plan of County
Courts, which were to be put in opera
ton on the application OF any county.
But the two sections taken together in
dictate the spirit of the Constitution on
the subject of County Courts. 1t was
yexed question in the Constitutional
Convention. 1t was very difficult to
frame a single plan that would be ac-
ceptable to the diversified conditions OF
the counties of the State. Hence great
latitude was allowed and intended to be
vested in the Legislature. The jurisdic-
ton of the courts was not only to be
limited by the Legislature, but the courts
were To be reformed, altered, and mOdi-
fed by the Legislature, and they could
even create another court, or other tri-
bunals as well for judicial as for police
and fiscal purposes.
This was the view, we think, that was
taken by the very able lawyers who
supported Senate Bill No. IS, and aview
that would have stood the test Of Judi
cial construction, if any friend OF the
| County Courts could have been found
to object to this mode of their taking
off. There was no attempt to make
mere luxury or ornament" of the Con-
/ stitution, but whatever authority was
assumed by the Legislature was claimed
to be delegated by the Constitution
/ itself.
BIT lucas" seems willing to argue
the case on the assumption that bill
could be passed by the Legislature
taking away ell jurisdiction from the
/ County Courts for the trial OF causes,
and proceeds To raise another question
andan important one. too-as to whether
the Court would then be abolished?
We answer, no. Neither will 1t be
abolished il the Constitutional amend
mcnts are ratified. Nevertheless it
would in either case perhaps, be so cal
tered, modified and reformed as to do
away with the Objectionable features.
The Constitutional amendment pro-
| viles for a County Court composed of
three commissioners. They have juris-
/ diction in all matters of probate, &c,
and general superintendent and adj
miniStratiOn Of internal police and fiscal
affairs of the counties.
/ Now let us see if we cannot reach
| this exact condition under legislativeac-
ton, admitting that the Legislature has
authority to curtail the judicial func-
tons to a mere nominal jurisdiction.
When deprived of this jurisdiction
these courts would be left with almost
the exact duties and responsibilities
that are imposed upon the County
Court provided for by the amendment.
They would differ only in being cOnsti-
tutcd Of one justice from each district,
instead Of three commissioners from
| the county.
Now, suppose after curtailment Of
their judicial powers, any county shall
apply to the Legislature to have its
police and fiscal court altered, modified
and reformed, as it has right to do UNI
der the 34th section OF the Sth article,
and the Legislature shall constitute a
court of three Commissioners with the
same powers and duties as given to the
County Court under the amendment,
have we not then obtained the identical
tribunal now sought for under the
amendments?
"But," saws "Lucus," "still the Presi-
dent and two Justices must come smil-
ing to the scratch four times in each
year, besides the other two times that
they are required to meet for the trans
action Of fiscal business" And so will
they have to 'come smiling to the
scratch four times in each year" under
the amendment il ratified Ii, when
the Legislature had reformed and modi
fled the County Court, and merged
the judicial tribunal in the is-
CAL or the fiscal in the
| judicial, combining them as they
have express authority to do under the
81 Sec. OF the Sth Art, what difference
would it make whether the commission
ers came smiling up under q legislative
act or under a constitutional amend
ment? What objection is there to their
smiling? Have they not right to
smile2 Or does Lucas" pretend that
it would be unconstitutional for them
to smile?
Now in reference to all the other OBJ
| jections raised by "Lucus," We submit
to his judgment as lawyer OF ability, a