Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-05-12
GOV. WILSON'S ORDER.
Fiat Lex" Answers MIR. Pennybacker
Thereon.
To ne Editor Of ne Register:

Fiat Lex" Answers MIR. Pennybaoker
Thereon.
To ne Editor Of ne Register:
The question discussed by Mr.. Penny
oscker in his communication in your pa.
DER of the Ito inst, is highly important
and practical one. Its discussion, howey
sr, with any view toward settling it iS
wholly superhuous, because 1t is already
settled, conclusiyely and irreyersibiy, by
toe decision OF the Supreme Court-the
only authority that can settle 1t. The
question, whether Auditor Duffy snd the
Assessors ought TO obey Gov. Wilson's late
remarkable order, is one that is not fairly
susceptible of debate, and reference TO 1t IN
the newspapers is accordingly, profitable
only by way of sffording timely intorma-
hon and warming to those interested. The
question, as have said, is settled; that
Gov Wilson has no right or jurisdiction
to make the order, and that the Auditor
and Assessors are not bound to obey it.
In State vs Buchanan, "a W. Va. Re-
ports, page $50, the Supreme Court says:
"0f course the Governor had no right to
legislate. He clearly had no jurisdiction
or power to pass a tax law. If he did at
tempt TO enact such law, no subordinate
officer would be required to execute it, nor
you'd he at all be bound by it" Now,
Gov. Wilson's order is the very case sup
posed By the Court. He has attempted to
egislate-to pass tax law, and what is
a grave aggravsiion of his MISCONDUCT q
law which be could not help knowing was
unconstitutional aud void. The decision
in Railway Company ys. Miller. Is W. Va,
40S, vas so clearly decision that the ex'
emptions in the assessment law Of 1881,
which Gov Wilson order attempts 10 en-.
force as law, were unconstitutional and
void; that it is Worse than folly to assert
otherwise. The Court itself, in the Blu.
chsnsu case 70. 37S) recognized it as u
decision Of what the law is. "lt there
had been no decision of what the law is,
Gays the Court when last referred TO, by
an authority having the right to decide the
question, it would clearly have been the
duty of the assessors 10 have obeyed the
requirements oil section 43 But that de-
c,sion wholly changes the nature Of the as
SCISSORS duties, as it also wholly changes
the Governors authority in the premises,
oy taking from him all right and jurisdic-
ton to decide, when the decision has been
already made by the appropriate and So.
preme tribunal of decision.
Had no such decision been made. Gov.
Wilson, although clearly wrong, would have
been excussble, and go would have been
bis su6ordinates for obeying his order. AS
it is, the order is simply usurpation, with
out right or Jurisdiction; two fold usurps-
ton, indeed, of both the legislative and ju-
dieisl functions, and was utterly void.
That q subordinate ministerial officer can
uot Justify sn act done or omitted to be
done under an order of q superior, void for
want OF jurisdiction, is undisputed and
known law. How does it stand
then with with the assessors under Gov.
Wilson's orier2 They are bound TO dis
obey it. They must act AZ their peril.
Should one OF them wilfally refrain from
placing on his assessment book the thou
sands of property produced the past year
by Mr.. Bigpurss and in his brewery vaults
or warehouse. he will De equally indicted
as if he had ViIfully refused TO place there
on the thousand dollar piano in Mr. Big
purses parlor. And, lit shall slso be the
duty OF the Circuit Court to specially charge
the grand juries to inquire into all the vic
la,ions of the revenue laws by the asses
sors" Acts 81, chapter II. section 80
II the assessor should happen to be q man
OF tough sensibilities. the Governors order
might prove enough to shield him from the
psDgs Of conscious perjury, bat it would
not shield him from q criminal prosscu-
ton. Far LEX