contest, in which a contestant by a new
notice informed the respondent that
after the service of his original notice he
had discovered new facts specified there-
in, among them the fact "that the con-
stitutional convention which was called
for the purpose of proposing amend-
ments to the Constitution of the state,
in providing for an election of officers
on the 22nd day of August, 1872, tran-
scended the powers delegated to it by
the legislature, and that the election was
therefore illegal and void." In support
of its holding that the facts stated were
not newly discovered facts and hence
could not be the subject of a new notice,
the court said (6 W. Va. 708) : "I have
had no difficulty in reaching the follow-
ing conclusions upon the constitutional
questions presented in this specification,
|
viz.: First. That a constitutional con-
vention lawfully convened does not de-
rive its powers from the legislature, but
from the people. Second. That the
powers of a constitutional convention
are in the nature of sovereign powers.
Third. That the legislature can neither
limit or restrict them in the exercise of
these powers. . . ." In dodd, Revision
and Amendment of State Constitutions
90, the decision in Loomis v. Jackson
(W. Va.) supra, is commented upon as
follows: "The decision was rendered by
a special election court, which had no
other function than that of deciding an
election contest; in addition this court
did not have before it any effort by the
legislature to restrict a convention, so
that its expression was purely dictum."
E. H. S.
355
|
