North Carolina Newspapers

--. , V - - V WEATHER TO-DAY For Raleigh and vicinity : ' Fair ; warmer. Vol. III. RALEIGH. N. C, WEDNESDAY.' APRIL 12.1899. No; 113. JL JLLJtLl ft i il ffl! til ti ! t. f) I V i) f til him of any material part of his duties an'd emoluments: That the wctvls In " ,! vnwual term of office, and cancles la office. He, cle that alor.e ""er reviewable by this catirt. In all caes. a. was cWldsd in Pecrde when It arrrars rhu the act of 1137 w-as bu'i the rv-inaftrneni cf this .t Holds That Legislature Can't Establish an Office and Then Recreate It. tion of 18CS viz: "Thac the Gc.nc: 1' Ii U & nt u Ji, i , Cf 1 33' unT th ln Uhall nominate and appoint all offie.- Jtt rlJ ?n ,Z p V - A ' sJ?ln 0 ' h, v J "J. ' c penitentiary In 1S th Whooe offices are established -" ri 1 e SJi. krt r VJoit't-h ..r nrtn So 15 VyJ'2" le arre ,hat l, -Oonytitution, OR WHICH 1! f S4 f S?n?ler llw T i?f- tUirVl,r,2!h,J OVrr in c!J of l.r an c APPoSevt 1 the a then, and tier rlRht to execuc the dut;e of offlre SiuM e 7i4? bS U such ' 211') u l.f? futIe? jb!:ar;:La" i: fh- coj: f act of nn 'JrCKR SHALL IJE .rJJO OR EIjECTKD THE GENERAL, ASSBM- hlch wcTe tra-n'emsS to the Boanl '! Directors. anl n-jw belnj; pr.-fonne'i by the Executive Boail ur.'Jcr the act fit UK DISSENTS IH A VERY IE Oil Opinion of the Court by Judge "Montgomery With a Con curring Opinion by Judge Furches Capt. Day Re cognizes New Board Day and Osborn Talk. KY . IT . uxy m-ani aorwun'tments wot nf 1S39. iheTw?se providotl for In the Ccn?tltu- It I ordalnel In tWe Constitution that Ition; and therarcTe, i'he Governor had. j Ca- ifate rtljn in to b u?d for the untter me Const itution, the Keneral I purpose vt reformation ami punls-h-povT,of appjintins ti office- (the ex-1 ment. and thai la the ohject of the in ceptions being the cases w here the ap-Istitutlon now. Th? Inl-crporatlon of j pointmejiiis wera otherwise prcvi. JoI Icr the inrtStc'tlon, If ft be conceded that in that Conytkuticn) to the exclusion of f: wag IncM-jrated by the act cf lFifO, the Legislature ( McKee vs. Nichols, can in w-vena affect th lefnlar.l'j C3 'N. C, 429); but. that the word3 office If It has no: wthcrwN? a"io!hcl which we havt' quoted from article 3, It. The bur Incorporation of the In fection 10 cf the Constitution, and stitu'ticn n-ouM not affetit cr al.'2r In JUDGE FURCHES C0KCUR5. "Which appear :n italics in the quota vion, beins omii:tei in the present Con stitution, it is clear that the cenven tion of 1ST5 iniondel t. alter tho Ccn stitu'tion as jni'.t Tprctt-J cn 'McKee vs. any way tae dutien of the sup?rlntend er.t, er any other of Vhe offcera r placemen or employe?, with the excep tion of t power f&ven In th; act of 1R93 to the directors io f?U or leaje Captain "V. H. Day wins his suit, That was the decision, of the Supreime e'jurt yesterday in an opinion .wri't'ten hy Justice iMontgomery. Jxisti-ce Furches wrote -a concuirrins opinion, while Ju3ge Clark dissented from th'e division of the -Court. The court lays down the general pro pisvtion nhat you cannot taike an office fnvni an incum'bemt before "ehe term t'o which he has been ele-cted expired, by .chansing- the naime of the office and wkhout changing the duties thereof. There is diversity of "opinion .as to 'Uhe general effect of the decdsion on the Abloi:t and other cases, where contests aiv being made for offices as a result of acts of the General Assembly. Not a fpv lawyers who rea'd the decision ex pressed the opinion that the decision of the court does not 'apply to the case of Dr. Abbott. , Colonel Argo, who 'appears' for Lr. Abhor t. and who was also of counsel for Captain Day, said: "The decision is a broad one. It virttrailly; decides the contentions of Dr. Abbott' an& "Winar bish in their fav'or.". Logue Harris said the same thing. He declared also that the decision would 'continue Dr. Burns in office. The dissenting ' opinion by Justice Clark is a remarkably stnong one: It is much lengthier ithan. the decision 5y Justice CVlonitgonieTy. Justice dark's cpiniin is bound to attract wdde at tention. It is certainly tan a'ble argu ment. .' . .'" V,- - ..v, CAPTAIN DAY TALKS. Captain Day was naiturally ,in splen did humor 'as a result, of ithe decision.. ! He was one of the first to arrive at iHhe office of the clerk of the court and carefully read the d'ecdsibn. When asked to make a statement, -Captain Day said: "I am in no hurry t?o take hold, of the prison. I couldn't say when I shall do so. I recognize the new Board of Direct ors. They are my friends, and I an ticipate p'leas-ant relations with them in my official duties. I snail dio nothing to injure the prison or the State. Tarn going t'o try and . make the institution the property of the State's prison and of the convicts therein confined? The claimants (so far as this, record shov..O are the plaintiffs, on the one side, and the defendant or the other. The right cf any othcr person or persons that may be connected with 'the conduct and management of the Sta'te's Pris on are not now before us for consid eration ThiN- eo-aiit will not anticipate litigation, between Tival claimants for office, and if such, litigation should oc- Nichoils. sun-a. on th it roInt. and U "e 13 nI. or other property of he Stattr confer uoon the General Aembly the I prison, the dirties nd the pfAvcni in an respe the Board cf IXrcct irs. ccting through the Executive IVard as -their head, are In all rerKc. th ame as the'iutlf required cf. and the power to fill office--? created by rtatute. Ewart v. Jones, 115 N. C. &70. Hav ing disposed r.f ohe above mentioned collateral questions, whUh, were .the subject of argument in ihe case, inter esting, more as matter of Constitu tional and judicial hNtory than as strictly, applicable to '.he cxntrovcrsy 'befoTe'ithe court, by i.he citations cf re- now come down n'the dinj-slon of the tenderrt are sp-clfied In detail as folt- in th ec iowh: u lir.vier mi ffuo.vcticn oe 1 In a Separate Opinion He DIscussts Aroumcnt In the Cass. Justice Furches. eor.currir.x. hande-I do.vn a srpirate opinion -whlrti. In full, follows: No. H3, State'll Prison' f. Day. FunChe. J.. corrcurrin jr. V.'hile I fully concur In the opinion of tbe court (by Justice Montgomery). I hopo I wi'.l be pirdoncd for brlHy ex-pn-!nr my views upon th;s important question. It Is to p'.iln for anfurrierit that thr Position the defendant held waj a pub lic office. I d not hink this I dcni-l by the plaintiff Thin belr.c a, he hid a property In thl- offl-c, '.hit rvrjJd nr-t to an0;er or other. M a nowm fonferrr.1 nnon. the uti-l'" n pti in ten. lent unkr the act of Thlls the law of the Stale, and It ha 1S97, as tfr? following analyse and, been o h.-ld by thi cxjrt. Ir every errmpanoTi t.ui snow, i nucr he va r'K"us subsectlrtv.1 of section 5 of the ter.vs cf It'Jl, the-dut'.cH of the ;'?.T5n- poant ,1he real -controversy Was th'" office cf the superin cur, each case must e -heard and de-! 1 ."'T ' J V""; cided on i.ts merits on case properly cf the Mate s Pr s, in ab.L-h.-tl constituted, in -fire courlt i b' ith " wct of the v't"n-?'s''' Assembly, The Governor of the Sta'te under the 'ra,tiflcJ January. 1SS3? AVe may Kay Jn provisions of ch,irtt7 i rx-v.. At ..f that we have had no trouble in arrlv- 1897, appointed John It. Smiifi ,rin. 'm- at 1he contusion thj.t the offce it tnetlent of Ithe SI: term of four yei was consented 'to compensation, atta was a sajary of ment of t-h-e General bmLth resigned and J. -M. Mc by the Governor the first day. of drayfi -before the th'?.t yeair convened, newborn?. resign- sueli property, rMl and pers.nal, as ed ami the defendant. V. IT. Hav was ma v be necessary for the us;-s .cf the fippoinited. superintenident tb fill uhe prison ;and as also may' seem premier. The Aiacanciy. Day's nomination bv the officers or their salaries and the dis- Govern'or was ncA'er sent to fhe Senate, tribution of their duties are aJlJert nor .Sid tha t body confirm the appoint- with the General Assembly. ment. Day, under ihis appointment. On the Teal Question in controversy took possession of all the property of the contention of the plaintiff Is that the State's Prison, and 'the control of the office of superintendent of prison convicts. . ivraa abolislml by the act of WJ, -be T. his action was brougnt by the plain- I cause: (1) The act declared in so many tiffs to recover, of the defendant the .words that tho office was abolished; to rcceiv and to have the custody rf the convVts. That resp:ibility and i Jty are put upon ihe new Bxird of Diri-cron anl their :iRcnt unljr pe ti.in " of the act of (2) Tndr th: ubscrtloo It was made the duty of case involving this question fnn !Iojt vs. Henderson. IS N. C. 1. t lije pres ent time, without a t-ic jle except! on. It in true that it Is arirat l f.r '.he t !' tiff that MrLVymU vs. Morrow, 115 N. C, GSS. anl '41 xa. Hlrrfih C;y. are not in acml with Hoke v. Ilen- dcrnin. hut up'n exzrr.irr'tijn It will be . w , . . , , I found that this r n. H '-xr v.. tate's Prison for rhft upenn-:ra!. nt .s n.,t ett:ce cmUM V; ' " X C Hvnrxin I cited wKh aprrava! In rs and his nomination by the Constitution. Sectrm 3 or tne : " h these by tne Senate. The 1 v,f ,he ConstUutl; :n. cvla nco ,Vth 7 o 1 w thai Th-act under di-un In M -p.n?d ched to the office Anat rae -.en-raa As.a.a: ?nau. , .a Br.i v. Mcrrow was e rltrUon uw e-i $2,500. After adiourn- first meeting make vrvl&iTi,r;fc--mV-" ,.1 ' 15. and In that tut It va rr vHevl Assemloly of 1897,. the emotion tm conduct of a Rite's - iuch aXrAxttrtt as th under tjhe superirttendency Prison or penitentiary." and ttm pro- . . u twrh" eonMeratlon were vof J. an I :Ce court borne was appointed vision, in our opinion. imp.srs upon IVat. tt,MeleTIf f il ai o'Tr- ,n 'rri lrrlnr the caw Xhrtl o in Smilth's place. On the Legislature the duty of attending ?JteZ'lai?l to lhcy " 'T lhjlt acl- i: Januarj'. 1899. a few to the details as to the erection cf the c,n,!fCt,K4i0 ,nTttlu i and mUst h.'.d thit they t -k rv t (A General Assembly of necessary buildings, the purrhaw of -f W.T !L -I.1 - th terms of the act th?y :mel o acount foe- the procee-Ls of the ale of TrlvT? "I! f iZ' m4n,,f-..ttfilntnl In that t-ise as tuc repeal n. w7?i f r2?t nvs claims by the defen dan;. In o check It out. Thore duties are trans- , ...... v. K- f.-rred lo the Boant of Directors ami their fitment by on 6 of the act of rraln4.ff ftuUJ In hU action upin ia 1SH9. (6) This subjection r:ik It he l',mn y cf the uperin toIy f the properti cf Che Ft'a'te Prlron arrd to protect the same. Tlhrs luty Is trar..ferrctl to the Bmrd of Director an! their arenas by sections 6 and S of of iJS??; f Placed upon the Board of Directors and rfnt th ?irbo3vj;natC3. euch oj wr- Ot the convicts and to have t'h'e rights taken from the one-man. power that of . hv4eif sur,ryirs ovcts-.vi3 of the parties declared. In fhat Way canHontan,l h,r -h in. cn phjficians. hupvriKr9. ovtTSCcts. rw m employee, -iwse miaor- 'tfhe olaniiittffn sii-p- tr cp(f n. lcisi.Tn Vv I n .. , 1 1 i 1 , 1 1 -w -Viv I RTtia'3 me couic. on sue matter wmcn u T3s j rrw-i...iiiW vwrro -to navr seuiro d me act. 01 1 f take thai ticn f ami 9 of the art of 1S?9. (S) ln- der this sajlxot'n there Is Imposed upon the supcTtntenderl he duty of renderlrg nt the end of each year to the Board of Directors a ':atement of been aboIifa J and a new c ;rp -r a tic n creau-vl out rf r..nv tcrrlr.ry and nw Ppuls?cm t'o a. very jrreit extent; ar.i for the further rra n ttrat he had abandon; vl his cl il.n to fflce. Justice Clark v-ro'.e ;hf c-pinlcr of tw court In Ward vs. niirabeth City. In which he cited with approval i-:ft Hoke vs. Hn. dprson' omI McOanaM v. iirr- anit disJncuhtil that ot tayins Tvronertv. As to the disnosition of thp flnnmnrkmns to th inLctitiition. I dudt of the prison were vested in ' I Vv .I'hd a ot- of Tin n-nta r-ir 1SQQ -a n1 therefore they are entitled to the cry is founded on ithe provisions of an w.p r.i it t-ransf erred act of the Geneiral Assembly ratified lne dutip's attendant uion the office to on fne 26th day of. January. 1899. to the B.ard cf Din-ctors for perfxn-manee. & iV"-" . , To aid us in arriving, ttc.. to follow: lir V,- . r1 To aid us in arriving at a correct en? uvriy u L-iit- oiaie.s x-nssj-u mm conclusion in this case a recurrence to 1 iie coiivicta. acrein uy me persons the truo i(lea of tne naturo and clnir . ",g ine states rnn, acter of a oublie office has b-en use- m the act. As to the other provisions tnougllt t3iat the woril fflpp, ln rtl( JL mi.1!nTOl iirom Tne 01 printaty signification, implies a duty 'id'imtdiuon 01 tne act. or duios and. .-eemingly, the charge Ul1' .1 .o.'1. , , 1" of such duties the agency from the named aot, the plaintiffs, claiming to State to perform te duities. The du be a Board of Directors duly elected tJes of the offl are of the first con. bly, allege that the office of superin- itendent has 'been aiboKshcd. tha property of tiha Statics "Prison, control of the. convicts and the niebt.)iMr ifja ,Mu lft-VivVicUiyL tnifasers. ff l V. JIUny. . P ' : conrse; i-cause.t5. 'ine L,,. aTui Wf r nri- repc-at that there is n r a rsw -a.tin.tr he Staitt Prison: be-I t-.i i-l. t-. -r. . itrt ho founl In our refrt thlt . , 1 iinii-a uy xiiv. ir.iru i i:n v tis 1 - . , thT-niiffh tiiA vniu ltrnl hv mv. I o."e rx rero?rnizt in- twrnn? ia all financial tranfietl-n cf tr.i "rtate Prison for the preceiling year, tcrhr with an Invent Try of all property cn haml ami its vulue. Tl'.-v dalles ar rsquird to be pnfrrmfl -by the .itt..s of the diree'tors. the Kxecirtlve Hoar.!. under 4-ct?ons 5 anl 6 of th? a-r f 1S99. Under chaptvr 219 cf the Laws of 1S97, the Jloard of Directors vw a general up-rv1slng pvr; by the .ict down In Hvke vs. Henderson, to l la In this ?tnte. It ha-j h-n hM cv nince K was delivf red In l-t. to bo the leadin" enre m this sutje-t. arJ It Is rtvle-1 bv Chief- Jft.rc Pearson a "that jrreat ni-. cf larnir?. That c"ie. ard every ca Jntv riit ca-. dlrru5ln5 t ?ht of an Ir mrr- bent t" hT I hli cf.lrn. rr?t-tnlte the ittht c th I.:Tll-ur f ahIIt n "-e rf.lnr. nr. I h?t nh'n th f flc? ! ab :i-hrd the rljrht :b ln,um- hr nt o hoM ! g.n. b'taur thr? Is no office to Itut nil th. report.: cases frcm He!ci v-. I lezd !'- flown tl.T.fJj- to get d f tie office ! 3:1- -rt:lr.r.nt, v a-url: 1, why was it that the I-epi!ature did n simply ab'll'h th&c cfflce. and Scave the tn tltJtiin 0 ho m'2r.airr-nrc of th C;a:d . Dlrt;cr? Thy were there, ar. I wit uh: in:"lly .le nmf vhey wre tzv'ire the pjsj:f of th act U93. which ctca'tctj the toff icy of super In-rrl'.nt. If the OJf.t was LnpIy to abc!d the office f superintendent, why !.! they run ! thl !! l-t the nan-r stand there? Why did they appoint twelve r.ew dlrcrtcrs and eirLabiirh an Kxe-cutJve Beard if their fluty w the -r.e thSr.R the upcrlnt-n3ent i Cnat rircss Is laid on the fart that thee arc t 4o - hil t re dl. ani the 'Vnc'tin pcwiT" t atpKa3l to. Is This omrr-tn piwrr Lie qucffi crt u7 "v sf rrs a mt ti twf m ccde.1 thst If th tiuU cf the sapr- ntendent had t"n trarrsferr! to on rr in fit', the a.t sutmli hve tn constitutional. What d flercnce fJoes It jxike t vhe :.'!r)lrt hf.hfr hi of U Klvrn to one or ihrv? tll-e do nt pn-p t d ia - ro!lri. this klrd cf :cx1Jat)n h m. hl-tory In r.m ::?. r t u m-5 frc he reortls f this ccurt an J U rep'Tn- r l cas. In I7I-7r th- Ir.Hv p -r ard i?e Kxecuiie per r-e ":! n'trc in th-e hnc cf different P Jirical partes. Thf I-jf.:ive p-f-r und?rtvk- to take charjre of tci penal. charV.e and tnilreni irv-arj-.lona cf the State btv"re the trm trcfw n offi had exr'reJ. Bwt thry faiSl. a may be Icml frjm IlaltJe vs. Mr- Ivcr, i N. t. 47: Ha !rr v. J'Crrjn. Ibid. 471; Nlch d vs. M.-Kee. Jtotl. iZl Wrlker . ItletL". IV.d. 47. In llD-l the IyetitUve per of tha ftate was In the hanl cf cn rull'Jrad par ATri the Kxrcu-vr poaer In th hanis of anceher ft;:;ltl parry; aod the Legislative pe-wer undertook t take charre of the intlrusirrn brr- the cet-.s cf the officer In frCaanre bad expired, arrl they faUol- V.k1 v. IPI- Ij my. IM X. O, ni. In 1 D larny. N. C. II2. In Ul the l-clsla-tlve pouer of the ffate it ?nthervul cf cn cf the prJllkal partis an-1 th ihe p::itl:al party: and the lxi sta ter attain undertaken ta take chant thee int.utkn Iwsfore h term cf -Oie c fTlccr ha.ve expired. scl they rr.-rt faiL le act rvm.f-jdere-1 In Wc-I vs. I!ei:.xy,ln expre trnm, atellhel th ffffice off super rrtment. the ItoatJ cf Dlre:cT. rrcited a rx'" cctpcion.-proviil f rr the rerepn cf prtlnts treat lui'iam and ItiV-san cnuriie. f-:ab :he.l an iaune Jiviwn In tht penitentiary, and rtfjOcl all raws In crrpl-t -with that asrt. In fare, any- satiatarTTtUl que-Jloa involved In ra.e ma ln-avel and cnsslerrii hy the ciuTt In t'aat cae. Th t'ujt cotTwti'.utrd then as It i rjw. J-'cJarel 1h-t the art wi unn-titui i rral. by x full b:nch anJ without a di-tnUns -4.-e. I fmr-l b M renr a I IKJ ln, and I I this U.V.ut ;x.;ucnlr.c the ms:lve5 of any one. as I j ;;- they tto-jichl fhe act nr.tti:utl jtvxL I am not going to pay any bills until audited by the Executive Board." COLONEL OSBORN TAJLKS. Colonel W. H. Osborn of the Execu tive Board Of the Board' of Directors of the penitentiary was seen last night 'and 6aid: ' "Captain Day came out to the prison after the decision had. been rendered. He told 'Mr. NewTands and myself tBiait he would be . glad; tk have the full Beard of Directors act wtitihi ihfm. I replied tb Captain Day ttlhait we pre ferred to consult our counsej about that matter, and Would let him know later. He told us that ihe wanlted' us to con tinue to run things. We may remadn until the full Board meets and our fu ture policy determined.'- . . !Ir. Newslands was present, and stated that Captain Day. informed" him that he recognized tall the new members cf the Board as part of the directory. s-quence and the agency from the wf 1SI)9 tne lloan, ( Dlreclors, .thrush !rt nn1 InriudUr n. v.. IVllamy. in tv nprfnrm it"n nco iliitipv Is the t- . ... . . I V C SIS hr!rl 1 the fffere r the I , . , ,n r I me bxreuuve jwjaru. we ci.i:iu niii- . " , , - " . the , : Z " . L 2 U only witn a general upcrvr.n r-1 - . V WV I T t w -fhp uninn nf th tivn farters dll-l.. - . .. .... - .. ' . !rrm .wn'.r M iM mi( II Ii AlCI- con-Lr V " . r ' '.' iity. 'out win an tne Tuneuott an 1 n.i 1 y',.' ' ' .7 , . ,m . " them y fenc''whI,cl1 mai3S-of"ve- Un theOut:e cf th- .upennuirJer.t. arrl If pVJV t-1- T T , , 217" that " r.s,,, ' "7. -tne i:rtr.iute tncsr rune- - - - - ' 'v. pos- - cfz.v,,:r v: amn-1 oemriv r ethers. w f:f ;h;Trn;r id of "e,.r".f.: . : , ir we nave not raiien into error rn ...... ; session cf the property and control the convicts, to the end that they might properly execute their trust And again, t!he plaintiff s allege -that an1 they 'constitute no part" of the o the office of ou.penntan-dnt Day a W!lh that 1Jea rnen Clf wn? tenure ceasea upon me raiincat:'GT o the act because he was not nominated by the Governor nor his appointment confirmed by the Senate. The defendant avers ithait the act of January, 1899, though on its face it purports to abolish the office of super in'tenden'f of the State s Prison does not in law (have thait effect; that it sim ply transfers the duties and functions of 'the office of superintendent to the three plaintiffs, 'who allege that they compose an Executive Boa'rd, to be performed1 by them, and -that such an attempt to deprive the defendant of his office, on the part of the General Assemlbly, is contrary to the provisions of the Sta'te Constitution, .Article 1, section 17 (Bill of Bights) and to those of the Constitution of the United agency is a puDUc orticer. The oatn. the sa'lary 'or fees are mere incidents f- at an office is. has the office cf superin tendent been taken from the defendant and given to others by 'the act of As- the above analysis and conrpa riin. and we feel confident that we hnve ivH. then, no new duties for the Rovernmrp: cff.re Is rr.clnu The llreu- Tie ficvn 10 ft: Are ju: : he rfnee the !:fcr.tnt held AHOl- I ... ....... ... .. . .. ... or tne trj;e i-rion nave own imp.ecj; tHKD. cr ate they tran.fned l c;:'. rrir have an 5 new ponvers 'bee-.a jrrantil J cr to any persons except ne iawer gram- 1 in oPUf!rs 'his qurrtlrm I d.- ed to tne oarl or :iivc-ror. ;c sni ori,.xrH Cl trt cr.tr ir. o a tt.f-ueelon cf r. I 1 , A 'Vtm std mf 4V.. hT fi-"i fc jr - finil I11 . fw - m :mblv', If the dutie of Cn office . 'V " "v . . ' 7 ,C1 in:ti ""k juuere me u 1 ieie rfneVesryanfulefu? "Cilf? ra- Y 17 '! ' 1 lio ind thev have been tianfTfd to n-rt a,,er lht nature or tae chira(. !o rrnir.t Vle r.ambrr r.f ,iwyvr In ;e oVners" whoeare ct the dilution No function cr duty l.edr.ure that rl lh! r.c-r neeecdary and useful to the public and thJt W"JS formerly p;rfcrntivl cr tm- I cx;ec: to Impugn :arlr rr 'lvrs It thrVtatA nrion n hrhnlf rf xvhirh uin the u peri m imknt al.l- refms to be thrrxtt I will If I am rtf thos dut? a??' formed is SuS i- The functions and duties o;.ht!i he rp!in th. act Js un.-r. ..l.enal. startiallv 'the am"e int'ltuti'on as It mcc an siiU niwary to -the public 1 .1 kind r f nrti-v.-t rVu:ld hv? no w?J before ?h act of V.crnbly of welfare. They have net Ocen atlhrd: -.Uht with an indsrnJ. Jadl-lary. mwrv 1899 ra s ratnV 1 then ind they have Ofs-n simply tmr.s- If 't.i!a urn Is nue e.vic: illThe r ? A c , f?mfl ti others. That eannK -very Jrl:, th,t eve- r.i J a biar nS upon 'the n ,;n the c'r-e of b. done avcordln?? 1 the la v.- on ;h -cr: of b"nf buIIiv .. ?.:"5To rTi the Iar.J. Wael v. Ileny. tmpusr.ir.; the m tiw of th- In.la- U LT. I ill I Cliw a c Uv i. iiuaui, ' llViH ,.' I . I DECISION BY THE COURT. The Opinion Was Written by Justice Montgomery. rth Carolina Supreme Court, Feb ruary term, 1899, No. 145, Wake coun ty, Sta'te Prison of North Carolina et al vs. W. H. Day, appellant. Jas. C. MacRae, At go & Snow and Thos. N.. Hill for appellanlt; TL O. Bur- tn an!rl Shepherd' & Bu&bee for appel lees. Montgomery, J. ' " This action was 'broue'ht un'der sec tion 1 of an act of the General Assem- Wy. ratified on the 15th day Of Feb 'iry. 1899. The language of' that sec tion is as fallbw: "That in addiition to the remedy prescribed by The Code, Direeitors; of the State's Prison of -yrin Carolina, or 'the Executive ,t; drV thereof, or both, with 'or without jointure of the State, sfhall . have ine Tight, in action for injunction or jnandamus, to iteeit in the courts the tiai'ms f any claimanit''or claimants to ne possession, custody and' conitrol of nt property of the State's Prison, and " '.the convicts therein confined " .'"f object of the statute then was ply tto have the decision by the yurts of this question: Who of the la. '""etmg claimants is, or entitied, hy Staites, Arti'cle 15, secttion 1. The de fendants further aver that the whole act of 1899 is void. The general importance or the matter involved, and tho appearance of bo.h sfdes of counsel eminent in the profes sion an'd leatn'ed in the philosophy as well as in the detail? of the law., natu rally prepared the court for elaborate art Hoke vs. IIrI;.-,i. srri: o tr-n v. Olis, 52 N. C. S43. Th U three cf the directors have bc;n made th? govcrn- 111 1 .... ...w.''. ' . penntenuer.'L ia?ienuani prcpe1 r.y) has been taken from he defendant contrary to the law of the land con trary to 'the provisions of the Cor?stiru- tiv-ii nf -Ct.-rth 0.irnl'n.i Art 1 IT LiVll V ' - - - . - - - - . .... ... I - . . ... Tf tvi invHiMit 5rn t'no nfltp' r,-i i I n.itiie cf th? execur.vt D.-irii, ar'i t..ai the same substantially that It 'was be- to them the duties and th? funct'r r.s C fore the passage of the act. If the the office or juiktiiiu wen: nave nen r:imiwp- for w hich It was r rnhiietl I transferrevJ. Joe nt ciane ;n appu , - - .-- . . . ...... i. 1 r aire the same now as then, and f thelcatun t in raw. ni.s i.n- Tne n subject matters over which the man- the duties of the office had bc?;i iraru- aeemen't and conduct extend be vv. I ftrred to one p-rsn. It H nit a vali-J same, then there is existing -a contract argument to cow en 1 tr.c : vne execuuve between the State and "the defendant I board can conduct th? i :a:e niwn in and discursive argument (oral and. by J ap to his office, and it canned be vlo-a better and more satisfactory manner broef) and we were not disappointed in I lated during - his term. The State. Ithan can one men. It may be trua in our A was Many he's cide that ques a pla Pris i-xuhli' 59; Ho'ke v-. -R'enderson, 15 N. C. l: I method or Uisiriouting tne pjwers andloff.ee dlvlde.1 and the dutle- a-i?n 1 Wood vs. Bellamy, 0 N: C, 212: That duties of the 'government and conduct to two or more officers under different an effice is propjrtyUrJd the incumbent of the -State's prison may be dasira- I names." That principle of law was an- has the same right in it as he has to hie, and the method undertaken to be I miunced in Warren vs. People. 2 any other property, except that he can adopted oy tne act or 1899, m'iy be the Deniov. 272. and also ln People v. 1 net assign Ut , (Hoke vs. He-nuerson, I best, ana yet.s-ucn oaanges cannot helhertson. to X. 1.. SO. The -ed:ion in supi'3-i King vs. Hunter, 65 X. C, 603; j made until the expiration of th? con-Throop. and the decision la Warren Coition, vs. Ellis, 52 54o; wood vs. tract witn tne incumbent.- It ha hn Pwmle and Pcoo!i' vs. Albertton. Bellamy, ?upra; wool vs. Elizabeth suggested that ir the State has net supra, are in connection with office Ciitv. 121 X. C, 1): That the Degisla- the power when it sees fit to nhniih Ur-eated bv constitutlonil trovi?:-3n. liut ture Can, except in those instances pro- an office, and transfer its dvkk 3 to I that makes no difference in North Car- tut.1 Ta; r. Ux J r?.-n. Ituffin. iv-ar- ar.d ill "...:.- a-!:':.-;e. If this uere . I .ur7 i"ier wru'I rsrvrr be ant-.r a.-? o L jirlature !e. a re. I uncon.ltu.Ioral. "urire c; n.r.i 1 1 hap ,w 1 .n tae t - ronI!er my i.y. ty jc.i cn:eratler. 1 VP-r la terard :h!. I.-c !la;ute lut a I would anv o'ht- I.f'f laturc. a:. I ! al -a ith it leiJa. Um Jus: a? I wvjid any tthr Lcilt ture. Just as S did the Lrx:Ia:ure of 1". or J I aKrei w; i the t: : in an cplrlon d'vlurir.jt a i.r."Lar act r- el by that Lefti 5 l.i ture unconstitutional. gre-at deal of the learning which be fratisfied that this management v.n- I ti!-d at the end cf defendant s U-rm rr " " , , I ',' m . aispiayea, nowever, was no-x new. jer tne eeuine ioaro create.l toy office, me contraci cc ins i.ai; 1 of .im t . ;.,,.. of the questions dlsscussetl had the director unsler the act is the bet- the superintendent rr.urt be kept, in ; -w.,. ' ar. , r(W n so often and w consistently de- er plan, and the safer on? for the pub- Throop on Public Officers. Fettlon 21. . . i;u'X1,, 7 ' t.i. d by the adjudicaitions of this court iiC, yet that is only a matter of jnth-it is sail: "Nor can the legislature take '"'.:;,' l 7 'V.t 1 J.;-'l it,- they (eould .not held to be open od of management a choice between f,,m the offlc-r the .ubstance cf th. Vlilt ; ThVurhV'tW aVt tions; as, ior .-n'STance: max sucn two mooes vmai is wnetLner it is belter office arvt transfer tt lo anotn.T. to a? I ; . ..... n ,. ce as superintendent of the State for three to control than for one) and appointed In a different manner and Co "l'" V ;V;V;He V. V. rn,, on, with its atitendanit duues. is a such a choice cannot te maie until the hold by a different tenure, although the , ' L:" ",' f . " c office (Clark vs. Stanly, 66 X. C, defendant 's term Has expired. A new- mme cf . the office Is changed, or the ' JUSTICE CLARK DISSENTS. may nave lanisnL It is contended that If -Ae suji'iln the defense ani retire the defer'! trt iH t office there Is dan per ahead ;2 v. That we might get a Liridature taat would ertenl the tnrj cf the office to ten. anrd even .o tcr-rve years. I ilo no; think we are likely t- have a I-csislature that w uid t: so revalu tionary as that. But If - houIJ. U this the fcrum ta be applied to for re- A Strong Opinion In Support of the Locality cf the Act ,sclate Jutlce CUrk in a very afcli oiKnK-n. itys: "The management and ron.r4 of lh StJte Ir;a ts .-m,auy a. ritira- rr.cr.ral furrrtlon. It l on lmSJfpen;b ri?t of the a Jmlnisiratln f the crim inal laws cf the State. .Va eitura on denude the frtate of choc power by c.vlr. It away or by brxra'dcff U away. It I a t r"43r. eniencion of the drfrndant '.'hac, beta-je th-e IxclsJa- ture of IT pU.-r-I the control cf rh ti it? rr?n In a sup.-rlnterJeo. with. vjst po'tr arid prlvM:ses. mim; nkJ by a s:ary f t'rrr f.irw a suler-rjurni Ix-.lat jre t ttrrles t rrfume control and hanjre the man. crn,T.t ;.-- ue 4i oaH deprie hJrn rf h's pay. Tr. fe to make ti incident f rr.re ltnprtnr thjin the uhjs:. an 1 the tnh'nil?e rtcA of .he htate tj cntiJ It on lnitu-tJ-n? uirdlna'e t an c.rTJce-hMM-r, ar I for a sJary. "If the I-ilt Ulurs cvuH. ty creat ine a fur year term f office, put It rj. of the pvraef f Che next I-e- ltui1s t ajett y.M'.f reutrol of tvm ,-nol l.pjr'.an; l.-'Ht'n ni a, hran h cf I: a -iruM;:: nut cf te .'.minl lw. It orJd. by makl&c lh term sen 1. !, tf n:y-nve rrr. or f:;y ). e f rbl j i.-n the pvpie of Xcrt.t thr.'.ira frci fJ3h:r th-s lriUi-n drlrx ih jrt . "If thf Laistture cf 117 c raid con fer the cr:-.l p:v-; they ZUl uj'.n t .r". ln.eri.nt wirhout per r.f re peit. theyc-:d have cnfrrrt crtater 'e s.'.e arI a"il-.e ontrot in f t ry t 1 j chnre inu w-oai-1 nertmrlly ori;Inje th? arr.e tSurse in we i"in! cf .:her ptrtie: and th Cftn !r:j rn:tO-n I isa: :hat ucuJi be to srjbtan.tlally .t continue .' crflif In c;iir hrr..: and in-caL I.-a Is lh prnprrj 'J. 17 hfyrr v" Judse tJrx thn - r I:e .he deferd--int's claim nrrrA the control of con vlrt. the ps-5on X the tZXo) wtt!i of F:ate property. t:e re -ei vine cf.the orrually frcm the of produtrr ff ?tite farrrythe ap Plr.tment of li plaee-r?l in th State rtrvlce '"and other If praer. 1th ro security to rhe Fate save a bnl cf lS.eo-V etc. ContlnuirrT. Judr C.ark say: Mbit ed by the Const! tuition, takeaway others, tnat an incumbent might iret ollrra. UntfM- cur dcNIon you can- "err "ine ics cS i-e iitsc -1; i- irraTeiy arsuw m u mat ir.m come parts of the duties- of-an officer into an office! for a very long term of not oust an Incumbent of an-office a"d ! Hend rrcn. In v.h'rh tT.iief Justice Itrf- I.e;i:ti;r could not. in pe dlrrhante and make an inequitable reduction- of years (a term not amounting to a per- continue the office ia'1ter.ra"d i and inn delivered his great cplcion. waa a t? i:a nra! fua.Ucn. ciicre that th officer's salary (Cotton vs. Ellis, 52 pStulty, however, which would b II- Unrule applies to offices c-eatrd hy se In which HenJerscn. the djferJ- system cf rcverrmr, becau? unJer N. C 545; Bunting vs. Gales, 77 X. C, legal), and indifferently e-xeeu. th the Constftvtrcn as well as to those, ant. claimed lo tiave an off fcr U. the n x aoc necerearlly the imp da- 283' Kin(g vs. Hunter, 65 X. C, 603. duties of the office, but net so rV-arlv created by the gilature and the court strrtalned hL claim. tk wvold be 4lsr-hareJ by the dlrec- But in those cases" it Is also held that ai might amount to incapacity and. It w-as not necessary f the ar-vlnt- "It seems to tne. &c.." to ffr.llow. tcr and Fxr -ctlve Ucard and ciber. the officer's erJtire sal?ary can not be thereby inflict great inlurv i.,r,t and 110ml nation A.r. ',t It eeerrvf to me that ileftniarra cla'm an-l t"a? dntinl wouUI lome p -.abl-t . . " . tuicen from' -him and thereby starve terest of the public. The -h-ive been confirmed h.- ... ia tojknl upon with dbfavcr aa ref.ir-r him, nor, could the Degisla'ture select that is that if such should be'the case There waA a -acancy due to the reU upon an act pacJ by th Lls:ature a particular officer "and C3y a special I tt would .be ; th fault or the- ieris- "Ignatlim of Mewborne. The Ccvercnr of 1SJ7. X dca't kn-w thi-t It tul.t w,: to Uxe.pvsjfeBision -and custody of, law applicable -1(? 4i!im alone, deprive 1 1 at ive trancli of the g-ovefnment ' la never makes u nomination to fill va- dHrrcJltei t-n taac acuat, Irat trrrian-.- "lt jt prTTr.n-.ert are etat4hed for Ctaliauci va Tape U 1