The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1885-01-27
MUST THECAPITOLG0?
TALK ABOUT THE REMOVAL BILL.

rAIK ABOUT THE REMOVAL BILL.
4 it Constitutional and If It IL Not, what's
TO BIO Do6e About its-seyeral Objections
Alleged Against the Dill, Which Is
n, Declared Not TO be a Law
The communication printed In yesteE-
days IxTELldaKScRR, and signed "Du-
plex." attracted considerable attention.
The authors claim that the act requiring
the removal Of the State Capital to Char
lesion is unconstitutional and vpid is not
a new one, but the argnmentby which he
reached this conclusion was novel, and 1t
created some quiet merriment among the
LAWYERS. The only man heard OF who did
not regard it as Joke was Chief Clerk
scrogeins, OF the Secretary Of State office.
He read the head OF the article and enough
OF the body OF it to catch its drift. he
had u letter from q publisher OF maps who
inquired when the Capital was to be re-
moved to Charleston, and MI. Scroggins
replied that it was doubtful II 1t would be
removed. Then he read the article
through.
A well known lawyer asked: "Wasthat
the production OF 10 lawyer kept on draught
in the IETgLLI0EScER cellar?" 5i
"WhyG" ;.
"The argument is too deep for an ordi-
nary mind"
DOESN'T co FAR ENOUGH.
The trouble with ''Duplex's" argu-
ment was that It did not 60 far enough.
The Constitution does provide, as he said,
that the subject Of q bill must be set forth
In the title, and that no bill shall become
a law which does not set forth every sub.
iect in It. The Capital removal bill is
certainly open to the objection Of contain.
ing q provision (lor the appropriation OF
money ! not sci forth in the title. But the
Constitution expressly provides that any
bill which does contain such provisions
not set forth in the title, shall be invalid
only, as to such OF its provisions as are not
SO set forth,
This inyalidates the appropriation
clause, and it has always been considered
invalid, and biennial appropriations have
been made for the work on the new state
House building at Charleston. So that
"Duplex's' objections 10 the act do not
go fur enough.
IS THE Law CONSTITUTIONAL?
Objections have been urged against the
validity OF the law heretofore. A lawyer
Of prominence recently said To an INTRLLI-
GENcER reporter, speaking Of this law: :.
"That act is not worth the paper 1t is
written on. believe it could be shown
to be unconstitutional. 1t is one OF the
fundamental principles Of our State that
in the Legislature is vested the law making
power. That act was not passed by the
Legislature; that body enacted that the
qualified voters Of the State decide at 0
general election that after May !, 1885,
the seat Of government shall bcperma-
nently located at one OF several places
named, then it shall be so To-
Gated. But the Legislature cannot pro.
pose a law and submit it to the people to
adopt or reject II by general vote; law
can only derive authority from the Legls'
la,iye enactment. This law does not say,
.The Capital shall be located at Charles
tom; but it shall BIO located where the
people direct. That this is illegal and in
valid has been settled by Courts all oyei
the land. In the First Ohio State Reports
this principle is expressly laid down on
page 77-"fhe power OF the Legislature
10 pass laws cannot be delegated! And
| never saw decision in any State that
did, not hold to this principle"
"wuAr OF IT'S
"That would seem TO be asettler, then, u
the reporter remarked.
Eyes; but what will you do about iti
Windy Wilson viii be the next Governo,
entrusted with the execution OF that law
andd you suppose the ablest lawyer in
the land could inventa law sufficiently
unconstitutional for him to hesitate about
enforcing pro vision which would give
Charleston the Capital. 1 should like Il
see the laWl"
Several State officials, members OF the
Legislature and others were asked yester
day whatthey thought Of this phase Of the
matter. None Of them had studied il
sufficiently to venture an opinion, though
all admitted that there was something in
It" One prominent lawyer said, ut
strikes me that is valid objection to the
law"
II the lawyer quoted above is right, the
act which proposes to remove the Capital
OF the State to Charleston on May LIST il
not a law. The only question Is, will
anybody test it2
LAST NIGHTS ENTERTAINMENT
At 81, Josoph's Academy for the Benefit Of
@r. the Poor.
The music hall in st. Joseph's Academy
corner Eoif and Fourteenth streets, con
tanned large and fashionable audience
last evening, the occasion being an enter.
talnment gotten up by the Sisters and
ladies Of the Cathedral congregation fol
the benefit OF the poor. 4 charming pro.
gramme was presented. 1t opened with
d juvenile operetta entitled "Red Riding
Hoods Rescue" with tho following caste;
Red Riding Hood Little Eta Weitze
Matns atle Blood
Gnnunla. HOille eitEs
Mildred Kinchl0t
Conrad WaSsenar
mtClioruS Of Blue Bells.
Pull Chorus OF Merry Children
This was very much enjoyed and
heartily applauded by the audience. A
vocal THO, save Maria,p was sllngb Mrs,
Whitaker, Mrs. Feetg and aIr, Arkle in
n splendid mannere Sis. Whitaker also
sang ballad in her usual sweet and
charming style, and Mr.. Ankles pleasing
tenor voice was heard to good effect in a
solo, Miss Dillon gave two recitations
and at the conclusion Of the programme
Miss Mehoiin, principal Of Clay district
school, an elocutionist Of considerable
ability. who was in the audience, was