The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1915-06-09
WEpNEspAy,5 June {. f1s15.
rlaE lNguNcTIIo CASE.

J09EH k1d3u0nu fu41H1oG4 VI s44S
charter Injunction case; as far as his
court Il concerned, " a decision
handed down q 6 clock yesterday
evening, the eject Of which is TO
psrpetuats tic temporary Injunction
trantsd 4 lew days ago.
This eass vas decided upon the
pleadsugs Of Democratic counsel
representing both the plaintiff and
defsudsnts. showing clearly by their
collustse aetion IN the case. that they
wanted the decision Just as it was
crented and no Inherent decision was
oxpeesd In the case by those who
we're sesussd mission jim the case by
petition
The court swept aside all of the
plaintiffs allegations attacking the
charter bin in every conceivable man
nef. except three complaints, to.wit:
First, thst die bill was not valid be.
cause the statutory notice had not
besn pnblished before the bill was
passed; second that Il was void and
inoperstine because &c was not read
three times as the constitution re.
oulrss; third. that the constitutional
rights 81 the plainti @ were violated by
the provision witch prevents any per:
son nom receiving help in filling out
his ticket. unless he IS hysically- dis.
abled snd cannot DO oshtmself.
The arst % ths allega ttons the court
held vas not d fatal error5and it was
his opinion, while theile legislature might
have set q bad preced dent in ignoring
the statute, IL had the right to do SO.
al It was equivalent Stos repeating this
statute ae far as this particular bill
Was concerned. ThisEwa q point the
Democratic press madesa great howl
about and Senator Lowe made quite
speech about IL tnsthe senate iat the
time the bill vas passed, moving that
the further eonstde Grafton Of the bill
be dispenssd Win because this notice
was not published The West Wiz.
ginnian then sasd this was not q mat
ter eiescttng tho valid tys Of the bill.
The CONT based his ruling for max
ing the iniunction permanent solely
Upon the allegation Of the bill with
reference 70 the second reading in the
senate.
The only sintiarcaseSd decided in this
state was taken upS to the supreme
Court abeut Is. years ago from Mounds
vile. IN that case the journal was
nbuolutely silent. asfto the second read
ing OF the hill and the court ruled
% that case that when no affirmative
record WIS shown that st must be
pfssurned that the bin had been read
Hecond time. IN this case there IS
10 afarmatixe record showing that the
bin was READ a second time, which ap.
pears IN ths record upon the declara-
ton Of the president Of the senate,
who ptated II ruling upon q point Of
order MADE by q Democratic senator
that such action had been taken.
'Iton the rl1ng o. the chair the sena.
Tor appesIed and the senate by a ma.
i0fity vote sustained the ruling of
ne PRESIDENT in thiss declaration, dis.
spelling any doubt Is to the second
rAaains as farass the senate record is
concerned 60 shownss by "a majority
vote. The Journal also shows that the
bln was reported on second reading.
AZ a. further evidence that 1t was
road, npoticn for hepreyious ques.
zion. which would have shut of all
mananantsl md int consideration
Of the bin. va voted down. giving the
Democratic minority the privilege Of
5taring arnendments to- several sec.
ti1nt OF the btli some Of the amend.
ments being defeated and some
adopted, one Of the amendments
adopted being that % Senator Lowe,