Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1880-01-02

uted to the County Court for trial. This
Is, undoubtedly, an instance OF the
transfer from one court to the other of
case OF which each has equal and CO.
ordinate jurisdiction. But the author
ny to make this transfer is not derived
from the powers cited above; il rests
upon distinct constitutional proyi-
sion, Article Will, section l3L
which need not quote, as il
Is quite familiar To your readers.
III the legislature cannot direct the
removal OF 4 mislemeanor case from the
Circuit To the County Court except by
the sanction OF a specific constitutional
provision, by what authority can it di-
rect the removal OF pending eases from
the County to the Circuit Courts? Ii
the powers conferred by the cOnstitu-
ton Art. 5, Sec. l2-27) are not broad
enough 10 allow the removal OF miSde-
meanOr cases, how can they be made
elastic enough to permit removal, by
force OF statute law only, of those cases
which, under the act of 1915, are,
every day, sent up from the County
COurtsp These are questions, | think,
OF some consideration. Ii is not my
purpose To- discuss them now, and
have alluded % them simply because
they have relation to the point made by
Inquirer as to the power Of the Legis-
lature, under the proposed Judiciary
amendment, to authorize the removal Of
cases pending before magistrates to the
Circuit Courts, where the amounts in
vOlyed exceed $50.
Let Us see how that question stands,
apart from all this. Section IL Of Art.
iii OF the Constitution secures the right
OF trial 10y jury in suits at common Law
where the value in controversy exceeds
SO; but il also ProvidcSN nat in TRIALS
Of civil eases before a Justice, no jury
Il necessity, both Oi COnsc-
quence and consistency, that when
by Sec. 81, Act viii, the civil jurisdiction
Oi q justice was extended % one hun
dred dollars, the right Oi jury trial should
bc secured % those entitled 10 demand
it. Hence this provision: "But where
the amount claimed shall exceed TWEEN
" dollars on the application of the ic-
iendInt, either in person or by counsel,
made al any time before trial II shall Toe
the duty of the Justice 10 transmit the
papers % the clerk ui the county court,
10 bc therrin tried II is scarcely neccs-
Sary to say that all existing laws touch
iny the removal OF cases from Justices,
and providing for their trial in the
county courts, derive their authority,
solely, from this provision Ofthc Constl-
ton.
Now, neither Of the proposed amend.
ments COntcmplateS these removals ;
their terms can not be construed to au-
thuTiZe the enactment Ui laws providing
for such removals.; on the contrary, IN
spirit and in fact, they exclude such con-
structiOn Oi their purpOrt. 1.-THE amend
mrnt OF Sec. l3. Art. Ill, be adopted,
trials by jury before magistrates, now
forbidden, will be authorized, and there
will exist no necessity 10 remove case
% the Circuit Court tu have II decided
by a Jury. Ii the Judiciary amendment
Article Wild he also ratified, one Ol
It's most marked and significant effects
will result from the omission OF that
clause ui the existing article 10y which
removals from Justice are specifically
autuUrlLCU. El.vvll - so l.~t,T o. ti'sst t'I
first named amendment shall be reject
I'll there can be- no jury trials before JUS
tlcrS, for the existing constitutional IN
hibitiun will remain unchanged. 1.-the
Judiciary Amendment only be accepted
by the people We shall have, a. We have
seen. an interchangeable fundamental law
by which no provision l. made Tor these
removals and no authority conferred
uuon the Legislature To provide Tor
them by statute.
think. then, may say 10 inquirer
that whether both amendments ar ONLY
the judiciary Amendment be ratified,
legislative provision Tor the removal ot
cases iron Justices to the Circuit Courts,
"to bc there tried and determined, viii
bc simply impossible. And IN 50 say
ing, | give no ney construction to these
amendments, for have reliable lnior-
nation that the histoay Of the legisls-
ton bv which they Were submitted to
the people, will show that - ..ss.,.I
ter and effect were lully con>IS s'a'e /"
interpreted when the Joint res I'" ~
proposing them were under discuss "
That their purpose was 10 abrogatc tins
right of removal was ds,autly
asserted i'm debate and admitted,
on all sides, tO be clearly
shown by the very language OF the
amendment IL was argued, too, that u
the amendment % Article Ill should be
ratified IuricS in justices courts would
meet the constitutional right of trial 10y
Jury; bat Il rejected, and its twin sister,
the amendment ol Article VIII, should
alone h.. adopted. the suitor could still
have hlS Jury. because he would appeal
tp the Circuit Court and have his case
tried then, ~ HprD. This latter position.
extraordinary ~ il seems, was sup
ported, understand, 10y Judicial de-
ri~iuus yIt,i from the reports OF several
oi the StltrCuurts ot last resort. have
hal uu opportunity of examining these
authorities. hut risk nothing by say
ing that II citizen OF West Virginia
must give bond and security, and per
iect his appeal before he can enjoy an
adml,te,i constitutional right, then our
Bill oi K shts. notwithstanding the ira
tltinus and associations which cling %
the principles it ProClaims and would
pervetuatC, is but a moCkery and de
luslnu. AMOS.
H..f.. gN $50