Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-05-15
The Mammoth Cothiers, Main & Twelfth St.

OF the courts nSQ DSen rhtheE W upuo'N
the law. Mr.. Melvin cited from the books
a large number of cases bearing on the
case under discussion, and said they illus
trsted the extreme liberality OF the Courts
in this particular. Our own Courts had
passed upon the subject more than once
Counsel on the other side had referred TO
the case of Cutlip vs.. johnson. He
thought that decision had been made with
out much consideration. Even IN the case
Of Shields vs. Bennett the analogy was not
clear. In every case in which an act had
been held unconstitutional by q Court the
title was pslpably misleading. He said If
the objection was to prevail the Court
would be called upon to put an llliberel
hypercriticsl construction upon the law.
he referred to the point made By the
other eide. that in revokiug and snnulling
law Court srrogated to itselt legisa
tive functions, and said it was indls'
pensible that. in proper cases,
there should be some check upon hasy
and immature legislation. In the course
of his discussion the speaker took occs.
sion, loosely, to refer to the fact, that, OF
late years, most Of our Legislative acts
were entitled IAN act to amend an act,
wherest there was smile He claimed
that outside Of and beyond the law OF 1873,
the Court had ample authority to amend
an ordinance, and in at least one case,
where the cause had been carried up, His
Honor had been sustained. He fully con-
coded that the ordinances Of the Council
were laws, having, within O circumscrloed
territory, the same force and effect as acts
of the Legislature; hut what was there IN
municipal Council, existing solely by
Legislative authority, giving it power to
make law, unless 1t have that power first
delegated to it BY the body which called it
into being.
Judge Melvin continued TO speak until
after four o'clock, making very learned
and able argument, and being followed
throughout with the closest attention by
the large audience present.
Me-. Barr followed He said that when
it was held that Court could not interfere
with legislative enactment, it was prac-
ticnlly 10 hold that Legislature could set
up little kingdom, making laws for it
which were superior to all else IN the uni
verse. He reviewed the points made by
the counsel for the city, and combatted
them in a most able and convincing man
uer. 1t had been said by the other side
! that an ordinance was part Of the laws OF
+ the State. He had promptly assented to
I that proposition. 1t followed that they
; could not be interfered with by Court
except when they were illegal and worked
/ an injury to citizen. He held that II 1t
be admitted that Court had no power to
declare an ordinance invalid, the only
question left was, how can citizen, suffer
ing wrongs, obtain redress, snd insisted
that q Legislature had the power to pre-
scribe generally how that redress should be
obtained. The claim that citizen or COL
lection of citizens must wait until they had
suffered hardships before applying for a
test OF the validity of law, he held to be
4ot well founded He held that every In
valid law must injuriously affect every citi-
z,n liable 10 its provisions; it must work
wrong because it is wrong in itself.
His Honor inquired what effect deci
sion might have. There were no parties
before the Court and the decision of the
Court might have no vitality or force.
Would an officer in attempting to enforce
the ordinance after an adverse decision be
in peril? An action for contempt would
hardly lie. -,
To this Mr.. Barr geplied that he could
scarcely conceive of such contingency
arising, but should it come up, he had no
doubt the Court would find an adequate
remedy to enforce its decisions.
Mr.. Barr continued his remarks until
shortly after FIVE clock, when an adjourn
meut was taken until this afternoon at
! o'clock, at which time Mr.. Russell will
close for the city.