4 f .
X MO
Voi. XIX. e
RALEIGH. NORTff OABOLINA, MARCH 7, 1901.
No. 12
L. -
s
i
.
T.
SENATOR J'RITCHARD'S SPEECH.!'-
1 he North Carolin. Senator Addresses the Senate on Political
Conditions in the State.
Hi S'1 on Sfimtoi KutJer's Motion to Kei'er Siniiiions Cre
Irntiitls to Privileges nrnl Election Committee The Jis
luture Not Legally M-'tnl The Suppression of the Writ of
Miuiilitmiis.
Mr. l'rlU-han! nald:
Mr. President: I unit the Indul
gence of tho Senate tor a tdiort time
in order that I may submit home re
marks In regard to the motion of
my colleague to refer the credentials
of Hon. F. M. Simmons, Henator
cloet from my State, to the Commit-'
tee on Irl vllnfM and elections. I
had not Intended to refer to Mlit ical
conditions in North Carolina during
the present session of Congress, but
since my colleague has mtn fit to
make tin- motion in question, I
deem it proN'r that I should briefly
review existing conditions in that
State, ax well as tho incidents which
led up to vviiat tho Democrats are
pleased to term a revolution.
One would naturally nupione that
the people of every State enjoy the
benetlts of a republican form of
Kovemment, but I regret to Htate
that such is not the case in tho State
which I have tho honor In jmrt to
represent.
Article 4, Hection 4, of tho Consti
tution of the United States provides
as followH;
'Tho United State shall guaran
tee to every Stato in this Union a
republican form of government, and
shall protec t each of them against
invasion; and on application- of the
leglsalture, or of tlx; executive ( when
the legislature can not be convened),
against domestic violence."
The foregoing is plain and explic
it and leaves no doubt as to the duty
of Congress with res-ct to the mat
ter. Tho language of the Constitu
tion Is mandatory, plain, and une
quivocal, but for some cause or other
there is a die posit ion on tho part of
many to acquiesce in that which, in
my Judgment, will Sooner or later
undermine the, -'foundation of the
Government of tho United States.
In 1891 the Republicans and l'op
ulhts combined their forces in oppo
sition to tho Democratic party and
succeeded in carrying the State by a
large majority, securing control of
lMth branches of the general assem
bly. For years prior thereto the
Democratic party had been in abso
lute control of all brunches of the
State government, ami in possession
of tho election machinery in every
county in tho State.
The Republicans and Populists, In
1H9G, enacted an election law that
was perfectly fair in its provisions,
It being provided, among other
things, that tho chairmen of tho ro
spectlve parties should have the
right to select tnose who were to
represent them on the election
boards.
In 1896 thoantl Democratic forces
again prevailed, electing ail the
State ottlcers, consisting of Republi
cans anu ropuusts, ana in tnis con
nection I desire to say that we have
never had our State aff iirs adminis
tereu in a more satislactory manner
than they were under tho adminis
tration of Governor Russell. The
credit of the Stato was greatly im
proved during his administration,
and not a dollar of the State's funds
waa unaccounted for when the gov
ernment was turned over to the
Democrats on the first of last month.
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1898.
entitled under the la, lfore the
amendment, In relation to manda
mus, which is hereinafter referred
to as having been adopted by the
legislature at It June session.
KCI'I'KKHSlo.V OK WKIT OK MAN-
The Democrats in 1898, realizing
that a great majority of the people
of the State were opposed to their
policy, and knowing full well that
anything like a fair expression of
public opinion at the ballot box
would mean their complete defeat,
deliberately organized a systematic
campaign of intimidation and vio
lence (resulting, in some instances,
in bloodshed) which has never had
a parallel in any section of thecoun
try. Not only were the negroes in
eastern Carolina denied the right to
vote, but thousands of white men
DA M US.
Some time prior to the meeting
of the legislature in June, a confer
ence of Republicans, consisting of
Hon. R. Z. Linney, Hon. W. I. By
num, Hon. A. K. Ifolton, and my
self, was held in the city of Greens
boro, and it wan decided, among
other things, that although the new
election law gave the registrars un
limited discretion as to what name
should be placed upon the registra
tion books, wo could by mandamus
com il them to place on the books
the names of all parties who, under
our constitution, were qualHied elec
tors, but, unfortunately, the result
of our deliberations became known,
and when the legislature convened
in June, the following sections in
regard to mandamus and injunction
were enacted:
See. 88. That upon any applica-
lion oeing maae, or any action or
proceeding of any kind commenced
or had, before any juge of any court
in this State, for a mandamus or any
order in the nature of a mandamus.
injunction, restraining order, or or
der in the nature thereof, to compel,
prevent, prohibit, or restrain the
lerformance of any act in respect to
his duties against any officer or offi
cers provided for in this act, the
matters stated in tne affidavit, peti
tion, or complaint, upon which sucn
application is based or action or pro
ceeding had, shall bo taken and
deemed to be denied, and no judge
shall issue any such order, tempora
ry or otherwise, until the facts have
been submitted to and found by a ju
ry at a regular term of the superior
court of the county in which such
officer resides. No such order shall
bo made or Issued uon any case
agreed, or upon facts found by a jury
at a signal term.
Sec. 89. That when a jury has
found the facts, and any judge shall
Issue a mandamus or order in the
nature of a mandamus, injunction,
or restraining order, or other order
in the nature thereof, to compel,
prevent, restrain, or prohibit the
lerforniance of any act in resjHict to
his duties against any officer or offi
cers provided for in this act, such
officer or officers shall have the right
to appeal from such order to the su
rreme court, upon giving bond in a
sum not to exceed the sum of $ 100,
conditioned to pay to appellee all
such costs and damages as may ac
crue by reason of such appeal. The
said bond shall be received and
approved by the clerk of the super
ior court A deposit of money of
the amount of the penal sum named
In such bond shall be received by
the clerk in lieu of such bond. And
upon filing such bond or making
such deposit, such order shall be va
cated until affirmed by the supreme
court, and until so affirmed the elec
tion officer shall proceed to perform
the duties imposed by this act not
withstanding such order.
"Sec. 90. That all laws and clauses
of laws in conflict with this act
are hereby repealed, and the law
regulating elections as contained in
this act shall be construed as above
and not In connection with any ex
isting provision of law for regula
tion of elections "
PURPOSE OP REGISTRATION.
This Is the first instance, In so far
as I am informed, wherein any poli
tical party has ever attempted to
modify or abridge the writ of man
damus. With the exception of the
in the middle and eastern sections of writ of habeas corpus, mandamus is
the State were so completely terror
ized that they refrained from voting,
while many of them, by coercion,
were induced to vote the Democratic
ticket.
The adoption of euch unlawful
methods resulted in giving the Dem-
the most sacred writ that can be is
sued by the courts. It Is intended
to afford a remedy when it is sought
to deprive the individual of his
property or any of the rights guar
anteed by the laws of the land, while
the writ of habeas corpus is intend-
ocrais a gooa wonting majority oi eu 10 protect tne citizen In the en
the legislature at that election; and joyment of his liberty. These writs
among other things, they enacted
an election law which was prepared
with the sole view of enabling that
party to overcome the large majori
ty that was against them in the
State. The legislature did not ad
journ at the end of sixty days, as is
provided by tho Constitution, but
took a recess until the month of
June, 1900, and it was stated In
many of the Democratic papers that
a recess had been taken with a view
of impeaching the governor and the
judges of the suerior court under
certain contingencies; and this fact
was from time to time referred to
by many Democratic papers for the
trpose, as I belle e, of Intimidating
At governor to such an extent as to
jit him from taking su3h steps
"re necessary to secure the prop
lrH divorcement of the law, and I am
inclined to the opinion that
rumors were intended to in-
Vte the Judges to such an ex
yria to prevent them from gnmt
rt. 1L - .. .
r uw remedies to wnicn we are
constitute the most speedy and effec
tive remedies that are afforded to
the citizen by the courts, and while
I am not prepare to say that the
legislature does not possess the pow
er to modify the writ of mandamus
in some particulars, at the same time
I am quite sure that there can be no
question that the adaption of the
provision as a part of the registra
tion act under which our election
wa3 held renders the election void,
from the fact that its provisions
render it possible to prevent the
elector from exercising the right of
suffrage, and while the authority to
limit its application in general may
not be questioned; at the same time
any effort to apply its provisions to
a registration act as contemplated in
section 98, is clearly in violation of
the State constitution, . which fixes
the qualifications of voters and guar
antees tne ngnt to vote to all men
who qualify themselves in accord
ance therewith. K
(Section 55, artftlt 1, or the con
tltutlon of North Carolina,
m as follows:
"All court shall be open, and ev
ery person having an injury done
him in his land, goods, person, r
reputation shall have remedy by due
course of law, and right and justice
administered without sale, denial,
or delay."
Jt will be observed by reading
the foregoing section that the bill of
rights of the constitution of my
State provides tiiat all courts of the
State ahall lie open at all times for
the purpose of granting such reme
dies as are necessary to secure to the
citizen substantial justice in all mat
ters that affect his person, property,
or reputation, and that such remedy
shall be granted without delay.
A registration act to bo valid must
be a thing of regulation simply, and
the regulation must be necessary
and reasonable; It must be to secure
and facilitate the right of suffrage
and not Impair, abridge, or destroy
it; registration must be subordinate
to suffrage and not its master and
destroyer.
In Paine's Law of election (page
300) is the following:
"The question whether a legisla
tive provision is or is not constitu
tional, its validity always turns up
on the question whether it is or is
not a reasonable and convenient reg
ulation of the right to vote, or is,
under pretense of regulat ion and
abridgment, a subversion or re
straint of that right."
Judge Cooley thus states the law
at page 757 of his work on Constitu
tional Limitations:
"All regulations of the elective
franchise, however, must be reason
able, uniform, and impartial; they
must not have for their purpose de
rectly or indirectly to deny or
abridge the constitutional right of
the citizen to vote or unnecessarily
impede its exercise if they do, they
must be declared void."
In Page vs. Allen (58 Pa. Reiorf,
page 338), among other things, Mr.
Freeman, in reporting this case in
the American decisions, says in a
note:
"The elaborate dissenting opinions
of Justice Thompson and Sharswood
clearly enforce the rule that regis
tration laws should not be made so
vexatious or so embarrassing as to
imiede or to discourage the attempt
to register."
In the case of Monroe vs. Collins
(17 Ohio, (G5) it is very properly
said:
"That the legislation should be to
facilitate rather than to impede the
right of suffrage. Between the leg
islative power and the legal elector,
no matter who or what he is, the
constitutional provision stands as a
bulwark for the protection of his
right to vote.
In the case of Kenner vs. Wells
(144 Mass., page 497) we find:
"Statutes can not impair the right
to vote. Though they may regulate
its) exercise, every statute regulating
it must ho consistent with tne con
stitutionally qualified voter's right
to suffrage when he claims his right
at an ele-tion these statutes may
require proof of the right consistent
with the right itself, not to abridge
or Impair the right, but. to require
reasonable proof of the right
Any legislatation by which the
exercise of his right is postponed,
diminishing them, must be uu
constitutional, unless it can be de
fended on the ground that it is reason
able and necessary in order that the
right of the proposed voter may be
ascertained and proven."
Brightly in his leading: cases on
Elections, says:
- "The power to enact registration
laws, so as to insure orderly exercise
of the right of suffrage within the
limits prescribed in Capen vs. Fos
ter is now generally admitted; that is
to say, they must be reasonable and
uniform regulations, and not under
the color of regulation subvert or in
juriously restrain the right itself."
Among the numerous other cases
bearing on this point are the fol
lowing: "Dell vs. Kennedy, 40 Wiscon
sin, 555.
Steanes vs. Connor, 22 Nebr., 285.
Morris vs Powell (Ind.) 29
American Law Register, 839, 125
Ind., 281.
"White vs. Commissioners of
Multnomah Co., 13 Oregon, 317.
'Daggett vs. Hudson, 43 Ohio,
548."
These decisions leave no doubt as
to the restrictions that are placed
upon the legislature when it under
takes to frame a registration act.
After the legislature had adopted
the sections which I have quoted
with respect to mandamus, it was
an easy matter for the Democrats to
carry the State of North Carolina by
any kind of a majority which they
might desire to have counted and
returned. The provisions contain
ed therein-rendered it absolutely
impossible to secure an adjudication
of the right of the citizen to vote
until after the election had been
held, which necessarily postponed
and deferred his right to such a time
I as to render it impossible for him to
exercise it as provided by the con
stitution of our State. .
Section 15 of the election law
reads as follows:
"That the registrar of each town
ship, ward, or precinct shall be fur
nished with a registration book pre
pared as hereinbefore provided, and
it shall be his duty between the
hours of 9 o'clock a. m. and sunset
on each day (Sunday excepted), for
twenty days, preceding the day for
closing the registration books, as
hereinafter provided, to keep open
said hooks for' the registration of
any electors', residing within such
township, ward, or precinct,- and
entitled to registration. That the
provld-jsaid UjoWs sliall U; cloned fur regis-
! tratlou at uu-t uu th-Mtx0d Satur
day before tch election. Tbt on
each Saturday during Uw i-rlod of
registration, the registrar .ahall at
tend with his registration txuks at
tae tolling plai of his precinct or
ward lor the registration of voters."
It will be observed that the lore
going provision for registration is
limited to twenty days, and If Ua?
citizen should be denied registration
(as thousands were in North Caro
lina at the lat election) and should
make application to the resident or
presiding judge for a mandamus he
would be confronted with met ion
88, width provides that no writ
hall Issue until the matter has been
passed upon by a jury at the next
regular term of the superior court,
which, in nine cases out often,
would convene after the twenty
dajs had expired and alter the elec
tion had been held, to say nothing
about the other vexations and un
necessary requirements that are to
be found in section 89, placed there
with the sole view of hindering and
delaying the citizen in the exercise
of a right which is guaranteed to
him by the constitution of the State.
It is further provided by section
88 that the court- shall not i-sue a
mandamus at a siocial term, there
by precluding the possibility of the
citizen having his right detei mined
In the event that the governor
should decide to call a special, term
for that purpose. This affords us
another evidence of the fact tht it
was the intention of the legislature
to place such restrictions in the
I statute as to render the citizen ow-
t. a iJf i! . i r .
eriess o ouiain reuei irom any quar
ter.
It is also provided in the same
section that
"The matters stated In the affi
davit, petition, or complaint, upon
which such application is based or
action or proceeding had, shall be
taken and deemed to be denied"
thus permitting the election official
to commit all manner of outrageous
offenses, without being required to
answer under oath any allegations
made with respect to his official con
duct.
In divorce proceedings, in many
States, it is provided that the alle
gations in the complaint of either
party are to be taken and deemed
to be denied, but this provision is
intended to prevent the commission
of a fraud upon the rights of either
party and are placed there owing to
the confidential relations that exist
between husband and wife. In the
present instance, the provision to
which I have alluded, was placed in
the law in order to enable the un
scrupulous election official to com
mit a fraud and as an assurance to
him that the law would guarantee a
concealment.
However, there are other provis
ions in the act which, in my judg
ment, are sufficient in themselves to
render the act In question unconsti
tutional. Section 28 provides that each bal
lot box shall be labeled in plain ro
man letters designating the officers
to be voted for. Section 23, among
other things, provides that each
elector shall approach the polls from
one direction through such passage ;
and after his ballot is deposited in
the box, with as little delay as pos
sible, shall depart from the passage
leading from the polls. It is also
provided that only one voter shall
enter the passage at a time, and no
one is permitted to speak or make
signs to him, but there is no provis
ion that the judges shall place the
ballot In the proper box in the event
the voter should be unable to read
and write.
VIOIiATE STATE CONSTITUTION.
These provisions are in the nature
of an educational qualification, and
are in violation of the State consti
tution, in -that" they undertake to
add an additional qualification to
those prescribed by the constitution
of the State."
In discussing this subject Mr.
Narr, on suffrage, page K6, says:
'The obvious conclusion is that
the legislature can not add anything
to guaranty to emoh Stalf a re ju Mi
ca n form of government, and this U
the first time in the hl4ory of the
Government wherein ar futsU-n
presented to this body fur It cou
ftiderat ion which In volvtd the ques
tion as to whether or not one of tne
State of this Union p.fcwe a re
publican form of government.
1 am aware of the fact that lu tlie
Turple case tbU body held that the
State legislature is the Judge of tltc
election, quallScation-, and return of
its own members; but while that K
true,' In so far as the action oftlie
legislature w ith repeet to the quali
fications and election of its members
Is concerned, at the same time I do
not understand that the Senate in
that cae decided that under no con
ditions would this body have juris
diction to inquire into the methxls
and the laws under which a State
legislature was elected. I call at
tention to the closing sentence of
the report made In the Turpie case,
wilch is as follows:
The majority of the committee
do not mean to be understood as
now committing ourselves to an
opinion upon the question whether
the Senate can not refuse to scat a
claimant who owes his election to a
legislative body which Is itself the
result of fraud or crime which has
overcome the true will of the peo
ple even if it have possessed itself
of legislative authorityr and of the
technical evidence of a rightful char
acter, or whether tho judgments of
such a body as to the title to seats of
its individual members are entitled
to any respect whatever. If that
question should hereafter unhappily
ari-e, it will be dealt with on it3
own merits."
LEGISLATURE ELECT El KV FRAUD.
Here is an intimation by the dis
tinguished Senator from Massachu
setts Mr. Hoar, who made the re
port for the committee, that this
body would have jurisdiction to In
stitute inquiry as to whether or not
a State legislature had been elected
by fraudulent or unfair methods.
It would be difficult to present to
this body evidence to the effect that
the Democrats secured representa
tives from a majority TJf the coun
ties in that State by intimidation;
but when we remember the many
outrages that were perpetrated in
central and eastern Carolina at the
last election, there can be no ques
tion as to the fact that the will of
the majority of the people of that
State was not expressed at the bal
lot box.
While I am not prepared to offer
a remedy, at the same time I deem
it my duty, as one of the Senators
from that State, to give the Sejiate
such information as I may possess
with respect to the unlawful and
unwarranted methods that have leen
resorted to by the Democratic party
in order to obtain control of our af
fairs However, these are matters
which properly belong to the Com
mittee on Privileges and Elections,
and to that committee, composed as
it is of some of the ablest lawyers in
this body, I commend this question
for its intelligent solution.
The present legislature has in tr
tuted impeachment proceedings
against Chief Justice Furches and
Associate Justice Douglas, of the
supreme court, both of whom are
Republicans, but inasmuch as the
matter is how pending before the
Senate as a court of impeachment I
deem it improper that I should en
ter into a discussion of the merits of
the case, further than to say that
the judges are' gentlemen of high
character and standing, being law
yers of acknowledged ability.
I am informed . that certain par
ties in the city of Raleigh ar3 cir
culating a rumor to the effect that
there exists an understanding be
tween the judges and the leaders of
the Regublican party in the State,
to the effect that the question of the
validity of the amendments recent
ly adopted to the constitut ion of the
State, if brought before the court,
to declare them unconstitutional and
void; and that it is therefore neces
sary to remove the impeached judges
to prevent the undoing of the work
to thualifications other than those of the Democratic party in securing
ja - t A a
prescribed by the organic law of the
State."
The provision in question is a
needless and vexatious requirement,
which necessarily results in imped
ing the elector in the exercise of his
right to vote.
There are many equally objection-
the adoption of the amendments.
In this connection I desire o state
that there is not the slightest foun
dation for any such statement; that
it is absolutely false, and a cruel
wrong and injustice to these judges,
to the Republican leaders of the
State, as well as myself. The sub-
al features to be found in our eleo- ject nas not oeen meniionea, euner
tion law. but I am sure that these directly or indirectly, to me by any
sections are of such a character as to
member of the supreme court, and I
am ot the opinion that there Is not a
lawyer of any reputation in the
State who would be guilty of such
unprofessional conduct. I have not
had the slightest intimation as to
what would be the decision of the
remove all doubt as to the unconsti
tutionality of the registration act un
der which our eleetion was held
And this brings us face to face with
a serious proposition, one tnat-nas
never been nassori nnon bv this bod v.
It is as to whethar we shall accept judges in relation to this question in
the credentials of one who claims the event that they should be called
the right to a seat in this body by upon to hear the question upon re-
virfno htvitio Wn oiwM htr a view, it is nigniy proDaoie inai
leeislature whose members were any proceedings which may be Insti
elected under an election law that latea tor tne purpose or testing tne
Ut. EIIS 01 TIE IHPCACRttCIT.
II U npmmfU WM Fall tl Arw
Tfca loM Mo W KrflM-Ut rvmH.m
kr Mr. HlMWr.
lvVmtiuui frcm 1-t Wwl.j
Now, Mr. Speaker, If an ortlc- i
pru'rty, aisd I am urv llMrff U to
member here uu this nYr that will
deny this prui!iuii, it follow a
a natural Ucimx that Ik- iucHleiita
or emolument. of an umVv arv no
lew private IroTtyt "a much" a
was said in liuke v. Iieudcruii,
"a the laud which one tills r tlte
horxe he riders or thj debt w hkrh b
owing to him." The molumeiit
of a public office being then private
property, it would sevm to follow
logically that the term for whUh
White was apiointcdt to w it, four
years, not having expired at tlw
time of the enactment of chapter
18, lt and 21 of the a-t of lsVV, lie
could not be ou-tcd except for cause,
that is to !-ay, for the committal of
some malfeasance in office, or uulc
lie Itad failed and refused to iTlbrui
the duties of his office, or uult- the
office itself had beeu abolished, none
of which can be claimed in WhiteV
case.
In the case of Wood vs IMlauiy
L20 N. C. page 218, the court id,
(Montgomery hiieaking): "As long
as the office is continued, the term
of office, it does seem in reason and
justice, ought to be private probity
of the holder; and to take it from
him and give it to another by legis
lation is in effect and reality a judi
cial act, and the sentence is pronoun
ced without trial and without a
hearing," .Now, Mr. Speaker, it
does tjem to me that the act of
1 81)9, chapter 1 8, 1J and . 21, can
have no other effect, in the case ot
White. It is clearly decided in
Hoke vs. Henderson and approved
in Bunting vs. Gates 77 X. C, 283,
"that as long as the office is in exis
tence, the term likened to a grant
for which the holder has boon elect
ed or apiwinted cannot bo lessened
to the prejudice of tho grantee." In
the case of Cotton vs. Ellis, 52, X.
C, 045, it appeared that the office
of Adjutant General had not In-en
abolished, but that the duties of the
office had been transferred to anoth
er before the plaintiff's term had ex
pired, and Chief Justice Pearson,
delivering the opinion of the court,
said: "The legal effect of the (first )
appointment was to give the office
to the applicant (in mandamus) and
lie became entitled to it as a 'voted
right' for the term of three years,
from which he could only be re
moved in the manner prescribed by
law and of which the legislature
had no power to deprive him. This is
settled in Hoke vs. Henderson, 15
N. C, 1."
Mr. Sjteaker, there is no way to
get away from the doctrine as enun
ciated in Hoke vs. Henderson, it is
the very foundation upon which our
judicial decisions rest, in cases like
White vs. Auditor, for soundness,
truth and justice. In King vs. Hun
ter, 65 N. C, 003, Judge Iteade,
vho delivered the opinion of the
court, said: "Nothing is better set
tled than that an office is property.
The incumbent has the same right
to it that he has to any other proj
erty. There is a contract between
him and the State that he will dis
charge the duties of the office and
he is pledged by his bond and his
oath: and that he shall have the
emoluments, and the State is pledg
ed by its honor. When the contract
is struck it is as complete and bind
ing as a contract between Individ
uals, and it cannot be abrogated or
impaired except by the consent of
both parties."
In the case of Wood vs. Bellamy,
120, N. C, 219, Montgomery, speak
ing for the court, said: "So that,
whatever the law may be in other
States, it is settled beyond question
in North Carolina that a public office
is property, is a vested right, exists
by contract between the State aud
the holder, and that as long as the
office is continued the holder cannot
be deprived of his term against his
consent, unless he has committed
some act which works a forfeiture.
We have no desire to disturb the
decisions of our court on this subject.
They are founded on the principles
of justice and of safe public policy."
And yet, Mr. Speaker and gentle
men, this legislature is seeking to
impeach these Judges because they
sought in the case of White vs. Au
ditor to not disturb the decisions of
the Supreme Court of North Caroli
na. Now if it is true that an office
exists by contract, then I ask in ail
candor and sincerity if the legisla
ture, in trying to abolish it, is not
rta tif their ntUurtt. Ttw
L-r 4o of Arm-rkw ar- wimry t
th fiuclualib; mU- w hktt ) Ui
nvtrd lUtf j-oUk- iuuuciU. Th
have irti wltti rvtftvt atl with ifc-
dittatt that uddeu rliar.f ail
U-gldatle iiitt-rfrn-oom In ra" at
ftvtlni l-rrl righlUuue yAm in '
tl hand of trrrl!ns and Ir.flu-!
rtitlal illatom. and natv to tin
more lodutriou aud b-m !nftrur!
(rt of thr -.vituuiuntty. Thry haw
eu, too, that otM? k-gilatlr Intt-r-it-rvtfcv
U but tlw link of a lo;
cliaiu of rva-tlti"U, r-ry ul"
qoolit Intertcrvtmr t-ln$ naturally
roduo-d by the e!T-t of ttw n-oMlng."
Mr. Sker, I wa -truck with a
dgrti of admiration, tin- ottw-r day
when thr pvntleman frotii Xrw
llanowr wald that Im- watttl
and w ante I the State to with back
to btr former cotwlitioti. I tu -y
amen to -nt h tatturut. 1 wl-h
we could lop ij!itUl wrangling,
and engage in the a-rfortiiaiH- if
our dutic here um thl flior a
member repn--iitinjB' the arioti
cou n tic in North Carolina. I am
tired of tolitlcal dleudoti U-lng
dragged into our deliberation. Our
constituency did not wtid ti here
for that purje. My opIdo not
want thee Judge lliitt-achd, lielth
er do I believe that it i the wih
of tile copleof North Carolina. The
lar of the State, a 1 understand It,
outside of this Ul y, I- almt a
unit againt the luiehiueiit pro
of -dings.
Mr. Spi-aker and gentlemen, I de
sire now, bv your ienms-iii, to
read from the cac of Garner v.
Worth, 122 X. t, page 2-:t-7.
This was a civil action by tin plain
tiff vs. Suj rlor Court Clerk of Car
teret county, to obtain a mandamus
directing ttie Stato Treasurer to y
certain claims against the State,
heard Itefore lloblnson. Judge, at
October term, 1 M7, of WakeSu
lor Court. I notice, Mr. S"cakcr,
that a Mr. Allen represented the
plaintiff in this action. I don't
know whether or not it is the name
Mr. Allen who is here advocating
the imioachment of tlws Judge
for issuing a similar writ. If this
is the same Mr. Allen, it dot went
that he is a little bit inconsistent in
his course in this impeachment pro
ceeding; others can think and do as
they wish, but as for me, I desire to
say that consistency of character is a
most noble trait, aud no emtM'Uish
ment can adorn human character
like it, and placed on a jauity
with this most excellent virtue.
Mr. Justice, ('lark, who wrote a
dissenting opinion in the ca- ui
White vs. Auditor, 12G X. C, ige
570, and who Isvame very much ex
ercised Isvause he was not iertiiit
ted to write another in a case not le
I'ore the court, at the time he aked
to le allowed to write such opinion,
in delivering the opinion in this
case, said: "The courts cannot di
rect the Stab Treasurer to my a
claim again.-t the State, however jut
and uuques ioiicd, when there is no
legislative appropriation to ay the
same; and when there is such an aj-
propriatiou the coercive swer is
applied, not to comiel the yment
of the State liability but to com 11
a public servant to discharge his du
ty by obedience to a lgislative en
actment." Xow Mr. ioaker, you
will see that Mr. Justice Clark holds
in this case just what was divided
in the case of White vs. Auditor,
126 X. C, that unless there was an
appropriation made by the IiOgisla-
ture to meet the demand, no writ of
mandamus could te invoked to force
its collection. Again Mr. Justice
Clark said in rendering same opin
ion: (Garner vs. Worth.) "In
deed, the Auditor's warrant woutd
be no protection to the public Trea
urer unless there was tiiat 'appropri
ation' to pay it, which is required.
Constitution, Article 14, Section 3;
Bank vs. Worth, 117 N. C, 1 40
It Is only when the legislative de
partment has appropriated a certain
fund to the payment of a liability
incurred or to be Incurred and the
THE lav;
MAKERS.
CONhKNSKl HKhiur oK THE
NoltTII CAUULINA STATK
I.UilSUTlltrl
host mwiiAJi iius urtcsscts
Mm Mtl
W .I.jIi
tniKx.
IturlWtJ of Mluhrli
li
Senate Mr.
county ha i urM Mm
Houa of a rii4ilwy !m4
lor hU county.
Senator lMtdoi frutu Ctiathatu
ha- iutrialil a till autdi!ir tl
Constitution. TIm bill olle that
tlw white property o iM-r may taa
thcniM-Ivc tby a upplctoet.Ury
levy) for tlx iuitluii of Whit
children, and thervby knigthrt th
prvMiit M-hool term of any county,
lowu-htp or town. The columl
ple may ! lal taa for
same uro'. It further !oldt
that the amendment t-e ubiullll to
the qualified Voter of tin? Stat at
the iwxt gctM-ral ekctioii. W l
le this la tin. foor mouth' m ImmjI
Idll of w Mob then ha teii o mut h
talk. Kdj
The following new bill w -n In
troduced in the Senate:
Mr. Sugg To trold for a
spring term of court lu Grcetouii
ty. Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Henderson To regulate and
control the sale of liquor In How an
county.
Mr. Glenn To authorise Guilford
county to is ue Inik for nd Im
provement. Ill I.I J l'A)l.l UN A I. llflAMNi.
The following bilU M-d thirl
reading:
To prottvt game in Mitchell coun
ty. Auicndcd so as to include only
Mvy Creek and Granny Creek tow u-
ahljrt.
'Jo authorl&c ciimu)inioucr ot
Clay county to levy a apeclal tax.
To provide for the working of
convicts lu Mitchell county.
To authorize Watauga county to
levy a fiavial Lax.
To provide for working road of
Hay wood county and the levying of
a sptvial tax lor that purjK'.
To authorize commissioner of
Wake county to fund the fhatiug
indebted no of that county.
To authorise Currituck county to
levy a iquvlal tax.
To authorize Northampton county
to levy a sjuvial tax.
To create a road com m iloit for
I'niou county.
To prevent shooting and n4dug
from brldgiw acrtt Xeusc and Trent
rivers. (Amendment of llou-
concurred in.)
To prohibit sale of liquor in Mad
ison county. (Amendment of House
concur ml in.)
House The general pension bill
appropriating 2U0,0OU to Confeder
ate veterans and the widows of vet
erans passed the House with many
provlsos. There ia an amendment
to the bill which require all appli
cants for pensions to apiear before
the county 1'enslon Board on July
1st, for examination as to physical
ability. The bill ted tne iZoum
as it came from the Senate. All
special pension acts are repealed by
this bill. The bill Is as follow:
The General Assembly of North
Carolina do enact:
Section 1. There shall be paid out
of the treasury of the Bute of North
Carolina, on the warrant of the Au
ditor, to every person who Las been
for twelve mouths immediately pre-
Auditor or Treasurer refuse to obey I ceding his or her application for pen-
the legislative mandate, that the I blon a bona fide resident of thia
violates the principles enunciated in
the cases from which I have just
quoted. In other words, does it not
appear from an inspection of these
provisions that the registration act
is unconstitutional, and if such be
the case, would it not necessarily
follow that any election held under
a registration act containing such
provisions is void? If I am correct
as to this proposition, the members
of the present legislature of my
validity if the amendments will be
begun in the United States court, in
asmuch as there is a Federal ques
tion involved, and which will pre
clude the possibility of the State
court being called upon to deal with
the questions involved.
The Democratic party of North
Carolina, in its mad rush . for office
and power, has ignored - all rules of
decency in its treatment of public
affairs ; and public officials. It was
Court can issue Its mandamus to
compel him to do so. This raises
the sole question in this case. Has
the General Assembly made any ap
propriation to pay this claim?"
And so I say, Mr. Speaker, in
this case (White vs. Auditor) has
the State, through its General As
sembly made any appropriation for
the payment of Mr. White's salary?
This. I take it. is not controvert-
State, and who la incapacitated for
manual labor and was a soldier or a
sailor in the service of the State of
Xorth Carolina or of the Confeder
ate States of America during the
war between the States, and to the
widow remaining unmarried, of any
deceased officer, soldier or sailor who
was In the service of the State of
North Carolina or of the Confeder
I ate State of America during the
war between the States (provided
ed, except in so far as the act of
1899 undertaken to repeal the act of said widow was married to said aol
1897, making this appropriation, dier or sailor before the first day of
And as it has been held in ail the April, 1865) the following tun, an-
decisions along that line In North I nuallv. according to the degree of
infringing upon the provisions of Carolina, that an act which purports disability asoerUlned by the follow,
the Constitution of the United to "I1 another act, by a recital in Ing grade, viz.: Hrst, to aoch a
the act, that a former . statute was I have received a wound which reu
rerjcaled or superceded by subsequent I den them totally Incompetent to
acts, is not conclusive to such repeal I perform manual labor in the ordi-
or Bupercedure. - Whether a statute I nary avocation of life, aeventy-two
was so repealed is a judicial, and
not a legislative question." I do
not see how these Judges can be Im
peached for exercising their judicial
State were not legally elected, and contended by them that what they
therefore do not possess the consti
tutional-authority to elect a Senator
to represent that State in this body.
It is clear to my mind- that the
f ram ers of the Constitution of the
United States meant exactly what
they said when they ' provided that
it was the duty of the United States
the Constitution of the United
States. Article 1, Section 10. Dan
iel Webster said, in a speech deliv
ered in the United States Supreme
Court, March 10, 1818, In the case
of Dartmouth College vs. Woodard.
Webster's Great Speeches, Vol. 10,
page 3S60. "Bills of attainder, ex
post facto laws, and laws impairing
the obligation of contracts, are con
trary to the first principles of the
social compact and to every princi
ple of sound legislation. The two
former are expressly prohibited 1y
the declarations prefixed to some of
the State constitutions and all of
them are prohibited by . the spirit
and scope of these fundamental char
ters. Our own experience has taught
us, nevertheless, that additional
dollars. Second, to euch as have
lost a leg above the kxuSe or an arm
above the elbow, sixty dollars,
Third, to such as have loot a foot or
did in 1898was a revolution, and I
am inclined to believe that such was
the case, because many of the acts of
the present legislature are revolution
ary In the extreme. s That body, In
its treatment of many public ques-
(Contlnued on Second Page.)
functions in construing the acta of I leg below the knee, or hand or arm
1899, as amendatory to the act of I below the elbow, or have a leg or
1897, and issuing a writ of . man-1 arm rendered utterly useless by rv-
damus to enforce the collection of a I &on of a wound or permanent injury,
salary provided for under the pro-1 forty-eight dollars. To such as have
visions of these acts. Again, Mr. I lost one eye, and to widows remain
Justice Clark said, JJn rendering j ing unmarried, and all other soldiers
the opinion in the case of Garner vs. 1 who are now disabled from any
Worth: "Even when a claim Is an I cause to perform manual labor, thir-
expense to the State government or I fy dollars.
other subject of appropriation, as an I j gee 2. That section 3 of chapter
fences against these dangers ought of r X ln" 198. of the laws of 1 889 be amend-
not to be omitted. Very properly,
therefore, have the convention add
ed this constitutional , bulwark .in
favor of personal security -and pri
vate rights; and I am much deceiv
ed if they have not in so doing . as
faithfully consulted the genuine
sentiments aa the undoubted intor-
stitution, for instance, the court can J ed by striking out all of said section
pnly Issue a mandamus when the I after the word gradeB in line 4.
amount is aamitteu or ascertainea i And section 1 or saia enaptcr i oi
or stated by the statute as a salary 4
or other sum certain, i. e. when the
act to be done is merely ministerial."
: (Concluded Nxt Wk)
the laws of 1 889 Is hereby repealed
and section 1 of this act substituted
In place thereof.
(Continued on Ceoond Pec) '