Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-05-15
ABLE ARGUMENTS
Made in the Circuit Court, Yes
terday,
For and Against the Proposition to AnnuI
the Ordinance Creating the
Police and Fire
Board.

Board,
There was quite large gathering OF
Councilmen, attorneys and other interested
citizens, including His Honor Mayor
Grub and other city officials, in the cham
Der Of Part One of the Circuit Court, Judge
Jacob, Yesterday morning, to listen 10 the
arguments OF counsel upon the motion to
dismiss the petition Of sundry citizens ask
ing that the ordinance passed by Council,
creating the Board OF Police and Fire
Commissioners, be superseded, revoked
and snnulled. The argument began at
quarter Of ten o'clock, and was continued
until hslfpast ten, when an Adjournment
was taken until two o'clock, to give coun-
eel for the petitioners su opportunity to ex-
anime the authorities cited by the other
side. As was predicted in yesterdays
REGISTER, counsel for the city took the
ground that the act of 1915, under which
the petition WAS brought, was unconstitu'
tional
MIG. B. Caldwell for the city, speaking on
the motion to dismiss, began by saying the
proceeding was taken under the Act OF
December %, 1875. He read the Act, aud
said the sesteuce under which the petition
was brought-a very awkward sentence
dramatically by the way-was unconstltu'
tIonal because of the insutiiclency OF the
title. The title did not express itself sutti'
GENTLY, as was required IN the Constitu.
ton. He quoted from several cases, IN
| which, he claimed, that this principle was
adhered to. The objects of the Conshtu'
tiousl provision that the object OF the Act
must be expressed in the utle were vari
Gus. Cooley said the object was, first, TO
prevent surprise TO the Legislature By the
passage OF an unexpected act; SECOND, 10
prevent log rollir g in the Legislature; aud
| thirdly, to give the people information as
10 what their Lawmakers were doing.
Certainly the title Of this Act would give q
very poor idea of what was in 1t contained
Indeed, the title of the Act in question
seemed intended, whether purposelyor not
he could not say, to conceal tho contents 81
the law. He called attention to the fact that
there could have been no difficulty in fran
| ing a proper title, and TO show this, he read
one which he claimed fully covered the con.
tents of the law. He said that if such a
| title had been appended to the Act by its
fra uers, it would, in all probability, have
never become @ Law. Ar Caldw we'll cited
a long list of cases carrying out his claim
of uuconstitutioDaIty, and said the Courts
ought not to tolerate the passage OF acts
whose titles seemed TO be drawn with the
deliberate purpose of disarmiug any proba'
bic opposition which might arise were the
actual contents of the law known.
Another point, he said, was that the Act
authorized the Courts to revoke and an
nur an ordinance. An ordinance was
simply a local Law, and to bring an issue
for the sole purpose Of anndliiug law
would, in his opinion, be to invest the Ju'
dietary with legislative powers. The judg,
ment Of the Court, in case the prayer OF
the petitioners was granted must be:
The law is hereby superseded, revoked
and anuulled" That, he claimed, won d
be an infringement of the perogatives OF
the Legislature by the Court, as was fully
laid down in the Constitution of the State.
| Councils were miniature General Assem-
blies, aud their ensctments were as bind,
ing upon the people as though they had
been pessad By the Legislature.
Mr.. 0'Keefs, for the City, took up the
point made by Mr.. Caldwell, that an ordin
ance of City Council was Law, and there,
fore the annuliug of it by Court was a
direct violation of the constitutional pro,
vision, it being a NiistinctiVely legislative
oct He argued the pcial az some length,
citing in support ofit numerous authorizes,
Judge Melvin. for the petitioners, said
he hardly knew what to do under the cir
cumstsuoes. A great many authorities
mad been cited, and be thought it would
hardly be fair to go on without allowing
The Court an opportunity to look over the
books referred to. Sill, ifthe Court would
have time to look at the cases, he would
| 90 on. After some discussion among
counsel, however, the argument was sd-
iourned until clock, His Honor saying
he vpa.G glance at the cases before that
hour arrived.
On re,sssembliug at o'clock, Mr.. Mel
vim said the actual question the constitu'
tionality of WHICH YES lmpuuged, had been
read, but he would take the liberty OF read.
ing it again. De said he agreed with eoun.
sci on the other side that the grammar was
bad-he would go further, and say the
orthoprsphy was bsd-but the principal
was all right, He read the title of the oct
and claimed that it related directly to the
matter to which the petition referred
The evident purpose and object OF the law
was 10 bring illegal ordinances to the at
tsntion of the Court and have them passed
upon in q simple and inexpensive manner
In these matters the utmost hberality pre-
vailed; the Court would not look too close
" at the title, but would at once proceed
TO a consideration of the matter complain
ed ==of He quoted fsoH authorities
to show that the Legislature must be 81
lowed discretion as to how particularly
title of O law may indicate
its coulepts; setting forth Ct the main
purpose Of the ensetAeut vas oil that Fas
necessary; the Legislature was not sub
iect to judicial control as to how the con.
tents or subject matter of bill may be
expressed. BE said there we're net many
cases on record in which the objection in,
terposed had been sustained; The practice