The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-11-19
WILMINGTON EIY0RlITi
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
IN THIS CASE

Of 1897 Amending the Charter Of the City
il Constitutions aud That Mayor WnioAA-
aud the Other Officers Chosen Thereun-
der are Lawfully in Possession Of the On
ces-Pow.r Of the L. gislature Over Mu-
nicIpAI Corporations
Especial to The Messenger.)
Raleigh, N. c., November 1.-THE
supreme court decides in favor Of DR..
Wright as mayor of Wilmington and
his board n says the legislative act
under which they claim office is con-
stitutional. The court below is revers-
ed.
Chief Justice Faircloth delivers the
opinion in this case and says in sub
stance as follows:
As Wright admits he has no right to
h office unless the legislative act Is
valid. the court first takes up that
contention. The prime object has been
TO give people all rights of persons and
things which are consistent with such
restraints as are necessary for public
good n general welfare. Prior to
meut was absolutely safe and secure,
by the provisions of the organic law
Of the state. but in hat year the con-
stitutional convention, for reasons pre-
sumably satisfactory to itself.
amended article 7 Of the constitution
so as to give the legislature full power
by statute to modify, change or agro-
gate any n all provisions OF said ar
ticle. This placed at the will and dis
erection Of the legislature all charters,
ordinances and provisions relating to
municipal corporations. The present
controversy is one of the practical re-
suits Of this change in the constitution.
With the motives and wisdom of such
change this court has nothing to do.
1t Is not shown how the act Of 1897,
amending W~ilmington's charter, ex-
ceeds the authority given in article 7.
section IA. Of the constitution. There
is no Limitation of the power in that
section nor elsewhere in the constitu-
tion. The people, by adopting the
above article and section, nave clearly
invested their representatives In the
legislature with the power in 4uestion,
to be exercised at their discretion,
with which a court cannot interfere.
Article 8. section 4, does not conflict
with the above and gives no restraint
10 Co~k;o~ A &c M uo ooD1r ~
the section in the New York o
where it has been held that what re-
strictions shall be and how they shall
be imposed are subjects left to the
discretion Of the legislature, and the
courts cannot interfere with it's exer-
else.
The act of 1897 is constitutional and
valid.
Much Of the learning with which the
our wAs entertained on the argument
refers to law prior to and unlike ar
ticle 7. section IA. The power Of the
legislature to. delegate its authority in
the premises to the governor, as Is
done in this act, cannot now be Sc
riously disputed in North Carolina. One
case. that Of Thompson VS.. Floyd.
Second Jones, Page 313, fully sets that
matter at rest, and has been uniform
erly followed in other cases. and to
not prohibited, works through agents.
whether individuals or corporate bod
10. Practically, it could not we'll dis
charge its duty without such agencies.
defendant, Wright, and his board of
aldermen, are rightful owners Of the
offices in the city government now &C.
| pied by them.
Other decisions filed by the justices
today are as follows:
State W. 'Bramble, from Cumber-
land. appeal dismissed; Walden VS..
Ray. from Cumberland, new trial;
Davidson VS.. Land Company, from
Granville. affirmed; Peasants VS.
Railroad. from Wake. new trial; Nc
Caskill VI. Mckinnon, from Richmond
affirmed; Taylor vss Smith, from era
ven, affirmed; McNeill vs.. Fuller. from
Cumberland, new trial; McCaskill We
NcKinnon. (second case), from Rich
mond, affirmed; lucas VS.. Railroad
from Bladen, affirmed; Bizzell VS.. Nc
Kinnon. from Richmond, affirmed
Gregory VS.. Bullock, from Granville
affirmed: McCaskill VS.. Chatham. frOn
Robson, reversed.