Newspapers / The News & Observer … / Nov. 22, 1899, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
2 THE DEAD HAND OF THE PAST DENIES RIGHTS OF LIVING (Continued From First Pag?.) Legislature representing the untra'inmol ed will of the people could from time u» lime abolish such office or change the in cumbents. Every person who has taken an office not named in and protected by the constitution, lias taken it with the knowledge that by the above constitu tional provisions the people were left free to act from time to time as they saw fit in regaid to such offices. In the Present Case. In the present case the Legislature lias seen lit to 'abolish the Railroad C un mission iin which the plaintiff was a commissioner and to create a “Corpora lion Commissioner to whom were given the powers of the former Railroad Com missioners of this new Corporation Com aminers (whose office like that of tlit* Railroad Cormnisisoner is abolished) and sundry other important duties and pow ers formerly exercised by the State Treasurer and State auditor. The Com misisom rs of this new Oonioration Com mission (of whom the defendant is one) were elected temporarily by the Legis lature until the next general election, when the people themselves are to till those positions at the ballot lxix. What the Plaintiff Asks. The plaintiff asks the court to declare that (this “regulation of the internal gov ernment" 1 is null and void, though guar anteed by the Bill of Rights, section 8; that though “all government originates from the people only, and is founded upon their will only,” (Bill of Rights, section 2) they can not exercise that will by abolishing the Railroad Commission, that though “the legislative, executive and supreme judicial powers are forever separate and distinct” (Bill of Rights, section 8) the judicial department can in this resjiect invade the legislative de partment and set aside their legislation because the court can divine that “the purpose of the Legislature was not to altolish the Commission and create anoth er with different powers” as the Legisla ture declared, hut that it was in truth to “displace the plaintiff and put in the defendant,” that though the blood 1 sought herid it ament of a free people banded down front the destruction by our ancestors of the Stuart power and dynasty forbids “any authority” to “sus pend tlie laws or the execution of the laws without the consent of the repre sentatives of the people,” yet this court can say that the action of those repre sentatives in placing the election to the office of Corporation Commissioners in the people at the ballot box shall bo sus pended fulfil the expiration of the term which the plaintiff claims in the abolish ed office of Railroad Commissioner. Court Exceeds Its Powers. Tlie claim of such high pregrogative in this court, a ilower of which the court itself is to be the sole judge, and which is subject to review by nolmdy whatso ever, a power which originates in and is to be declared at the will of a majority of this court, a power which makes that majority and not the will of the people the supreme power in the State, must Ik* clearly and unmistakably expressed in the constitution. But an examination of that instrument shows not a line, not a hint that any power is conferred upon the court to set aside any act of the Legislature in any ease as unconstitu tional. It rests upon the “imperturbable •perpendio'nhi&litty of assertion” on the part of the plaintiff. Hoke v. Henderson as a Fetich. In reply to the express provisions of the State constitution, which prohibit the courts to interfere with the legislation in any respect, and the uniform decisions of all other courts that the jiower to declare legislation unconstitutional, does not extend to legislation affecting offices not created by 'tlie constitution, since such legislation is purely govern mental and rests solely with -the legis lative department, there is but one re ply offered us: ‘lt was otherwise de cided by Hoke vs. Henderson.” That this decision upon a question of con stitutional law. common to all the States and to the Federal Oovcmment also, should stand out in contradiction to all the decisions of all the courts of other States, would alone suffice to make us doubt its soundness and reconsider its foundation. Without questioning the conceded ability of the court which ren dered it. the three lawyers then filling tha bench can not Ik* asserted to have possessed attainments and abilities overmatching the vast array of eminent men on the benches of like tribunals in other States, and npon the Supreme Federal bench, who, with absolute unanimity hold that the doctrine as serted in Hoke vs. Henderson is itself unconstitutional. Overruling the U. S. Supreme Court. Ix*t us examine it with unbiased minds. In Hoke vs. Henderson the court says the property in public office is ac quired by contract. A,s to future earn ings there is no "law of the land’ to prohibit the Legislature impairing that which has not yet been earned except the contract clause of the United States Constitution, not by any provision of the State constitution. The impairment of contracts is prohibited by the United States constitution article 1, section 10, clause* 1, that “no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.” It is thus the Fed eral constitution which is invoked to nullify State legislation. It is a rule that the construction placed by the State Supreme court upon the con stitution of its own State will be adopted without question by the United States courts; and for a stronger reason, the construction placed, by the United States Supreme court uinm the constitution of the United States is binding upon the State courts, else we might have as many constructions as there are States. Now. this very clause of the I nited States constitution has been several times before the United States Supreme court, and that high tribunal has held uniformly, notwithstanding its changes of personnel, from the decision of Chief .Justice Marshall down to the present, •that the clause in tin* United States con stitution prohibiting any State from passing any law “impairing the obliga tion of contracts” does not. prohibit State Legislature from abolishing public offices or changing their ilncumbents jvithout abolishing the offices, for, that within the meaning of that elapse "pub lic office is not a contract.” This should surely lw* final and conclusive— the uniform construction of the United States Supreme court of a meaning of it clause of tin* United States constitu tion. It will he sufficient, to cite the a few eases: Tenure of Office Not a Contract. In Butler vs. Railroad, 10 Howard (51 U. S.l 402, the court says: “The contracts designed to lie protected by the lOtli section of the Ist article of that instrument are contracts by which PERFECT RIGHTS. CERTAIN. DEFINITE. PRIVATE rights, (italics in original) of property arc vested. There are clearly distinguishable from measures or engagements adopted or undertaken by the body politic or State government for the benefit of all. and from the necessity of the case, and ac cording to universal understanding, to bo varied or discontinued as the public good shall require. It follows then upon prin ciple that in every perfect and competent government there must exist a general power to enact and to rejienl laws, and to create and change or discontinue the agents designated for tin* execution of those laws. Such a power is indispensa ble for the preservation of the body politic and for the safety of the individ uals of the community. It is true that this power or tin* extent of its exercise may la* controlled by tin* organic law or the constitution of the State, as is the ease in some instances in the State con stitutions. but. where no such restriction is imposed, the power must rest in the discretion of the government alone. ’Hie constitution of Pennsylvania contains no limit upon the discretion of the Legis lature, either in file augmenting or dim inution of salaries, with the exception, of those of governor, judges of the su preme court .and the presidents of the several courts of common pleas. Ihe salaries of those officers can not under that constitution Im* diminished during tlnir continuance in office. Those of all other officers are dependent upon the legislative discretion. V\ e have already shown that the appointment to and tenure of an office created for the pub lic use and the regulation of a salary affixed to such office do not fall within the meaning of the section of the con stitution relied on by plaintiffs in error; do not come within the import of the CONTRACTS (italics in original) or in other words the vested, private, personal rights thereby intended to be protected. '1 hey are functions appropriate to that class of I»owers and obligations, by which gov ernments are enabled and are called upon to foster and promote the general good: functions therefore which govern ments cannot be presumed to have sur rendered. if indeed they can under any circumstances surrender them." Then the court goes on after saying this doc trine is in strict accordance with the rulings of this court in many instances (citing eases) and expressing “surprise" that it should he again presented, to quote with approval the following from Commonwealth v. Bacon, <! S. A R.. 822.” The services rendered by public officers do not in this particular partake of the nature of contracts, nor have they the remotest affinity thereto;” and also quotes with approval the following extract from Commenwenlth v. Manor. 5 W. & S., 418: “If the salaries or judges and their title to office could In* put on the ground of contract, then a most grievous wrong has been done them by the people, bv the reduction from a tenure during good behavior to a tenure for a term of years. The (mint that it isxa contract or partakes of the nature of a contract will not bear the test of examination;" and further points out that, the constitutional provision, protecting terms and salaries of Gover nor, judges and other constitutional officers, is a sure indication that they were not protected by being contracts and that officers not so protected by the constitution are left to be changed at legislative will. Hoke v. Henderson Antiquated. This decision of the United States Supreme Court was rendered in 1850 — 17 years after Hoke v. Henderson. If the eminent court that rendered the lat ter decision had had tin* benefit of this construction by the United States Su preme Court of the “contract" clause of the United States Constitution, -as we have, wo may feel sun* they would have rendered a different decision —as we should do. Dartmouth College Case Not Germane. In 1875) the same point was before the United States Supreme Court in New ton v. Commissioners, 100 U. S.. 548, in which the court says: “The principle laid down in the Dartmouth College case and since maintained in the cases which have followed and been controlled by it, has no application; where the stat ute in question is a public law relating to a public subject within the domain of the general legislation of the Stare and involving public rights and the pub lic welfare of the entire community affected by it. The two classes of cases are separated by a broad line of de marcation. The distinction was forced upon the attention of the court by the argument in the Dartmouth College ease. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The judgment of the court in that ease pixK-eedod uikui the ground that the col lege was a private eleemosynary insti tution, endowed with a capacity to take property for purposes unconnected with the government whose funds are Ik>- stowed by individuals on the faith of its charter.” The Legislature Absolute. In the same ease, 100 U. S., at page 558, it is said: “The legislative power of a State, except so far as restrained by its own constitution, is at all times absolute with respect to all offices with in its reach. It may at pleasure create or abolish them or modify their duties. It may also shorten or lengthen the term of service, and it may increase or di minish the salary or change the mode of eonqien suit ion.” Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 Howard, 402: Tin* police power of the States, and. that with respect to municipal cor porations, and to many other things that might Ik* named are of the same absolute character. Cooley Const. Lim., 232, 342; the Regents v. Williams, 4 Gill & J. (M*U, 321. “In all these cases, there can be no contract and no irrepealable law because they are governmental subjects, and hence in the category before named.” A Privilege, Not a Contract. In Crenshaw v. U. S., 184 U. 8., 99 (1899), the point was again before the court and Mr. Justice Lamar, speaking for a unanimous court, quotes from ■uid approves the two eases above cited (Butler v. Penn. 10 Howard) 402. and Newton v. ("mu., 100 U. S., 548,) and holds that “an officer appointed for a definite time or during good behavior THE NEWS AND OBBERVER, WEDNESDAY MORNING, NOVEMBER 22, 1899. has no vested interest or contract right of which he cannot lie deprived by sub sequent legislation." and sums up his able opinion in this emphatic sentence, "WHATEVER THE FORM OF THE STATUTE THE OFFICER UNDER IT DOES NOT HOLD BY CON TRACT. lIE ENJOYS A PRIVI LEGE REVOCABLE BY THE SOV EREIGNTY AT WILL: AND ONE LEGISLATURE CANNOT DEPRIVE ITS SUCCESSOR OF THE POWER OF REVOCATION." Whence then does this court get any power to declare null and void the stat ute abolishing the plaintiff’s office, or (even if it were true) placing the plaint iff in it? The State constitution not only does not protect the plaintiff in a legislative office, hut forbids the court to stop the execution of any law. The U. S. constitution as uniformly construed by the highest court does not protect him: for it says “no office is a contract,” that all officers whose terms are not fixed by the constitution may Im* changed or abolished at the will of the Legisla ture. No “Judicial Infallibility.” This surety should Ik* conclusive of controversy. Every other court and every text writer holds the above views; With the legal ability of the entire world arrayed against the plaintiff’s conten tion his counsel simply says: "We rely upon Hoke v. Henderson.” It is bur justice to (the court which rendered that decision to again say that they did not have the benefit of the full light which has been shed upon us. Few Static courts had then, passed upon the ques tion. and lion* 1 of the decisions of the U. S. Supreme fount which have since so clearly and unmistakably held that an office is not a contract within the mean ing of the Federal constitution. There is no dogma of “judicial infallibility,” and if there had been that court did not believe they possessed it, for they over ruled several of their own decisions, and there is a long list of other decisions of theirs which have been overrule*! by their successors. “Zero Is Zero Still ” But it is said that the decision of Hoke v. Hdnderson has been quoted some 40 times. It has been often cited, but many times im-identtally, or to show it did not apply. An examination will show that it has been quoted as an au thority prior to the present year less than a dozen times. But 40 times zero is zero still, and the decision being based entirely upon an erroneous con struction of tin* U. S. constitution as shown by the subsequent decisions of the 11. 8. Supreme Court, the repitition of the error leave it an error still. In matters of practice, mere routine of the courts, a line of decisions once established is followed until changed by statute or rule of the court that the change may be prospective. The same is true of decisions affecting contracts and private rights generally. They be come rules of property, men act upon them and contract with reference to them. But in constitutional questions, tin* constitution itself is tin* guide, not the glosses of the courts. We cannot “make the word of none effect by our traditions.” The decisions of the courts are the "traditions of the elders.” The Constitution Final. The constitution itself is the highest authority. Just as tin* scriptures still speak for themselves, and are held to be changed by erroneous constructions which from time to time have been placed upon them by men of unques tioned ability or sanctity; or, as Presi dent Lincoln said in his inaugural ad dress, s[leaking of constructions placed upon tin* constitution: "Such matters are never settled until settled right;” or, as Chief Justice Chase and Justices Miller and Field said, in Washington v. Bouse, 8 Wal lace, 44 I, when protesting against a decision which restricted the powers of the Legislature: “With as full re spect for the authority of former decis ions as belongs, from teachings mid habit, to judges trained in the common law system of jurisprudence, we think that there may Ik* questions touching the power of legislative Ihmltcs which can never be closed by the decisions of the court, and that the tone we have here considered is of this character.” The decision in Hoke v. Henderson being contrary to the subsequent rou st ruction placed upon the contract clause of the Federal constitution by the U. S. Supreme Court, it would be impos sible for any court to hold with Hoke v. Henderson if it were a new question today. The same reason requires it to be overruled that the “word” not the traditions of men should control. The Dead Hand of the Fast. But aside from that the decision itself is illogical and incoherent and cannot Ik* sustained by any process except that of saying ipse dixit. It is true that a most respectable court wrote it. No one doubts their respectability or their abili ty. Even Homer sometimes nodded. jftrom 97frs. Vaughn to 97/rs. !Pinkham, [LETTER TO MRS. PINKHAM NO. 64,587] “ Dear Friend —Two years ago I had child-bed fever and womb trouble in its worse form. For eight months after birth of babe I was not able to sit up Doctors treated me, but with no help. I had bearing-down pains, burning in stomach, kidney and bladder trouble and my back was so stiff and sore, the right ovary was badly affected and everything I ate distressed me, and there was a bad discharge. I was confined to my bed when I wrote to you for advice and followed your directions faithfully, taking Lydia E. Pinkham’s Vegetable Com pound, Liver Pills and using tlie Wash, and am now able to do the most of my housework. I believe I should have died if it had not been for your Com pound. I hope this letter may be the result of beaefitting<sonie other suffer ing woman. I recommend your Com pound to every one.”— Mrs. Mamt Vaughn, Trimble, Pulaski Co., Ky. Many of these sick women whose letters we print were utterly dis couraged and life was a burden to them when they wrote to Lynn, Mass., to Mrs. Piitkham, and without charge of any kind received advice that made them strong, useful women again. That court was able, but they wrote sonic opinions which they themselves field were incorrect. The decision must stand or fall on its own merits or de merits. It can have no vicarious right eousness* imputed to it. What is this much talked of decision which is invok ed to stay the hand of the people equally when they would change the manage ment of their penitentiary, their court system, the management of the railroads owned by the State, the educational system of the State or the supervision or regulations of railroads, telegraphs, telephones or express companies, and their charges and their assessment for taxation? From the expenditure of hun dreds of thousands of dollars of tax money upon convicts and courts, and the mnngement of the property of the States down to officers paying .$0 and $8 salaries per year, whenever the peo ple have put forth their hand to change the management this court is invoked to stop tin* execution of the people’s will; not by virtue of a provision of the State constitution, for, admittedly there is noue; not by virtue of any provision of the constitution of the United States, for the United States Supreme Court says there is none that confers that pow er: but by virtue of a decision of a court two-thirds of a century ago. 'Finis the imposition of the dead hand of the past is invoked to deny the constitutional rights of the living. A Strange Inconsistency. But take the decision as an original proposition: Ought it to stand or should it be overruled as so many others, ren dered by the same court have been? It holds that a public office is n private contract, and therefore the property of the officeholder. With strange incon sistency it holds that the office can be abolished, but that, if another is put in the office the first holder can claim the emoluments. Can that Ik* sustained? If the office is a contract, if it is property, the rights of the bolder surely are as much violated by the destruction of the office and the loss of the property as If it is transferred to another. Again, if it is a contract, is it a contract for em ployment. and every one knows that the remedy for a breach of such contract is not a decree of court to put out the new employe and to put in the old one. but a judgment for damages, and no judgment for damages can be given against the State, which is besides not a party to the action, though the treas ury is ordered (by this verdict method) to pay the salary of a public agent whom the State lias discharged. Besides, if public office is private property (or as the current 'phrase goes “if public office is a private snap”) surely it can be bought and sold,* for what property a man has he has an inalienable right to dispose of, yet if it were attempted the recreant officeholder would find him self indicted. It is said the salary may lie reduced, but if it is a contract how is that possible? If it were property, then surely upon the death of the incumbent it would go to his executor or adminis trator. Indeed the decision is logical in this respect, for the court which had strongly expressed the opinion that pub lic offices should In* held for life, says (15 N. <*., bottom of page 28): “For an alisolute term of years it could not be granted; as upon the death of the officer, it would in that ease go to his executor, which would' ho inad missible since the office concerns the administration of justice and an incom petent person might be introduced into it.” Can an Office Be Inherited? The provision in the statute which the court there condemned was that "the duly elected clerk of the court shall continue in office for the term of four years next after qualification,” without adding “determinable upon death,” yet every officeholder in North Carolina who holds a term today has it prescribed in the words the court con demns in Hoke v. Henderson. Will any court follow that decision in hold ing that on the dearth of any incumbent his office goes to his executor or admin istrator? in London v. Hearten, 70 N. C., 72, it was held that one who had been elected constable was indictable for refusing to accept and qualify. This recognized the true ground that public office is an agency, a duty or privilege to serve the State, and the salary is the compensation the State allows, for cer tainly no one could be indicted for re fusing to enter into a contract with the State. There are other inconsistencies in the decision, but is it such a perfect speci men of infallibility that, by virtue of it. this court, contrary to the prohibi tions in tlie State constitution, contrary to the construction since placed by the Supreme Court of the United States upon the Federal constitution, can in vade the legislative department, suspend the execution of the laws passed by it, and prohibit the penal institutions of the State, its educational system, the control of State property, the administration of justice, passing into the hands of those whom the prople through their repre sentatives have selected for the perfimn anoe of public service in regard to them. Frecedent v. the Constitution. Bur it is said that Hoke v. Henderson is a precedent as to construction of the constitution. There can he no judicial precedent that can avail against the express letter of the constitution . Be sides, that argument cannot Im* addressed to this court, nl 1899, legislation was adopted (Code, sections 88, 3,448) whereby to save taxpayers the punish ment of paying fines, costs and orders of maintenance for insolvent convicts, the courts were empowered to order that if those adjudged to pay should fail or be unable to pay in money, they should work out the amount on the public roads. This legislation was held consti tutional in State v. Palin, (13 N. C., 471 (in 1899), and has been uniformly so held ever since, by unanimous courts, down to and including State v. Nelson. 111) N. 75>7. This constitutional pre cedent lias been overruled at this term in State v. White, though in doing so. the court has disregarded the reasonable doubt as to the uncoustitntionality of the statute, which must exist when the courts have held it valid for a third of a century; whereas, to overrule Hoke v. Henderson would do no violence to that cannon of construction, for, on the con trary. it would he holding constitutional legislation which Iloke v. Henderson held unconstitutional —and the presump tion is always in favor of the constitu tionality of legislation. But it is further urged that the legis lative department has acquiesced in Hoke v. Henderson. The repeated eases in which counsel claim, that that ease has lieen followed show by the con stant litigation arising from that ill starred decision, that there has lieen a continuous struggle between the people acting through their Legislature and the courts. In this very year, the numerous eases which have come before us show that the Legislature has not yet acquies ced nr have thought that they had avoid ed the restrictions of that decision. A Fallacy Exploded. In neither case can it be said there was legislative acquiescence in the cor rectness of the decision. But in truth there has been an open disavowal of the principle of Hoke v. Henderson by the judiciary of this State and by the people themselves, to which, by some oversight no one has yet culled atten tion. If the tenupe of office is protected only by being in the constitution, that is a prohibition against legislation in re gard to it, but is no prohibition upon a convention abolishing such office in forming a new constitution, or changing its occupants. But if. on the other hand, and the ruling in Hoke v. Hender son, public office is also a contract, then it is protected by the contract clause of the United States constitution, and a State can no more 'impair its obligation by an ordinance of convention than by an act to? the Legislature. Louisiana v. Taylor, 105 N, (\. 4- »4; White v. Hart. 13 Wall. 949: Clay Co. v. So ciety. 104 U. S., 579: “No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of a contract.” Now in 1895. liy author ity of the President of the United States, a convention was called in North Carolina to establish a State govern ment. Among other things*, it elected for life terms three Supreme Court judges and eight Superior Court judges. That government remained in force un til abrogated by the convention of 1808. All the acts of the executive and legis lative departments of the State and all the decisions of the courts from 1805 to 1808 have ever been h hi valid and binding. All contracts of the State during those years are valid. If public office is a contract, then the judges and other officers were protected against these Contracts being impaired by the convention of 1808. In the matter of Hughes, 01 N. <\, 57, Pearson, C. J., held flint the convention of 1895 was "a rightful convention of the i>eople" and the officers chosen by it were not merely de facto hut. tie jura. On page 74 he calls attention to the fact that Congress as well sis the President had recognized and confirmed the action of the conven tion, and on page 75 closes the opinion by saying that if the convention was right fully convened (ns lie had just held) “it is certain it. had power to adopt all measures necessary and proper for fill ing the offices of the State, which is the only question, mow under considera tion.” If public office is as a contract, ithen 'the attempt of the convention of 1898 to provide new Supreme Court and Superior Court judges, and other pub lic functionaries, with exactly tin* same titles, exactly the same duties and pow ers and compensation, in the place of those elected in 1895, was a nullity, and we must either hold that the occu pants of the Supreme and Superior ‘Court bench, who went into office by virtue of the authority of the convention of 1898, were Conscious usurpers of other men’s property, or they repudiated the Hoke vs. Henderson doctrine that public office was private property. Not an Authority. But it may be said by those who do not recollect it, or have not examined that the action of the convention of 1898 in vacating these and other offices was by the vis major of an act of Congress. If Congress had so enacted it. had no power to authorize a State to pass an act impairing the obligation of a contract. But in fact no act of Congress required the vacation of any office by the convention of 1898. The sole requirement in the act of Con gress (chapter 158, section 5, ratified Match 2. 1897, chapter 9, ratified March 23, 18G7) was that the new constitution should be framed by a convention elect ed by voters, without regard to color, and the act of Congress admitting the State to representation in Congress (Chapter 70 ratified June 25, 1898) coiv tains only one “fundamental condition’’ Which iis thus expressed: “That the Constitutions of neither of said States shall ever be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United 'States of the right, to vote am said State, who are entitled to vote by the Constitution (Continued on Third Page.) A LIFE AND DEATH FIGHT. Mr. W. A. Hines, of Manchester, la., writing of his almost miraculous escape front death, says: “Exposure after mea sles induced serious lung trouble, which ended in Consumption. I had frequent hemorrhages and coughed night and day. All my doctors said I milfct soon die. Then 1 lagan to use Dr. King’s New Discovery for Consumption, which com pletely cured me. I would not be with out it even if it cost $5.00 a bottle. Hundreds have used it on my recommen dation and all say it never fails to cure Throat, Chest and Lung troubles. v Regular size 50c and SI.OO. Trial bot tles 10c at all drug stores. For Asthma use CHENEY’S EXPECTORANT. "The Least Hair Casts a Shadow ” A single drop of poison blood will, unless checked in time, make the whole impure. Hood's Sarsaparilla is the great leader in blood purifiers. It casts no shadow, but brings sunshine and health into every household. Dyspepsia— "For six months my sys tem was out of order with dyspepsia and impure blood. Spent lots of money in vain, but HoocTs Sarsaparilla cured me thoroughly.” Jos. S. Zauba, Genoa, Neb. Eruptions "I had annoying erup tions caused by impure blood, and physi cians' treatment failed to benefit. HoocTs Sarsaparilla removed them and I am no longer annoyed.” W. R. Hudson, Natrona, Pa. MOCtCb SaUafaTiffa Hooil’h ruin euro liver Ills; tlie non-lrrltating anq oilly~cathartiu to taae with llootl’s Sarsaparilla. A Wife Says: “We have four children. With the first three I suffered almost unbearable pains from J 2 to 14 hours, and lud to be placed under the influence of chloroform. I used three bottles of Mother's Friend before our last child came, which is a strong, fat and healthy boy, doing my housework up to within two hours of birth, and suf fered but a few hard pains. This lini ment is the grand- j est remedy ever made.” Mother’s Friend will do for every woman what it did for the Minnesota mother who writes the above let ter. Not to use it during pregnancy is a mistake to be paid for in pain and suffering. Mother's Friend equips the patient with a strong body and clear intellect, which in turn are imparted to the child. It relaxes the muscles and allows them to expand. It relieves morning sickness and nervousness. It puts all the organs concerned in perfect condition for the final hour, so that the actual labor is short and practically painless. Dan ger of rising or hard breasts is altogether avoided, and recovery is merely a matter of a few days. Druggists sell Mother’s Friend for $1 a bottle. The Bradfleld Regulator Co., Atlanta, Ga. Send for onr free illustrated book. mm UAST INDIA MenstrulinE known to medical science ies without any injurious V effect. Reliet guaranteed * t'rice sVoo Circulars free Nasal Catarrh CAN BE CURED BY SIMPSON'S ECZEMA OINTMENT FOR ALL STOMACH AND LIVER TROUBLES, USE • SIMPSON’S LIVER puls. The Best in the World SENT BY MAIL FOII 25 CENTS. Simpson’s Pharmacy, WILLIAM SIMPSON, Manager. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS. Sealed proposals for the erection of addition to the Watson School will be received by the architects, Pearson & Ashe, until 4 o’clock p. in. on Wednes day, the 29th day of November, 185)9. anil there opened in the office of the mayor of the city of Raleigh, before the School Committee and the bidders. Each bidder must enclose with his bid a certi fied check for SIOO.OO, made payable to A. M. Powell, chairman, drawn ou some reputable bank in North Carolina, check of the successful bidder to In* forfeited to the committee if staid bidder does not, within two days after award of con tract, execute to the committee a satis factory bond he a sum equal to one-half the contract price, to guarantee the ful fillment of his contract. The right is re served to reject any and all bids. Wheat & Grass Crops ALLISON & ADDISON’S High Grade FERTILIZERS. “Star Brand” Guano, “McGarvock” Mixture, “B. P.” Potash Mixture, Acid Phosphate. We especially recommend the "Mc- Gavock Mixture.” It is extensively used in Virginia and its us on the crops In North Carolina for the last two years has given great satisfaction. For sale by agents generally through out the State. Send for circulars. ALLISON & ADDISON, Branch V1 rgi ni a-Carolina Chemical Co.. Richmond, Va. C. H. NORTON Builder & Contractor DURHAM, N. C. Cotton factories, residence, churches, business buildings and all classes of heavy and fancy building.
The News & Observer (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Nov. 22, 1899, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75