The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1895-07-04
NO CASH FOR
THE COMMITTEE
Appointed by the Legislature to
Investigate a Case Of Litiga-
ton
MR.. GUTHRIE'S OPINION.

The last Legislature appointed .
committee consisting of Representa-
tives Bryan, of Chatham; Phillips,
OF Pitt, and Campbell of Cherokee,
with power to send for persons and
papers and to investigate a case of
litigation in which Mrs. P. d. b. Ar
rlngton appeared to claim that she
had been defrauded of certain
rights. The committee has held one
or two short sessions. Some of the
present Democratic officials under
took to make campaign capital of
this case by making the expenses of
the committee amount to as much
as possible. If the committee had
at any time presented a claim for q
thousand dollars or any other
amount of money the Democratic
Auditor would have drawn a war
rant for it, and then charged the
expense to the fusion Legislature.
And Democratic officials have done
everything within their power to
induce this committee to meet, to
hire lawyers, TO summon many wit
nesses and the like, and for awhile
the Auditors warrants were paid.
But at the last election the peo-
pie put an honest man in charge of
the treasury. The extraordinary
freedom with which warrants had
been drawn in favor Of this COM
mittee aroused his attention, and he
has declined to pay some which have
recently been drawn, and declares
he will pay no more until compelled
to do so by the last limit of the law.
He recently asked Maj. W. A.
Guthrie-one of the most prominent
lawyers Of the State, for an opinion
on the legal phases of the case, and
that opinion Is given below. 1t is
different from the "campaign ma
terial' opinion Of the Democratic
Attorney General of the State.
Hon. W. II. Worth, State Treasurer:
DEAR SIR: You ask me to advise you
as to the proper legal construction OF
the concurrent resolution of the Gen.
eral Assembly of 1895, found at page
SOP, Public Laws, session 1895, entitled
"a resolution in favor of Mrs. Patty
D. B. Arlington" ratified the 18th day
of March, A. ID. 1895, upon the follow
ing points:
Ist. Whether Messrs. Campbell
Bryan and Phillips. members of thu
| House of Representatives from CherO
kee, Chatham and Pitt counties, re
spectively," are entitled to pay TO
their individual personal services, tn
per diem and mileage fixed by tn
constitution for members of the Gen
eral Assembly while the General AS
sembly is in session?
| End. Have said committee the pOWe
under said resolution to incur expense
for counsel fees?
The power of the General Assembl,
to appoint a special committee to in
vestigate this or other matter of
kindred nature may be conceded 70
the sake Of argument, and | will con
fine my opinion strictly to cOnstruc
tiOn of the resolution itself, interprete
by the words used in expressing tn
legislative intent and in the light Q
the provisions of the constitution. Tn
resolution provides that: "They 9Th
cOmmittee) shall find the facts frOr
the evidence and report said facts, an
also set out the evidence in full in sal
report and make their report to tn
General Assembly, if it be possible
do so, before its adjournment, and
not, then said report shall be made
the Supreme court. 1t is manifest frOl
the language used that the Gener;
Assembly contemplated that this il
vestigating committee would enter 8
once upon the discharge of its dutie
while the legislature was then in se'
sion March 18th, 1880, and that
would be able to "sit together, hear tt
evidence" and make their report to tt
, General Assembly beforeit adjourned
that this committee would be in Sc
, sion but few days at most, for tt
| session was then about to end, an
these same committeeman, members
! the body, were then drawing the
> regular pay as members, and hen'
1 there is not word in the resOluti(
! authorizing or contemplating any ps
q whatever for their services as membe
q of this investigating committee. n
| does the further provision above quote
- to the effect that if it was not pOssib
for the committee to prepare their r
port in time to submit it to the &c
eral Assembly before adjournmer
e s'then said report shall be made to t.
! Supreme COURT" even by implicati'
= make any provision for the commit
u to sit together and hear evidence aft
d the General Assembly had adjourne
J. My Interpretation of the wording
the resolution then is, that when t
It General Assembly adjourned, this Col
70 mittee, like all the other legislati
, committees, when it is not OtherWi
: specially provided, became .func1
! oticio, except as to making form
~ report to the Supreme court instead of
Or the General Assembly, of what t
n committee had heretofore done. 1t
a. familiar learning that whenever a lie.
IS lative body desires to have comm
Ie tee from the body sit during recess
~ this body, it should make express pl
IL visions to that effect.
40 In the case of Marshall VS.. Harwo
- reported in 9TH Maryland Report AZ
at page 1872, the Supreme court
y Maryland said:
se "But to avoid misapprehension fr
lis Judge below, we deem it pro-
e. to say, that in our opini
AZ the bond of the petitioner col
Ie not be legally approved by the CO
ar mittee on the library, except duri
% the session of the legislature, &C
a. mittees have no power to act as 81
No during the recess of the legislature
he less they are authorized specially to do
,st l see no authority in this Arring
les. resolution specially authorizing
ZEE investigating committee to CONT.
all its sessions beyond the adjournm
!. - of the General Assembly, and he
~ my opinion follows that if they h
JILL met since the General Assembly
journed, or incurred expenses of {
kind or shall hereafter do so, the So
has been, and will be, without autt
:: ity of law. might stop here, bu
LII order to answer you fully, my opin
is that under the constitution, art