Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-07-15
THE sTALwARTs OF PRESTON
COUNTY, RESOLVE:

known III lndt COuhty 90 VIZ
the single Judge plan of County
Court. The same opposition from the
same source broke ont airesh the other
dav in a Republican Convention heldin
KinswOod, in which resolutions were
offered approving the course OF the Sen
ators and Delegate McCRUM, who repre-
sented that county, while carefully
emitting to mention Mr.. HOLT.
The resolutions further specify that
the Holt bill was forced upon the coun-
ty "by partisan Legislature for Parti-
san purposes" and in the same issue OF
the Journal, in which these resolutions
appear, communication is published
by one whom we take to be the author
OF the resolutions offered in convention,
in which he alleges that
"The gentlemen who most earnestly
assisted Mr.. Holt in securing the pass
ace oi this bill through the House OF
Delegates, were Messrs. Jacob, Arnold,
Gum, Monroe and Pennybacker. f
these Messrs. Arnold, Gum, Monroe
and Pennybacker voted against the
Constitutional amendments on their
passage. whilst MeSsrs. Jacob and Holt
were conveniently absent, or did not
vote. Messrs. Gum and Pennybacker,
as did Others OF the Democratic LAWYERS
i'm the House, drew up and had passed
for their counties bills similar TO
the Holt bill, when it became apparent
that the constitutional amendments
would be passed. These facts certainly
do not indicate that the friends OF Mr..
Hollis bill were the friends OF the pro-
posed Unconstitutional amendments, which
whilst not devoid of faults, are probably
rs nearly identical with the old COnsti-
tuition OF the State, the pole-star OF the
people in tine endeayOr to rid them
selves Of the present incubus, as 1t VIII
be possible To obtain while the Bourbon
Democracy remain factor in State pol
tiles"
II strikes us as Just little bit incOn-
sistent for this correspondent TO try to
make it appear that the same Legisla-
ture which passed, and therefore, GER
tainly favored the Constitutional amend
ment, should also pass the Holt bill, if
its features were, Us the correspondent
asserts, hostile to that amendment.
It is even a greater puzzle to deter
mine how it is that the Constitutional
amendment should itself contain pro-
vision for the adoption OF the single
Judge plan OF a County Court by any
county, and preserving all such courts
heretofore established, if, as this cor
respondent would make it appear, the
Holt bill and the amendment are in
compatible.
We have nothing to do with the quar-
rel between the supporters and oppo-
nents OF the Hour Bill in Preston coun-
~. Ii does not concern the balance OF
the State whether it is adopted or re-
iected. But it is unjust to the Legisla-
turc to say that this bill was passed as a
partisan measure for partisan purposes,
Il mere matter OF spite and affection, as
il were, To the county OF Preston. 1t is
also giving ground to 4 wrong and en-
tirrlv uniounded impression, to say that
these special County Court bills which
are pending in several Of the counties
are the devices OF the opponents OF the
proposed Amendment, to defeat it, or
that they are gotten up 10y the supper
tiers of the proposed amendment to car
rvit. They are absolutely Independent
of the proposed Amendment. They are
neither hostile to it, nor promoters OF
its passage. They will exist il
the Amendment is ratified
and they will exist ii the amendment
is rejected. They are provided for
under the present constitution, and
they are provided for under the pro
posed constitution. What fairness
therefore, is there i'm Republican con
ventiOn attempting to manufacture
public sentiment on the shallow and
shabby pretense that all the supporters
Ot the special county court biiiS are
opposed To the amendment.
We took occasion to commend the
Holt bill last winter when pending in
the Legislature, Just as We did the other
bills Of the same purport that were
passed for other counties. We COM
mcnded it not more because it was n
feature of the present constitution than
of the proposed amendment, but be-
cause we have always regarded it as
one of the most important and essential
features of both.
We have always believed, and it has
already been demonstrated by expert
ence, that the people OF this State will
find il too expensive and will not be
satisfied to depend solely on the Cir
cult Courts. There are many counties
where the character of business is small
and could all be done in a County
Court, more economically and more
speedily than in the Circuit Court.
Therefore, we say, it is not only impor-
tant but essential that any Constitution
al Amendment should contain the pro-
vision which allows each county to
establish such a county tribunal as it de
sires, and none at all if il don't want it.
Those counties that are now about to
vote on such measures are not acting in
opposition to either the proposed
amendment or any other Constitutional
provision known to the State. They
can have the single Judge plan OF Coun-
ty Courts or not, as they shall elect,
either under the Amendment or the
present Constitution.
And the economy of having them will
be demonstrated if, instead of compar-
ing the cost Of maintaining the existing