Daily new dominion. [volume] (Morgantown, W. Va.) 1897-1906, 1901-10-07


two thousand and that the tour
| towns each contain population Of
| less than 2000 and that the act is to
| be held as one amending their char
tiers. Now, it is clear that unless
this language does disable the leg
islature from passing the act in
question, that act is constitutional;
for unless we say that the clause
quoted from the Constitution makes
an exception to the wide power of
the legislature, that power must
prevail, as set fourth above.
Remember that the power of the
legislature is unlimited except SO far
as this provision limits 1t. It limits
it only as to Incorporation and amend
ment Of charters; it does not stay the
hands of the legislature in the repeal
of charter. Such is the letter of
the Constitution. Shall we enlarge
that letter TO deprive the Legislature
of salutary powers of legislation?
! When Incorporating or merely amend
ing a charter of an existing town.
that provision governs; but suppose it
becomes unwise to continue NUM-
cipal corporation, ought not the Leg
| islature possess the power to dissolve
it2 Iteaanot be objected that the
act violates the Constitution in incor-
porating Morgantown, because it as
incorporated by the act contained
more than 1000 people. In Roby v
Sheppard, AZ w. Va. 2S6, we held
that an act taking away from town
OF less than two thousand people a
part of its territory, and giving it to
another was no violation of this clause
OF the Constitution, as it was not an
amendment of the charter, but only a
change OF its territory. So this act is
not one amending, but is one destroy
ing, the charter Of South Morgantown;
| it does not not modify it for continu
ed future existence, but ends it. So
| it is neither within the letter nor
enfrit # the Constitution. Nor can
1 1t be said, even, that the act is an
amendment of the charter of the
ffrmer town of Morgantown. If we
view the act as one of consolidation,
it does not come under the letter of
! the Constitution; and it il not a mere
amendment of the charter of Morgan
town, because it extinguishes the for
mer corporation, and QUO of newterri-
tory and people erects another. 1t
was wise in the makers of the Consti-
tuition, by the provision quoted, to
debar the engrossment of The time OF
the Legislature with innumerable new
/ interpretations and mere amendments
of existing charters; but giving the
legislature power to pass upon the few
+ ard rare eases of the abolition of
charters docs not fall under the same
objection.
| repeat here what is said as to
this point in Hornbrook VS. Elmgroye
supra. that the clause does not take
away the power to repeal a town char
ter This is an important matter. The
legislature has not construed the
clause of the Constitution in hand as
denying it such power as it has exer-
cised in this Morgantown act, as it
has passed acts in the cases of Fair
mont, Huntington, Charleston. Man
nington and perhaps other towns, OBJ
noxious to the same objection, which
acts would fall under the decision we
are asked to make and produce much
disorganization II is healthful
power resident in the Legislature TO
consolidate small adjoining towns
under one central municipal govern
ment capable better OF accomplishing
good government. II we had any
doubt on this subject l would repeat
what said in Roby VS. Sheppard
supra that court must move with
great caution in declaring an act OF
| the legislature unconstitutional, re-
solve all doubt in favor of its validity,
and hold it unconstitutional only in
cases where the act is plainly and
| palpably violative OF the Constitution.
No question arises as to debts OF
South Morgantown, os the common
law, as also the act itself, charge the
new city with them.
Something was said in the briefs,
but not in the oral argument about
| irregularity in organizing the new
city in the failure to elect couneilmen
in certain wards. Their places were
filed by lawful appointment. Any
how, the point is immaterial. The
new city is existent; South Morgan
town is non-existent. The City of
Morgantown lives, and the town Of
South Morgantown is dead, and can
not sue cannot raise this point OF ir-
regularity for want of life to enable
1t to sue.
We discharge the rule and refuse TO
award the writ OF mandamuS as the
petition on its face sets up the act OF
1901, and that act being valid, the
petition shows 70 right to the man
damus.
Big Crowd Sees faust,
The largest audience ever witness.
ing show in the Opera House saw
Faust on Saturday night The play
uac wati rapIarn1 I'D 49,, ~.