Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-03-08

m%unication, but are made here as q part
of the Wheeling case,
The u. S. Supreme Court. in Darous-
sePu VS.. the United States, held the
clause of the Federal constitution, 1.-THE
Supreme Court shall have appellate jur-
isdiction, both as to law and fact, with
such exceptions and under such regula-
tions as the Congress shall make" was
s~elf-operative, and that If h Judiciary
act had created that court without de-
filming or limiting its jurisdiction, 1T
would possess this jurisdiction under
the constitution by its mere force
See 6 Cranch, 307; 3 Story on constitu-
ton, section 1867. So we must not
conclude that every constitutional pro-
vision waits for legislation to call it into
life. In fact it is the predominant law,
vital over legislative action or inaction.
If it were not so, its paramount force
would be materially impaired. Now,
as to this matter, there is an election
law containing all the details and regu-
lations for elections. This amendment
leaves it untouched except that it strikes
out one day for the election and in
serts another. What need of an
other election act? A new act
would simply name the same
day named in the amendment.
Tie amendment will work along hand
in hand with the election act; that act
will as machinery adjust and fit itself to
the amendment, simply adopt its day
for the election. 1t will be said the
election in October, 1884, will be valid
under law in force when held, aud its
chosen officers will be entitled to their
offices. But their terms will not have
commenced before the election is held
under the amendment and new officers
elected. Their rights stand on the Con-
stitution and act as they now are, and
will perish with them. The foundation
falls from under them. All rights aud
proceedings Enclosed and unconsum-
mated at the repeal of n law and de-
pending on that law, fall with the re-
peal of the law, unless there be a Sc ving
clause. Curran V. Owons, Is w. Va,
POS. But even if in office, their tenure
ceases if the people by d new constitu-
ton or amendment order a new
election. Such is the power of the
people. They can recall the commits
siOns of their public agents by an
organic act. In natural physics, two
bodies cannot occupy the same space at
the same time. So, two incumbents
cannot sit in q sole office at the same
time, as tn ere is for but one; one
must give way. The last chosen shall
hold, the other give way, for the people
have recalled his commission.
Both elections cannot continue to
operate and have legal effect; n must
give way. That held under the latest
will of the people must stand, the other
give way, because the people by the
amendment have ordered another cleo
ton.
1t may be said the Legislature In
submitting the amendment did not in
tend it TO operate in 1884. but to let that
election stand good, and take its first
effect in 1856. 1t may be such was
the real intent. A proviso taking
the election Of 1884 out of
its operation would have cured this
trouble, and it is unfortunate that it
was not inserted. But there stands the
amendment in full operation when that
Tuesday in November, 1884, comes. 1t
fatty says that q general election shall
be held on the Tuesday after the first
Monday in November. 1t does not
say November, 1884. But why not in
November, 1854, rs well as 1886? L
grant that intention is the point to be
sought in constituting constitutions as
we'll as statutes. Cooley's Con-
stitutional Limitations, page 55,
saws: 1.-THE object Of construction
as applied to q written constitution is to
give effect to the intent OF the people.
In the case Of all written laws, it is the
intent of the lsw-giver that il to be en-
forced, But this intent Is to be found
in the instrument itself. 1t is to be pre-
sumed that language has been employ
ed with sufficient precision to convey
il, and unless examination demon
strates that the presumption does not
hold good in the particular case, nothing
will remain but to enforce 1t. Where q
law is plain and unambiguous, whether
it be expressed in general or limited
terms, the Legislature should be in
tended to mean what they hsve plainly
expressed, and no room is left for con-
struction. Possible or even probable
meanings, when one is plainly declared
in the instruments itself, the courts are
not at liberty to search for elsewhere"
And in our Supreme Court, in the case
of the railroad company VS.. Miller, Au-
ditor, 49, w. Va, Judge johnson quotes
and approves this principle of Cooley,
and SAYS: "When the text of q consti-
tutionsl provision is plain and uuam-
bicuous, courts, in giving construction
thereto, are not at liberty to search for
its meaning beyond the instrument
itself"
But enough ian be said on both sides
to show that the question is n of sutfi'
cient difficulty to justify intelligent
minds in holding different opinions,
and that be the true view what it may,
great complication, hurtful to the State,
may grow out of it. Desirable as is the
object intended to be accomplished by
the amendment, better far that it should
he defeated by the people in the interest
of patriotism, without difference Of
party, to avoid the serious compiled.
lions following it's adoption.
Better that the Legislature should re-
call or modify it, If it can do so. II
might be claimed that when once q
| Legislature proposes an amendment its
functions are ended, and nothing re-
mains but to publish and vote upon it
and that it is then solely in the hands
of the people. This question has oc'
CURED to me in reading sec. 2, article Il
Of the constitution; but / merely sug,
geSt it, without v~enturing an opinion.
HENRY RRANNnS-