The commonwealth. (Scotland Neck, N.C.) 1896-1929, 1897-05-06

greatly facilitate court proceedings.
ASYLUM CASES DECIDED.
Judge Adams decided that the act of
the last Legislature repeating the char
ter of the insane asylum was not law.
The case was carried to the supreme
court and Tuesday OF last week that
court rendered Its decision affirming
the decision of Judge Adams.
The effect of the decision is to con-
tinue the six directors of each of the
asylums whose terms haye not expired,
and to allow the superintendent to
hold until the terms for which they
were elected expire.
The decision was rendered by Justice
Montgomery, and was very full, cover
ing nearly two and half columns in
the News and Observer. Justice Mont
gomery in his decision reiterates what
that court had before said, that the E.
monuments from public office are pri-
vate property.
We quote him:
The emoluments of a public Office
being, then, private property, it would
seem to follow logically, that the terms
for which the defendants were elected
and appointed respectively not having
expired, they could not be ousted ex-
cept for cause, for the committal OF
some malfeasance in Office, or unless
the Offices themselves had been abol-
ished. As long as the Office is contin-
ued, the term OF Office, it does seem in
reason and justice, ought to be the prl-
vate property of the holder; and to
take 1t from him and give it to another
by legislation is, in effect and reality,
judicial act, and the sentence is pro-
nounced without trial and without a
hearing. And the law is to that effect.
So that whatever the law may be in
other States, it is settled beyond ques-
ton in North Carolina that public
Office is property, is vested right, ex-
lists by contract between the State and
holder, and that as long as the Office is
continued the holder cannot be depriv-
ed OF his term against his consent, un-
less he has omitted some act which was
forfeiture. We have no desire to dis
turb the decisions of our court on this
subject. They are founded on the
principles of justice and of safe public
policy.
The plaintiffs, or newly elected super
intendents, claimed that the Act of 18.
81 abolished the Offices of superintend-
ents and made provision for the elction
ofnew ones. JusticeMontgomery in his
decision says:
We have examined the Act of 1897
carefully and there is not one single du-
ty required OF the new Board of Trus-
tees that was not required of the old
board of directors. There is no change
as to duties, rights or powers. There
is nothing in the Act but the same du-
ties, rights and privileges as were
provided under the old law. In fact
the latter part of section 8 which a.
mends sections 2241, 2242. 2243, and
2244 OF The Code by striking out the
old names of the Asylums and substi-
tutlng new ones declares that "Those
sections of the Code thus amended and |
Chapter 2 Vol. 2. of The Code, except
as hereinafter provided, are re-enacted. |
We are Of the opinion upon a careful
examination of the Act, that it is an
amendment, as it declares itself to be |
of Chapter 2 Vol. 2 of The Code and
not repeal of that chapter. It is true
that in the first section it declares that
"the charters of said hospitals, by what |
ever name and all acts amendatory of |
said charters, are hereby repealed" vet |
with the exception of a change in the |
names OF the Offices and of the institu-
tons with some Insignificant details |
about the salaries of the superinten-
dents and the appointment of the di-
reetors)the whole of Chapter Vol. 2 /
OF The Code, applicable to the directors |
OF the North Carolina Insane Asylum |
not in conflict with the provisions of
this act, are hereby made applicable to
the Board of Trustees of the State Hos
Dital for the Insane and Western NJ.