The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-03-25

3 The Icasaeasment order OF the State nd.
ministratlou presents the plain question
whfthet tho executive branch Of the gov
eminent has the right, under tho cona!ilu.
ton, TO pluuder tho people. lit has not
the right under the constitution It does not
possess II a. all. Presented 10 markedly,
no! even tho Governor or tho Auditor OF
tho politicians who defend them will claim
that right. Bu. under cover Of a Supreme
Court decision, which does not touch the
matter a. all, that righ. Is asserted, and
every assessor In tho State Is ordered to
enforce It. EN
q. The lSrxLLloEScgn does mot wish, in
this discussion, to 10 undesatool as eayirg
that the Governor and tao Auditor have
taken this action 10 advance their own in.
teresls. Tho fact is TIM. they wero moved
by considerations Of party weliart-shey
! felt that tho party IN power mus! in scme
way make ends noe.--and WI at they did
!. was endorsed by tho Democratic caucur.
y The question hns been very ably discute.
cd by Democrats and Republicans, lawyera
7 and laymen, and come Of the B.ronget
/ arguments against the right 10 plumber
have been presented by Democrats. Judge
IT. Hoko, in the Preston County Journal,
! reyiews Tho case at great length and with
4 force that will convince any one who is
I open to conviction. = The law which the
+ State administration has undertaken Ia
+ nullify Is portion Of section 10, chapter
Z. 12, Acts Of 1881, which Governor Jackson
signed. Judge Hoke pertinently points
! out that the decision Of the Supreme Cont
upon which the Governor bases his action
was an act Of March l, 1866, excmptirg
from taxation property Of tho Chesapeake
4 Ohio Railroad Company, and ho adds,
this was the only point decided"
Tho deciaion Of the Court says: "We
therefore pronounce tho last clause Of sec.
ton 7 Of the Acts Of the Legislature passed
March l, 1865, which declares, &C., .
unconstitutional and void" Judge John
500, delivering the opinion, cautiously re-
marked that "all questions raised are not
decided" Clearly the Court did not touch
the law exemp,ing agricultural products.
It is further pointed out, to show that there
4 is no analogy between the two exemption
laws, that the railroad exemption clause
had been repealed by the Legislature Jan.
uary 81, 1870, while the Legislature, with
full knowledge Of the Supreme Court do.
A cisioD, refused 10 repeal the agricultural
. exemption act.
Judge Hoke shows why the question
could not have been decided by the Su.
/ preme Court, as the State administration
GLAZING, because the Constitution provides
how laws prohibited by the Constitution
shall DO declared null aud void by the Su.
preme Court-"upon proper Gaze present.
ed before them" No case having been pre-
sented, Of couree no "proper case" was pro-
scented, and thero could be no decision
upon the validity Of the law.
Judge Hoke quotes from the opinions Of
Supreme Court Of Yves. Virginia which en-.
force the well.known principle that the
presumption is in favor OF the validity OF
an act Of Legislature and he adds: at
would 30 an absurdity to say the Cover.
nor might presume an act unconstitu.
tional, when the courts cay they must pre-
sume, treat and consider it as constitu-
tional. But this is precisely the absudity
& into which the State administration has
fallen, and Assessors are ordered to en-
force that absurdity through the courts.
Judge Hoke argues very ably 10 show
the reasonableness and justice OF tho ex-
emption act---a point upon which farmers
are all agreed. From whatever point the
action Of the administration is approached,
and in whatever spirit. the action which
has arouaed the taxpayers Of the State is
seen 10 be cruel and indeiensible. sr:l5