Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-07-23
The Reapportionment Law.

The statement in yesterdays Dispatch
that Judge PAUL, OF the United States Dis
trict Court OF the Western district OF Vir-
ginia, was to be asked TO decide whether
the new law reapportioning representation
in this State was passed in the Senate by
two-thirds vote or not seemed TO great
many people TO be q most singular one.
Judge PAUL has no jurisdiction, it will be
said. True; he has not; but no more has
the Supreme Court of Appeals Of Virginia.
However, we are not sure that the latter
court will NOT assume jurisdiction. Since
It's decision in the case Of the new election
law, we have lost confidence in it.
Hasn't the Supreme Court Of Appeals
the power and the right to pronounce an
act Of Assembly unconstitutional? I'm
doubtedly, if the question comes properly
before that tribunal. 1t has the right TO eX-
anime an act and declare the same to be
unconstitutional for reasons appearing upon
the face Of the act. But IL has no right to
invade the legislative department. III the
record Of the Senate or House Of Delegates
shows that bill was passed by a two-thirds
vote, no oral testimony-no testimony de-
hors the record-can be taken by any court
to disprove the fact. The record OF
court OF justice imports absolute
verify. So does the record Of Congress
or a State Legislature. The Supreme Court
Of the United States won't hear testimony
TO show that Virginia was unconstitution-
ally divided, nor that the thirteenth, four
teenth, and fifteenth amendments were not
ratified in the manner provided in the Fed
eral Constitution. The Secretary OF State
certified years ago that these amendments
were so ratified, and all the courts are
bound by the record. The Supreme Court
Of the United States refused TO go behind
the record in the celebrated DORR case from
Rhode Island, as they also refused to 90 in
the case Of the contest between Virginia
and West Virginia as to Berkeley and JEFF
ierson counties. They would not hear any
testimony going to show that Jefferson ard
Berkeley counties voted against being made
| a part OF West Virginia.
General WICKHAM, it is said, was in the
| Senate when the vote was taken on the APP
portionment bill, and asked to be excused
! from voting, and was excused. What Of
that? lie may have gone out of the Senate
chamber Immediately afterwards. lie may
have stepped into the lobby instantly. At
any rate he was not present, unless the re.
cord shows that he was. The clerk is re-
qured to enter the names OF all the men,
| bers who vote aye" and all who vote
"No." That is the record; and the record
shows that two thirds of the senators voted
for the apportionment bill.
We don't think the act of Congress on
the subject allows a congressman at large
TO be elected after the year 1882; but we
are not sure as to that.
Now, be it known to all, that we would
lust as lief have the next Virginia con-
gIessmen elected under the old apportion-
ment as under the new. For some rea-
sons, we would prefer TO elect them under
the former. Mr.. MASSEY would be able TO
20 back to the House OF Representatives
next December, and show clear title to
his seat from the people.
All the same, we protest against any
usurpation by the Supreme Court Of APP
peals OF the functions OF the General AS
sembly Of Virginia.