Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-02-25
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
OF THE LEGISLATURE.

AAOl . VCIO. MI. Ldu6ulAn Sal0 tAdt Az
title was the same as had been in the
code since 1888, and if it was defective
now, it had been defective all of the
time. Mr.. Laughlin said that when the
bill had passed the Senate and come to
the House, it had been referred to the
committee on judiciary, who had look
ed into all the legal points carefully
and had decided the bill constitution
al; the bill had gone to the committee
! on Mines n Mining who had looked
! into the necessity for such a bill. At
this point Mr.. Laughlin was ruled out
OF order on the ground that, this be-
ing a Senate bill, that body must act
upon it first.
Mr.. Colcord called up H. B. 321, pro-
viding boards of equalization Of the
re-assessment of real estate in this
State; Senate amendments were con
CURED in and the bill again passed.
Mr.. Smith, of Ohio, called UP S. B.
134, requiring the opinions of the Su-
nreme Court printed in pamphlet form
after each general and special term,
J read a first time, reference dispensed
with, rules suspended, read a second
time third time and passed.
Mr.. Jackson called up S. B. No. rs.
respecting an appeal to the Circuit
Court from the County Court in a con
test proceeding from county and dis
trict officers; amended.
Mr.. Anderson opposed the bill. AS
the law now stands a man who now
contests a county or district Office, even
if he wins, he will pay his own costs,
unless he brings home to the other
! party proof Of guilt Of fraud. This
tends to discourage contests. This
bill permiaS the contestant even
when the County Court decides against
him, to carry it up to the Circuit Court
to be returned do novo He opposed
the bill because it did. not retry the
case on the record, and in this bill
you would require the candidate o
his case twice. 1t sometimes requires
a dozen witnesses to prove one vote
illegal. In a case of so contested votes
it would prohibit contests in all
ties except in the great counties, be-
cause no candidate in the small coun-
ties could afford it.
Mr.. Jackson said as the law stands
you have not got a c%ertiorari, and an
appeal comes from contested elections.
Under the present statute on appeal
you cannot find what the Circuit Court
is to do. The present law does not
provide whether the Circuit Court
sends the case back or tries the case
itself. The trouble with County Courts
is they are not judicial bodies; some
times, when partisan, and do not give
| tho contestant q fair rnnorG with
which he can go to the higher court.
This ONE also from the fact that
the County Court is ignorant of the
law. This bill transfers the trial to a
court competent to judge the law.
eder the present statute it takes bills
of exceptions, to get the legal points
before the higher court, and these are
costly. He alluded to the Via case in
Monroe county, where the County
Court would not give him a fair record
of the proceedings before that body,
and of the great costs under the pres
ent statute.
, Mr.. Brannon also opposed the bill,
saying that under the present law he
had known the record of the County
Court to go through the Circuit Court
! ohu up " III OuUACulC SOuIt, WilIOuJ
a single error being detected.
A colloquy occurred between Mr..
Reynolds and Mr.. Brannon as to the
ability of the County Court to pass
upon legal questions, etc., in which
Mr.. Brannon admitted that he would
prefer a better court in the first case.
Mr.. Jackson argued that Mr.. Bran
o was in error about the procedure
under the present law in the matter
of eNpediting matters. The present
law furnished the dilatory proceeding
which the bill attempted to remedy.
This bill would prevent delays and
lessen expenses. The county refuses
to give a proper record, there is
a mandamus, ETC., and the prelimin-
aries indefinitely prolonged.
Mr.. Smith, of Ohio, said there were
cases where contests under the pres
n law had been pending 20 years.
The County Court would decide as they
! chose, In spite of a mandamus. Some
times the contestee occupies an Office
and refuses to furnish the contestant
with a record, and in this way in many
instances a person gets inside an Office
and keeps the rightful occupant out.
Mr.. Reynolds said he knew that a
man was kept in Office when the Coun-
ty Court refused to recount the bal
lots. Inc case went through the courts
to the Supreme Court and the Supreme
Court had ordered the County Court
to recount the ballots. In the mean
time, the contestee had gotten into Of
flee and burned the ballots, and still
retains the Office.
Mr.. Roberts demanded the previous
question and the bill passed by SO ayes
to 10 noes.
At 5 p. m the House took a recess
until s p. M, on motion of Mr.. Harris.
Evening Session.
The House reconvened at 1880.
J Mr.. Dart called up S. B. 81, author
izing judges of courts of records to
employ steongraphers to sit with grand
juries. Mr.. Smith, of Ohio, made a Wig
orous protest against the bill as being
opposed to the fundamental principles
of law. 1t throws lie grand jury room
3 open to the public.
Mr.. Kenny thought that a sworn
s~tenographer would be as likely to keep
the secrets of the grand jury as a
grand juror or the prosecuting attor-
ney. Mr.. Kenney thought it a reflec-
ton on the stenographers.
Nr Smith 0f ATnTlou-o1 IA -