Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-04-27
EX-GOY. JACKSON
sends His Opinion OF Governor Wilson's
Order
n, "A. E{;t,- Of IA Psoislsr.

Order
10 ne Editor Of Bs Register:
PAREERsBURG, W. Va, April 23.-ln re,
spouse to your request for my opinion Of
Governor Wilson's order in the REGISTER
Of to-day, reply:
That am Of opinion the Governor as
Chief Executive of this State, required ~
the constitution to take care that the las
oe faithfully executed" committed grave
error in writing the order referred to.
The Supreme Court of the Sac IN the
case OF Slack vs. Jacob s W. Va, 657, and
which osss is cited and approved in the
case of the State Vi Buchanan
Jaw. Va, 3Sl, said of the Governor; in
order TO determine his constitutional duty
in this respect he must Of necessity exer
else his discretion and beat judgment.
bow else could he perform this constltu'
tionsI duty except by passing upon the
question as TO whether the act OF the Leg
islsture Was constitutional sud valid or IN
constitutional and void. When lie deter
mined in his mind aud conscience that the
law was eonst tutiOnsl it then deVolVed
upon him to execute 1t.
Acting upon my best judgment in the ex.
ercise OF, as believed al the time, sounu
discretion. and being CONVINCED that sec
non - of chapter 70 OF the code IN sx'
empting other property than that mention
ed IN the constitution from tSERlon was
unconstitutional, issued what Is well
known as my assessment order.
In this action believed was sustained
by the decision of our Supreme Court in
Tho case of the C i D. railroad vs.. Miller
Auditor, i9 W. Va, 1903.
The court in l6;s casa had judlclailS
construed section | Of article > OF the con-
.ti,urion of 1863. This section Is IDENTICAL
ai,h section | Of article ~ OF the present
constitution, with the exception that Gem
stries are included,in the list Of exempted
property. 1t follows, therefore, that the
G instruction placed by the court upon sec,
ON | of article OF the constitution oil
1864 must be taken and held as the prop
ar construction of section ] OF article ~ OF
the present constitution.
Asa proper construction to be placed
upon this section the court held The rule
aid down is that all property, both real
and personal. shall bs taxed" and the ex.
cep,ion, which proves the rule, ID that
the Legislature might exempt from taxa,
ton certain property therein enumerated
bit Certainly would not have the authority
to exempt any other property even tor
consideration. PA W. Va, 1876.
This Interpretation ofths section by the
Court was binding upon my conscience
and | submit was equally binding upon
Governor Wilson. IL is true that the
Court had held in Slack vs. Jacob thai
tina Governor in taking care that tue la"
ba faithfully executed" must Of necessity
d,termine in his mind and conscience that
tbs Iaw vas constitutional" but this op!n
ion of the Court is only applicable TO such
AVIS or provisions of the CONSTITUTION as
had NOT received Judicial Interpretation.
In spch cases the Governor must deterninf
tor himself the consJitutionSlltg OF the oct
Wbsre however, the Supreme Court hat
plseed q judicial construction upon the
Constitution, this construction mus b.
followed By the Executive, power oelag
vested BY the Constitution IN the Supreme
Cour, to pass upon the consiita'lonsh'y o.
a law. and when 80 passed upon the dtcl
,iop of that Court is binding upon all de-
nsrtmeuts of the State Government.
Tbe Court having held That the L'sisiA
rure would not have power to exempt any
other property than that mentioned IN ih'
Constitution, it must Of necessity ioiie"
rbat the exemptions mentioned IN secnoT
az of chapter 20 of the Code, not being Of
,boss mentioned in the Constitution, were
r.puguant thereto, and ths section De IN
60, NsntutionaL
Go,ernor Wilson, in his interview &c
,omnapgi2g his order says, 'Whe.her the
nT;neiuls declared in the c X .. Railway
casa NAV lead to the conclusion thai saiS
: o,;or a is unconstitutional and void
I am no, prepared TO say" Why not pre-
asroJ % saw? Does the Governor meal
- bs understood, 10 hold thst 1t Is Ill
S,,v ~ execute an act Of the Legislature
wbieh he is Of opinion Is rsPugnsnt TO 20
Constitution ! hardly believe ne Tou'
take this stand.
Judge Cooley in his Constitutional In:
;,s,;ons sayA That enactment which
opposed 10 the Constitution being IN Tao
no law" it follows that the Governor, =
though he says he is not prepared to 50
that Section - is unconstitutional an
void BY his order does in fact say that
ia Constitutional, otherwise he occupies II
POSITION OF executing q void Law. by D
order il seems to me, he oyerruies the d
cisiou of the Supreme Court, and IN q
; d,tion thereto holds contrary to the opinlG
ol some of the best legal minds IN Il
State. who endorse the construction
v;ysn to the Constitution By hat court.
The Court further holds in the case
,hs State vs. Buchsnsn-34 W. Va, s.
) II The Chief Executive Of the State DO
& NOT ace TO their faithful execution, he do
NOT dischAEgs his duty, and the object
: the Legislative department to the eIte'
l ,hs las have not been executed d
) s-I.jn y When he dett
n;nsd in his mind and conscience that q
p Iav was constitutional it then devolv
nnon him 70 execute it." The converse
ne nrooosition is eqaSlly true, III the u
he unconstitutional, it then deVo!Yed up
:. him not to execute it.
To this proposition the Governor 50;
d abut that an Executive should not only
/ terprst alllths various statutes tor the I