The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-04-15
TRYING TO HOLD TO PIE.
OFFICERS AAO DIRECTORS OF Puelic
INSTITUTIONS RESIST TINE LAWS
CHANGING THEIR MANAGE
uEM1.

A sauabbls Broesht On Ny Dsooersss
who Doa's want to GIVE Up Omee-Rs-
view Of The Agreements Before JsSes
Adams.
The last legislature passed laws
changing the charters Of the insane
hospitals Of the State, with the pur-
pose of BUSTING Democratic pie eat
ers and getting in their places fusion
pie hunters.
The Democrats, loath to leave
their soft births, Immediately insti-
tuted proceedings to see whether
the laws thus passed by the legisla-
ture were LEGAL, and whether such
dds, racetul purpose as TO Dust a
D. mOcrat from otii cs was ''constitu-
tional."
A hesrlpg of the ease 'hus brought
on vas had befor" Judge Adams. in
Raleigh, on April lob. The old
boards were es-nted by Judge
Shepherd, G. b. Aycock, w. c.
Munroe. F. /. Osborne and r. o.
Burton; the n.w boards by Judge
Avery. J. c. l.. Harris and Judge
Macras.:: he new boards being the
PLAINTIFFS and the old boards DE-
PENDANTS.
Plaintiffs contend that the Offices
in question are statutory, (uot con-
stitutionaD absolute creations of the
legislature as contradistinguished
from such offices as those of Cover
nor ard State Offices Judge and SO
llcitors, which are mentioned in the
constitu ION. The latter are beyond
control + the legislature. The term
of constitutional Ulcers cannot be
| shortened Or their salaries reduced
by the lie lislatnr'. The former
(statutoIy fl 'es) may be abolished.
terms shor'e' ed. salaries reduced,
and duties la be diminisht d. Three
corporations uhe insane asylums)
created by the last General Assem-
| bly, are public corporations entirely
No private Individual or private
corporation has any interest in the
business or manage ment of these
corporations No contractual re-
lations exist between them and the
State, and, therefore. the legislature
has the right to repeal the charters
whenever it sees fit to do so. Any
person who accepts Office under one
of these public corporations takes it
with full notice of the power Of tho
legislature to repeal the charters,
sb lish the offices, reduce the sala-
ries, and diminish the duties of the
Offices. TIE Office Of supe rintendent is
abolished In 50 many words, and the
contention of the defendants that
the repeal Gf the charter is but .
res fl FINANCE of the former charter
because the act re-enacts certain
Sc ctions of the former charter as
found in volume 2 of the Code, is
without forcs because there Is a
change of duties of the principal
resident pb ysician, as he is known
under the new charter: q change of
term of Office from six to four years;
a change Of term of trustees from
two, four and six years, and three
classes, to one class with a term of
four years These changes show
clearly the motives of the legislature
in repeating the charters and these
changes show that the act of the
last legislature is absolutely repug-
nant to the former charter, and this
fact would work repeal by impli-
cation were not a repeal made in SO
many words; so there is no founda-
ton for the contention of the de-
teHdants that there is no repeal OF
the former charter, but simply q re.
affirmance of the former law and
that the repeating act endeavors tc
transfer tho Offices to another with.
out abolishing the Office, because
the former charter is repealed il
terms and the Office of superintend
ent is abolished in so many words
i Defendants contend that repeal
ing the charter and alb Fishing To.
superintendency is not in fact a re.
peal because, in the same act the
old law is substantially re enacted
The new act differs from the old Law
only in the change of name of tn,
several institutions aud their re-
spective officers, if that much, while
retaining all their rights, powers
| PAANI0SSSS uutlcS duO luuCItOuS. + Oh
this position the defendants rely
upon the cases of the State vs.. Sut
ton. 100 N. c. R., State vs.. Williams
1O7 N. c. R., and State VS.. Baldwin
As Conn, and other authorities. De
PENDANTS further contend they are il
under contract valid and binding
; upon the legislature. They admi
the power Of the legislature to abol.
ish useless ana unnecessary offices
They deny. however, the power O.
the legislature to change the name
of the Office merely and leaving al
of its positions intact TO transfe,
that flee from one man to another
For this contention they cite Hok,
!, vs.. Henderson, Devereux ani
other cases, decided by thu
Supreme court of North Car
DINA. Defendants say there i.
nothing in the contention that the 8,
are statutory and not constitutions
offices, because, they are as mucf
constitutional offices as was the of