Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1884-07-05

ducts, manufactured articles, NC.
Did he have jurisdiction to decide
this question, and the right to resort
To the Ct ion he did to have the ex-
isTnpted property taxed
!, We maintain if he had jurisdic-
ton to determine this question, then
| it was the duty of the assessors to
| take his decision in the matter, as the
law, and to obey, without question.
the instructions of the auditor based
on that decision. No one will ques-
tion the principle that all inferior
officers OF courts, in all cases where
the court has jurisdiction, are bound
| to obey the order or mandate OF the
court, and if they refuse to obey, are
punished.
If the Legislature, within its jur-
isdiction, orders thing to he done
by the Sergeant of Arms Of either
house, the thing must without ques-
tion be performed, or the inferior
officer will be punished for disobedi-
ence.
By the Constitution, Sec, /, Art.
", it is provided: 1.-THE Legislative
Executive and Judicial departments
shall be separate and distinct" etc.
The departments of the govern
ment must be kept seperate and dis
tinct, and each in its legitimate
sphere must be protected, otherwise
| the government fails. Slack VS..
Jacob 8, w. Va, 66l. The LegisIa-
| tive department has certain powers,
the exercise of which can in no re-
spect be reviewed by either of the
Others. The same is true of the Elk
ecutive and Judicial Departments.
| In other matters the Supreme
Court Of Appeals Is made the final
arbiter. In matters of this kind
either of the other two departments
having jurisdiction over the subject,
may decide what the law is, and it
must be regarded as the law until it
| is finally decided to be uncOnstitu-
| tiOual by the Court of last resort, to
which the constitution equally bind
ing on each of the three departments
has committed the final decision;
and il that Court should be corrupt
or arbitrary in the exercise of its
powers thus committed to it, the
constitution has provided an effect
ual remedy by resort to the high
court of Impeachment. When the
Legislature passes an act, it must OF
necessity decide upon its consutu-
tionality.
THE GOVERNOR MUST DECIDE.
When the Chief Executive is call
ed upon to execute law, he must
necessarily decide whether it is con-
stitutional, that is, whether it is q
law, for Judge Cooley, Con. Linn. 8,
says: 1.-The term unconstitutfonaf
law is a misnomer and implies con-
tradiction; that enactment which is
opposed to the constitution being in
| fact no law at ALL"
The constitution section 5, article
Z, declares:
"The chief executive power shall
| be vested in the Governor who shall
| take care that the laws be faithfully
executed"
It is his duty to carefully observe
| the manner in which the different
officers of the government exercise
their proper functions, and execute
| the laws transmitted to their charge
or their failure to perform such du-
ties; and when they fail to act or act
| Improperly, If he has the power to
| remove them from Office to do so;
or if he has not to bring the subject
| to the cognizance Of that department
of government which has the power
| to remove or punish them. Shields
VS.. Bennett, s w. Va. SO.
Under this positive requirement of
the constitution, the Governor must
under the oath of Office he has taken,
be vigilant, and with all the power
| at his command, require the execu-
tion of the laws which the legisla-
ture has passed. Because in its wis
dom it passes such laws as the good
Of the State requires and none other,
and If the chief executive does not
see to their faithful execution, he
does not discharge his duty, and the
object of the Legislative department,
to the extent that the laws have not
been executed, has failed.
In order to determine his consti-
tutional duty in this respect, he
must OF necessity exercise his discre-
tion and best judgment. How else
could he perform this constitutional
duty, except by passing upon the
question as to whether the act of
the Legislature is constitutional and
valid, or unconstitutional and void ?
And when he decides 1t is constitu-
tional it is his duty to execute it.
Slack VS.. Jacob, SW. Va, 657.
BACKED YTHE COURT.
The Governor did not undertake
himself, as he might have done, to
decide that Section 43 Of Chapter IL,
acts of 1881, was unconstitutional,
but this Court having by its decision
in Railway Company VS.. Miller,
Auditor, 10 w. Va, construed Sec
tion of Article s, of the Constitu-
ton of 1868, he decided that the con-
struction put upon that section,
which was almost identical with
Section ] of Article 10, of the pres
emf Constitution was in affnat q