The Dawson journal., 1883-02-08


siding over an unconstitutional
body, and that Goldsmith and
Renfroe were being tried by
Senate which had no legal author
ity to sit as a high court Of i'm
parchment. Isn't it little strange
that the eminent counsel who
were employed by these two de-
PENDANTS never thought Of sugges-
ting to their clients that the
House of Representatives that
preferred the articles of impeach-
mont had no constitutional right
to assemble at that time? If the
adjourned session next July will
be unconstitutional, then we must
.concede that Goldsmith was
wrongfully impeached, because
the Senate which deprived him
OF the ines5imable privilege Of
voting was all unconstitutional
body, and Goldsmith's rights of
citizenship should be restored to
him. Again, an adjourned session
OF the General Assembly was held
Ill the Summer of 1881. At this
session, many important public
measures were enacted. Among
these, a law was passed creating
new judicial circuit and a Judge
was elected for the new circuit.
Courts have been regularly held in
that circuit for the past two years by
the newly chosen Judge The rights
and liberties Of the citizens residing
in that circuit have been passed upon
by this Judge; criminals have been
sent to the penitentiary and one has
been hung, by virtue of the sentences
OF this judge. Now, if the Legisla-
ture which created the circuit and
elected tie judge was an unconstitu-
tional body. then serious and grave
complications might arise in that
circuit Several other public officers
were elected at the adjourned SEES
sion in 1881. To all of these the
Governor issued commissions, there
by signifying that the Executive de-
partnent of the State government
regarded the acts of the adjourned
session as legal. Every approval OF
al act or resolution by the Governor
was an omission that the Legisla-
ture which passed them was a legal
and constitutional general Assembly
Thus it follows that this department
OF the government recognized the
validity Of the acts IF the adjourned
sessions of 1879 and 1881. Nearly
ali OF the important legislation in oul
State for the past five years was had
at the adjourned sessions. Every
Judge and every court in the State
has recognized the laws passed al
these sessions as being valid. Many
OF these have been passed on by the
Supreme Court, and not for one
moment did any one think of CUES
tloning the validity Of these laws
upon the ground that they were en-.
acted by an unconstitutional Le.is.
atnre. At the summer session in
1881, law was passed regulating
the practice in the Supreme Court,
and, since the passage of this act,
this Court has had its rules to conform
to the terms Of the Act. It would
seem now to be a delicate bit of
satire to call on the Supreme Court
to declare that all laws which might
be passed by the Legislature in July
next viii be unconstitutional. This
article is already too long, and in
con, fusion [ would t.te this pro-
position: If the adjourned sessions
Of 1879 and 1881 were constitutional.
then will the session of 1883 be also
constitutional That the sessions of
1879 and 1881 were constitutional, is
demonstrated by the fact that they
are so regarded:
1st BY the whole people of the
state who respect and obey the laws
enacted at these sessions.
2nd BY the Legislative department
of the government;
Bird by the Executive department ;
4th By the Judicial department of
he State. It follows therefore
that the adjourned session to he held
this year will constitutionally begin
on the day fixed by the joint ressolu-
ton adopted before the recess in
December last. My space is exhaust
ed, but the argument is not. More
anon. LEX.