The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1915-06-09

When tie Bill was taken up Tor
third reading & was again announced
that the Bill had been read d second
time, confirming the record as to that
point. The court took the expression.
.ofthe minority ators, who had their
remarks recorded in the senate
journal, to the eject that the bill had
not been read a second time, as the
basis for his opinion, holding that the
declaration Of the presiding officer Of
the senate sustained by a majority
vote OF the senate did not constitute
a positive record Of the second read;
ing il the bill. In the light of the
Moundsville case It might not have
been expecting too much Of the court
to believe that the second reading
would have been taken for granted.
ANY senator can have any statement
recorder he chooses to make. He can
assert that black is white and it viii
be SO recorded.
AS a matter of fact, no bills passed
by the last legislature on any subject
and none passed by any previous leg.
islatures were ever read three times
in full in both houses in strict con.
formity to the constitutional rule SO
directing. AS a matter Of fact, all bills
are read the first time by their titles
and are only read in full on second
reading when amendments are to be
made. The fact that amendments are
PROPOSED to different sections Of a bill
is of itself good circumstantial evi'
dence proving the reading Of the bill.
II the courts are to rule strictly upon
the constitutional requirements as to
the three separate readings, we woul1
have no laws in this state at all, and
the legislators would never get the
work done.
This question is the only one in
volved in this case and this will go to
the Supreme, Court on appeal for final
decision.
The other point about infringing
upon the rights of the plaintiff by
denying assistance to fill out his ticket
unless he is physically disabled is not
sufficient, according to the ruling Of
the court, to justify the Injunction,
the complainant having the remedy
OF mandamus to compel the election
officers to receive his ballot. The
court made it plain that such relief
would be speedily granted, If any ap-
plication for such relief was made.
Another reason, but not given by
the court, is that bill cannot be de-
clared unconstitutional and void. if
one section should be SO considered.
II this section OF the bill is held to be
1t would not invaii-
date the operation Of the charter in
other respects. So all this fuss and
feathers about the observation-disclosures
of the plaintiff is premature and the
cannot be applied until soma
more definite effort is made to dis
enfranchise him.
There are many reasons for this.
The plaintiff may not attempt to vote
at the city election, He may move
away from Fairmont before that time
comes. He may not be living on the
date Of the election and in such event
his complaint would be .untounded. In
other words he is borrowing trouble
that he may never experience. The
of election or the election
offers may permit such people to vote
holding that tie inability to read and
write awas such disability as con
templated by the trainers Of the char
ter. The purpose of this provision
was to prevent those who can read and
write from having the clerks AL out
their tickets for the sole purpose Of
proving that they have voted the way
they have been paid to vote, killing
the most effective method Of bribery
known, and which has been practiced
openly under the dome Of the Marion
county court house.
The whole effort Of the collusionists
seems to be to delay and prevent the
holding of the election at the time set,
thus enabling the present officeholders
in the city hall to hold on. But when
this bill is held to be valid, which we
believe it will be, there will
be an effective recall that can and no
doubt. will be resorted to to accomplish
the purpose Of the bill which per-
haps may be for the time being
thwarted by the present court pro.
ceedings. Under the new charter the
city hall crowd cannot interfere in
any manner with the circulation ana
signing Of recall petitions, az. has peen
done in the past. No other person
can SO interfere. The recall will be
effective and no person is barred from
being candidate under a recall cleo
ton under the new charter. as is now.
the case under the bipartisan farce.
- - y-S.afSnsA N Il