Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-04-03
JUDGE FERGUSON On THE AMEND
MENT MIDDLE

tive on any and ali questions on which
he takes q position, and he makes no
exception in dealing with the questions
involved in this controversy. His zeal
at times rises to the point of enthusiasm,
so that there is no difficulty in recog-
nizing that whether he is right in his
positions or not, the Judge believes
he is right.
There are no new authorities or
arguments brought forward that have
not been advanced by Others in sup
port Of the same position heretofore.
But the Judge enforces them with a
good deal Of clearness, method and
FEASIBILITY. His argument, as the law
yers would say, is addressed more to the
Jury than to the Bench. There are in
stances, we think, in which the language
used is stronger than the argument.
The Judge avows great respect for the
opinions of those who hold q different
view of the question, but proceeds in
the next breath to declare that their
view is downright absurdity;"
which we submit is not the most re.
speclful language considering the sbili-
" and standing of the men who differ
with him. We have in mind six law
yers of nearly if not quite the age, ex-
perience and reputation in the State Of
Judge FERGUSON who have expressed
opinions on the opposite side and are
quite as positive in their convictions
that Judge FERGUsON's position Is
wrong as he is that it is right, and We
do not think they are men whose opin-
ions on such questions are fairly open
TO the criticism of being downright
absurdities."
But this Is neither here nor there.
The REGISTER is not interested in
making it appear that the Judge is
wrong and others of the opposite view
are right or that he is right and they
are wrong. The REGISTER has not
taken sides" so to speak, on this ques-
ton. What We have done, and what
we stillinsist upon, and what Judge FER
GUsON's paper serves TO enforce, as far
as the REG IsTER is concerned, is simp-
~ this: that the InaLner in which this
amendment has been submitted raises
a complex question, about which law
yers may differ, about which the most
able lawyers of the State do differ,
about which they have publicly ex-
pressed a positive difference, about
which, in fact, the legal talent of the
State seems to be equally divided as to
whether we must have two elections or
one, and about which one of the two
that may be heldIn 1884 will be the legal
one; and having shown that such
professional difference of. opinion does
exist, the question remains whether
we can safely say that if q contest shall
arise the courts would sustain the one
view or the other.
That Is the muddle as it now exists,
and which it is now impossible for any
man, however positive he may be in
his convictions, to clear up and make
conclusive to all minds. The fact Is,
that the lawyers who differ rely chiefly
on the same authorities for their case.
The case in eth West Virginia has been
quoted from to show the necessity of
two elections with so much assurance
by the advocates of that view, that it
seemed to be almost or quite conclusive
of the controversy. And again, those
of the opposite view refer to that case
in support of their position. If the lam
gusge Of the courts is capable of a
straightforward, 'cOmmOn-sense" con-
Struction, then that case is conclusive
it does make two elections neces-
sary in 1854 if the amendment is rati-
fled; but if that case and that opinion
reported in eth West Virginia does not
mean what it says, then it is not con-
elusive. As the lawyers differ about it,
no doubt the courts would. Hence the
muddle.
1t is probable that some of the law
yers who are opposed to Judge FERGU-
SONS position Will desire to reply to it,
and we gladly leave the argument to
them. Though we are tempted to
show that it is possible that he might
have occasion to review his position
upon reflection.
There is but one point, however, we
will notice briefly in the Judges posi-
ton. The main point in the Judges argyll
ment is built upon the false assumption
that the amendment, If adopted, must
be retrospective, and he claims that
this much is conceded. We do not under
stand that anybody has conceded this.
1t has only been claimed that
inasnuch as the election of officers and
the ratification of the smendment-iii it
is ratified-will be, not Retrospective"
but eotemporaneOus, asthe voting is all
done on the same day, and the amend
ment is made to take effect from that
day, and will become prospective from
that day, covering the date in the same
3tCdr when an election is to be held un-
der it as well as the same date in any
subsequent year, and coming into oper-
alton and effect before the result of the
vote for the officers chosen on the same
day has been aseertained, and before
any Of their terms commence. In fact
the result of the vote on the amendment
must be declared within p days after
the election, while the terms Of the
State officers do not begin until the 18th
of March in the following year. And,
moreover if there is not an election in
the November of 1884, the terms of the
State officers would expire one month
before the next general election could
be lawfully held, so that while the
Iudua atfen1nfS IN CLEAR I'M the nndd1a