The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1895-11-07
the ARLINGTON CASE.

tee Had No Authority to Sit After the
Adjournment of the Legislature.
The last Legislature passed a reso-
luton creating a committee to inves-
tlgate case of litigation, the record
OF which is burning shame and dis
grace to the courts of North Caro-
lima. 1t is the Arlington case. 1t
has become a matter of State no.
toriety. The minutiae of the case
may not be interesting, but the fact
is that for many years Mrs. Pattie D.
B. Arlington has vainly tried to get
her case settled through the courts.
She has failed to do so; and her case
is a living evidence of the hardness.
delay, fraud and corruption that has
existed one way or another in the
courts of the State. It may be none
of our business hoao the case ought to
have been settled, but it ought to
nave been SETTLED long ago.
Mrs. Arlington made an appeal to
the last Legislature to look into her
claims, and that body appointed an
investigating committee. The pur-
pose OF this action was good, but two
OF the members of the committee
brought the whole matter into dis
grace by their disreputable course.
Mr.. Bryan, of Chatham, one of the
committee, did all he could to carry
out the intent of the Legislature, but
the dead weight of the other two
members was too much, and he was
compelled to get out of the whole
business.
For the purpose of making politi-
cal capital, certain State Democratic
officials encouraged the drunken
orgies of the two ''irrigating" mem
bers OF the committee. They supplied
whlskey free and strong and the two
committeeman walked or staggered
around town on the "outside" of it
IN great shape. The Democratic
State Auditor drew warrants on the
treasurer galore. He wanted to
make this committee cost all the
money he could, and then 20 before
the people with a campaign item of
expense and raise a mighty howl
about the expenditure of the peoples
money. But the State Treasurer is
a POPUL1sT. He called halt on this
business. He refused to pay a war
rant for $4,000 which the Auditor
had drawn on the treasury. The
member of the committee to whom
the warrant was given got bank to
cash it, and the bank presented it to
the treasurer for payment. He de-
clined to pay it. Then, a suit was
brought by the bank, and the follow
ing is the opinion of the Supreme
Court:
Banks VS.. W. II. Worth, Treasurer of North
GaiOnna "a SapReilant} from Wake county.
, Where resolution of the General Assem-
ply provides that the committee appointed
~ II TO investigate the affairs Of one a.
snail hnd the facts from the evidence, and
report said facts and also set out the evil
oence III 1ull IN said report and make their
s1ble to DO so before its adjournment and
if not, then said report shalt be made r. fhe
Supreme Court" Held, ''''
1. That no power was conferred ON the
committee to do any act after the General
AS Assembly 1nay should adjourn except to make
2. According to precedent, an expres,
provision IN such resolution or lat least q
clear implication from its terms. is neces.
sary 10 empower the committee to sit in va
cation; and although such provision i,
made, unless the resolution also provides
Tor the compensation and expenses of he
committee, there is no authority of Law for
their payment.
3. As the meaning of the resolution vas
that the investigation should be made dur
ing the session, merely leaving The nenort
TO be filed lit it should be aecessarv, after
adjournment; held, that the provision for
the payment of 'the necessary expenses Of
said commission while actually engaeed in
said investigation" means only the neces-
sary expenses of making the investieation
l. e., summoning and expenses of witnesses'
etc, and cannot be construed so as to in
eiude per diem and mileage for which
the resolution makes NO provision.
4: Reasonable bond bills are probably
included in the term reasonable exnen.
ses." 'eAPo"-
s. The objection that, as the Auditor had
given his warrant the Treasurer had No
choice but to pay it, is without merit,
Inc treasurer is not protected from liza
bility on his official bond because the war.
rant paid by him is duly approved bv the
Auditor; it is the Treasurer's dutv to exam.
Inc such warrant and ascertain Whether the
same has been authorized by law. for which
the Code S 1850 az, provided that the Aud
ltof snail put IN the face of the warrant the
act authorizing the same. The Treasurer il
relieved from such liability only upon the
advice OF the Attorney General.