The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-04-20
THE ASYLUM CASES ARGUED.
They Are Now Before the supreme
Court for Final Decision.

ion will be rendered at Cne earHeSI Po''A
BILE moment.
-Four hours were consumed in the ar
! cument--two hours by each side. Inc
first speech was made by Judge Avery
for the new directors. Judge Shepherd
and Mr.. w. G.. Munroe followed for the
old boards. Mr.. Harris then spoke TOR
the new directors, followed by Messrs.
C. 81 Aycock and X. O. Burton for the
old ones The argument was closed o.?
Capt. w. ii. Day for the new boards.
The arguments yesterday, with the OK
ception of the speech of Judge Avery,
were about the same as those presented
and published in this paper at the hear
ing before Judge Adams. Judge Avery
presented several new points and argued
the case much more deliberately than he
had time to do at the first hearing.
He said the question was, whether the
statute should be construed as abolishlng
the offices of Superintendent and director
and substituting for them those of presi-
dent and resident physician, 0nd trustee
It was competent for the Legislature to
abolish these offices by an express decla-
ration in the act, that they were abolished
or others substituted for them, or by re-
pealing the charter and destroying, as
incidents to it, the agencies through which
the corporation exercised its powers.
He then took the ground that, if it
were admitted for the sake of the argu-
ment merely, that the old corporations
still existed, either under the old or the
new names mentioned in the statute, still
the Legislature had declared in express
terms. that the office of Superintendent
was abolished and by unavoidable impli-
cation, that the trustees were substituted
for the directors. If the Legislature had
the power to abolish the offices and had
in good faith so declared, then the
REALTORS (the new appointees) were en-
titled to recover.
He then cited to show, that the power
of the Legislature to abolish Offices was
only restricted by the Constitution of the
State.
Newton vs.. Com'rs.. 100 U. S., $50;
Cooley's Cons: Linn, 331; Troop Pub. Off,
sections 10 and 20, A Switzerland Stat.
Cons. p. GIG: 101 \. Y, at p. 553. He
insisted that in Hoke VS.. Henderson,
Dev., p. q, the court conceded the
power of the Legislature to abolish the
office of clerk and destroy the term with
it. but not to leave the office in existence
and give it to another during the term.
He contended that the same doctrine was
laid down in Gotten VS.. Ellis, Jones
345, another case relied on by the de-
PENDANTS.
The doctrine that the incumbent took
an office with notice Of and subject to the
power of the Legislature, where it ex
listed, to substitute another agencE to dis
charge the same duties, just as # the law
had been written in the face of contract
between him and the State. he said, had
been repeatedly recognized by our own
Supreme court, notably in Russell VS..
Koonce. 103 n. c.. 1S1. and Bunting VS..
Gales, X n. c., 2S5, and by the Supreme
court of the United States in Memwither
VS.. Garrett 102 u. S. 5 n.
He then distinguished King VS.. Hunter,
65 n. c., 600 and 610, in that the office
of sheriff was therein declared to be es-
tabl:shed and made elective by popular
vote in the Constitution, and the defend
ant had attempted as tax-collector,
chosen by the county commissioners, I'M
der legislative act, to take the most
valuable portion of his fees.
People VS.. Mckee was distinguished in
that the Constitution had now been
changed so that under the article on
municipal corporations the Legislature
had unrestricted control of corporations
in charge Of penal and charitable institu-
TONS
He contended, that if the Leg:sla ture
had power to abolish and had attempted
to abolish these offices, the court was
bound to hold the law constitutional, I'M
less it should impute to the the IIegisla-
ture coordinate branch Of the govern
ment an impure and improper motive.
There is always an intendment in favor
OF honesty ON the part, of the Legislature,
and the courts will not inquire into the
motives of that branch of the government,
unless the unlawful purpose is apparent
upon the face OF the statute before it for
construction. He contended that no other
authority was needed than Hoke VS.. Hen
derson, where It was held that the court
must sustain the constitutional;ty Of an
act, If in one view, it was reasonable.
just and consistent with equity and sound
policy, though in every other aspect it
should be repugnant to the Constitution
and subversive of vested rights. He
said that the Supreme court of the Uni
ted States had refused to look into the
motives Of the aldermen of city in
passing ordinances, enacted as legisla-
tive body upon the same principle.
He insisted that if the Legislature could
not substitute principal and nine trus-
tees, all of whose terms were coincident
and TO last four years, for supef:ntend-
ent, serving six years, and nine directors,
servin in classes, three going out every
every ten years, for Il term Of s:x years,
two years, then it was possible for Leg
islature to violate the basic principle, that
such bodies could not perpetrate their own
power, by establishing Il government by
ten directors for terms of forty years, SO
that the term Of one should expire every
four years. He insisted that it was con-
sistent with honesty and justice to sup
pose that the I4eg;sla ture intended to in
stitute government by ten officers, who
should render an account Of their stew
ardship for four years OF full control at
the same time Of the government OF the
corporation.
He said that the REALTORS still insisted
that the Legislature had declared in ex-
nrocc forTns its purnOse to rppeaf the