Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-01-31
RANDOLPH COUNTY
SEAT CONTROVERSY.
10 the Editor of the Regtster.

oGA4 4xbV 6&sS4
To the Editor OF the Register.
BEVERLY, w. Va, January 3D.
I notice in your peaper OF January rs
a communication from Elkins, in this
county, on the question Of a supposed
muddIe in regard to legal proceedings,
and especially in the Circuit Court in
this county, because of the proceedings
in the courts upon the removal OF the
county seat.
! can't imagine how your correspond
ent could have apprehended trouble
growing out of proceedings, either in
the clerks Office or by action of the
Circuit Court in session, or even the
County Court, unless he got the idea
from an order made by the judge of the
Circuit Court of this county, made on
the first day of the regular term, COM
mencing on the 22d inst, which is in
the following words:
THE court being of the opinion that
no further business can be legally
done at this term of the court at Bev-
erly on account of the case now pend
ing in the Supreme Court of Appeals,
involving the removal of the county
seat from Beverly, it is therefore or
dered that this term be now adjourn
3D."
In order that your readers may see
whether courts and other legal pro-
ceedings may be had at Beverly with
out the risk of the proceedings being
illegal because of the place at which
they may be done, l will briefly state
the situation as to the controversy in
regard to the county seat so far as the
proceedings in court show the steps
taken to ascertain the result of the
election held in November, 1898.
In pursuance to a mandate awarded
by the Supreme Court of Appeals, the
County Court canvassed the election
returns and recommended all the bal
lots which were asked to be r~ecounted
by parties in interest, and then ascer-
tanned and made an order declaring
that the proposition to remove the
county seat from Beverly to Elkins did
not carry.
This judgment of the County Court
was taken to the Circuit Court by writ
of c%ertiorari was reviewed and revers-
ed, and the Circuit Court directed the
County Court to remove as soon as
practicable the public records of the
county to the new county seat, which
was declared to be at Elkins, from and
after the date of the said order. At
the term of the court at which said
order was made a ~suspending order
was entered upon bond being given for
forty days to allow al application to
be made to the Supreme Court of APP
peals for a writ of error, which was
obtained, and supersedeas ordered upon
giving bond, all Of which was done
within the forty days. At the last
special term of the Supreme Court OF
Appeals an order was entered affirming
the judgment of the Circuit Court, but
before the adjournment of that term
the Supreme Court allowed a petition
for a rehearing of the case to be filed,
and thereupon made an order suspend
ing the Judgment of afirmance and
continued the motion for a rehearing.
So far as l am advised, the Supreme
Court has not yet acted on the petit
ton for a rehearing.
Now il the county seat IS not at
Beverly, let some one, l pray, tell me
where it Is for any and all legal pro-
ceedings to be had at the county seat,
and should the Supreme Court not
pass upon the petition for a rehearing
for six months OF a year, where would
the county seat be in the meantime?
How can there be any question about
this when we see that the Legislature
has amply provided for a like situation
in Sec. Is, Chap. 80, of the Code, which
is as follows: I'm case OF such re-
location, the County Court of said
county shall proceed with all possible
dispatch to cause the necessary build
ings for the use of the county to be
erected thereat; and until that is done
the courts Of the said county may in
case of necessity be held at the former
county seat" No power is given to
any other than the County Court to
direct when the records shall be re-
moved to and courts held at the new
county seat, after it shall be properly
ascertained that a removal of the coun-
ty seat has been effected. Whatever
may be the action of the Court Of APP
peals on the petition for a ~rehearing,
it must officially reach the County
Court before it can take any action as
above indicated.
Therefore, l again ask from whence
come the much confusion" to grow
out Of legal proceedings conducted at
the old stand until after the County
Court shall fix the time for conducting
them lat another place? Can it be
possible that this much confusion
and uncertainty as to legal proceed
ings being had at Beverly can have its
foundation in an attempt to hurry the
Supreme Court of Appeals to action on
this question, or is there some political
move contemplated on the chess
board? BEVERLY.