The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1866-01-17
THE LETTER.

NEwBERN, Dec. 18th, 1886.
MY DEAR SIR: By the last mail had the plea
sure to receive your esteemed favor of the 18th
inst. If l believed, as your partial friendship
makes you believe, that the expression of my
opinion, in the perpleXities attending the EXPOSE
ton of our reformed Constitution, would allay
the existing excitement and produce harmonious
cooperation, | should not hesitate in authoris
ing you to give it publicity. But | entertain no
such belief. In times of party strife every mans
opinions bearing on topics of contention, are
usually attributed to factious or interested mo-
tives; and it would be extreme vanity in me to
suppose, that, in my case, an exception would be
made to this general, however uncharitable and
unjust, rule of construction. Indeed | think it
probable, that, instead of producing good the
PRONUNCIATION of my views would increase dissen-
sion, and be regarded moreover, as an arrogant
and impertinent attempt to control the Judgment
OF those, WAC llavefhe exclusive right to decide,
on the qualifications of their associates. But,
while decline answering your inquiries, so far
the answer is sought for to settle the opinions
of the members of the General Assembly, | can
not refuse, to the respect and affection which l
entertain for you personally the communication
of such thoughts as have occurred to me on the
subject matter OF your letter. Oh, know, will
not misconceiye my motives, and seeking only
for truth will adopt or reject my views simply as
they may be sanctioned or disapproved by your
conscientious judgment. l am obliged, there
fore, to request you to consider this communica-
ton as confidential.
Permit me 10 PREMISE that have no peculiar
means of arriving at the correct exposition of the
provision in question. The subjects that came
under the consideration of the late Convention
were not all of equal importance. And devoted
as certainly was, to the performance of the du-
ties imposed on me as q member of that BODY
there were yet some few matters, which came be-
fore us, that commanded a smaller portion of my
attention than the others. Among these was the
subject of your inquiry. You will perceive that
in the Act of 1854, which originated the Conven-
ton, twas thus expressed as one of the subjects
for their consideration, 'to disqualify members
OF the Assembly and officers of the State or those
who hold places OF trust under the authority of
this State-from being or continuing such, while
they hold any other office or appointment under
the government of this State or of the United
States, or any other government whatever" On
recurring TO the journal of the Convention (pages
IL and A. it will be that the subject was re-
ferred, in the most general terms to a select
Committee (of which was not one) and that
they reported (page 62) an article in the follow
ing words That no person who holds any office
or place OF trust or profit under the United States
or any OF them or under any foreign power shall
hold or exercise any Office or place of trust or
profit under this State, and that no person shall
be eligible to a seat in the Legislature whilst he
holds any Office or place of trust or profit under
this State (any appointment in the Militia and
Justice OF Peace excepted) the United States or
either OF them, or under any foreign power"-
On its second reading (page 49, the article was
modified on the motion Of Judge Seawell; and
on its thirdSeading, (page 93) was further amend
ed, on motion OF Judge Daniel and Mr. Gather,
oas finally to obtain the phraseology in which
Ills expressed in the amended Constitution
There was no discussion, that | am aware of
upon the merits of the article, nor did any of the
alterations profess more than to improve its
language s
l confess that do not see any sufficient
reason TO warrant your conjecture, that the
word OF" between the words trust" and
proht, was inadvertently used for CANDY
An office or place of trust as well as one of profit
seems to have been distinctly contemplated, in
every stage OF these proceedings, as furnishing a
disqualification for scat in the Legislature
incline, however, to the opinion that the Of
nee or place OF trust in our University is not en-
graeed within the prohibitition of this article
think the words under the Staten and tim
der the authority of the Staten qualifying offices
and places, are intended to convey the idea of
onnces or places of public character, in which
tne state Is represented, portion of its power is
Wieided, and functions discharged, in its behalf
the Office be of this kind, whether the appoint
Inent De made by the people, the State Legisla-
lure, or any authorized by law to make fine an.
polntment, think it comes within the puryiew
81 thesrtlcle If it be not of this kind, hold
~ 5o' naterlal by whom the appointment is
naae. Attorneys at law are ofiicers-appoiut
ca py state authorties-but they are not public
omcers; they do not represent the State nor
perform any of its functions, nor WELD any of
ns ,sossreign power Nor would the case be
changed \ the Legislature should take, directly,
upon itself the granting of their licenses ~,
University, although created as all corporations
are presumed to be because of public utility, has
been considered, (see University V. Foy Ist Mn u
S SSs hsy as distinct from the State having ali
aas Iignls o. private corporation. In the orr
vacancies vac in their body. The act Of 1904, Oh.
647, taking away that power and giving # to the
Legislature and that Of 1906, Chi SIS, declaring
Me e'1sernor "a c1teio President of the Board
corporation and with the professed purpose n
procuring popular favor to it-or else they might