The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-12-24

State; and the danger of placing the
ives and libert .es of the people IN the
keeping of judges whose official tenurel
might depend upon the uncertain com
plexion of the Legislature or the arbi-
lrary will of the Governor, was ably
and eIoquentiy portrayed
''Our conclusion is that the Railroad
Commiss on does not stand upon tie
same footing as the Criminal courts, i'll
aSmuch as it is an administrative and
lot d judicial court. While it was made
BY subsequent statute court Of rec
ord, it was clearly the object of the act
simply to give authenticity to It's records
and proceedings, as it added nothing toi
rs duties or powers.
1--WE are of the opinion that the dis
puttd provisions of the act are constr
tutional, and chat the pow err of snsDen-
sion rests in the hands of the Governor,
which, when eXerc sed in an orderly
manner, is not renewable by the courts.
Whether the action of the Governor
was justified by the facts, which he
alone could find, is not for us to say.
That the defendant has not been de-
prived of his property without due p D
cess of law that the only property heI
could have in the office was that given
to him by the statute, which must be
construed IN all its parts. His commits
sion. which is his title deed, appears to
us with the fateful words of the creative
act written across its face by the hand
OF the law. Whatever right to trial
by jury he might otherwise have had,
was waived by his acceptance Of the
off ce under the conditions Of the statute,
at least SO far as the action Of the Gov
ernOr was concerned. In the court be-
.ow, as all the material facts that could
there be inquired into were practically
admitted, there was nothing left but the
bare question of law, and upon those
questions we see no error in the ruling
OF the court. The Judgment must there
fore be affirmed, but in view of the
public interests involved, we deem it
proper, not to remand the case, but to-
enter final Judgment in this court This
action is taken on motion of counsel
made without objection in open court
upon the hearing of the case, and under
authority of sect on 957 of The Code, az
recognized in Bernaardt VS.. Brown, 1lS|
y. c., 700, no. The Judgment WIN
therefore be entered that the re,ator is
entitled to the office of Railroad Com
missioner; that the defendant be 0usted
.herefIom, and that the relator be
placed into possession of said office, to-
-ether with all its records and other
arpurtenanoes thereunto belonging
THE DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting Chief Justice Faircloth
comedies the right OF the Legislature to
abolish any office OF its own crea ton,
lin which event the officer goes with the
,t4 hut haf 1cf nf In
done upon any nation of implied notice
iii the acceptance, but because the Leg
isiature has the power to abolish"
My conception is that the act of the
Governor i'll suspending the defendant
was not an executive function, but SIM
ply the act of an agent of the Legisla
ture with such power as they attempted
to confer on their agent. ] can see no
reason why the Secretary of State could
not as well have been the agent, with
directions, for the causes mentioned in
the act, to suspend the Governor from
his office until the Legislature should
have an opportunity to remove or res
tore him, as they might choose to do,
without any hearing for him.
$50 the real question is the power of
the Legislature to suspend and remove
Il judicial officer from his office and
thus forfeit his property without giving
him trial"
Judge Faircloth then goes on to argue
that the act is unconstitutional and A.,
gainst public policy; that the Commits
sioners have been deprived of their prop
erty without due process of law or just
cause.
1.-THE defendant specifically denies each
material allegation. When brought be-
fore the Superior court under the form
of trial, the defendant demanded TO
hear the proof of the matters alleged, to
confront his accusers, to crOss-examine,
to introduce his own evidence, and to
have the issues determined by a Jury
of his peers. These requests were all
refused by the court and judgment was
pronounced declaring that defendant had
been duly suspended from his office,
and ordering his custer therefrom. This
court is now appealed to to affirm said
Judgment and approve the procedure be-
low in this case. Il
II think the plaintiffs contention is
injurious, subversive and contrary to
the organic law of our system of gov-I
eminent, and that it Is unreasonable |
and unjust, and that the decisions oil
any court in any State, disregarding
those principles, must soon fall under
the condemnation of the legal mind in |
this country"
BUCKLEN'S ARNTCA SALVH.