The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-12-25
H||E|..lG D; Isl, IT, FREE:
uia0l0 ait Of lqIl9l0 .If II
Supreme Court Protects Clerk
Satterield. j, j.
FRAUD Is UNPUNlSHtD
CHIEF JUSTICE FAIRCLoTHs
PARTISAN DECISION.
MON TGOMeRY RIDDLES IT C0MPL TELY
an Strong and Vigorous Opinion, in Which
Justice Clark Concurs-- The Court
Over-Rules Former De-
csion Of its Own.
FRAUD is UNPUNISHtD
MONTGOMERY RIDDLES IT C0MPL TELY
cision Of its Own.

ttSutt VI ITO NFsHs
#, Yesterday we, gave the decision of the
Supreme Court in the Satter6eld case.
At was so unwarranted by the facts that
ne determined to see by what method
-~f reasoning the conclusion of the court
was reached 1t was ascertained that
Justce Montgomery had written Wig
~orous and unanswerable opinion dissent
ing from the majority OF the court. and
<hat Judge Clark concurred in the dis
=ae1t.
Here are the two opinions:
A dissenting opinion was filed II BIZ
Sudg,' Montgomery, ia which Judge
aOlark cOncurred.
Montgomery: fIGl ~ n Iitiltld
The ueienuant undertakes to, defend
himself by Urging that as great num1
Der as 3G1 bills were signed by the
Speaker on the day when this one was
signed; that there was a great rush and
u mighty confusion in the House ON that
day; that he was Frequently away from
his office N the discharge OF his duties,
and that his assistant clerks, Eve or six
In number. were, not OF h IS, own choosing,
but appointed for him by the House.
But ali of these things combined could
not relieve him Nef the obligation OF
exercising reasonable care in performing
his duty in2e6nnection with this parti-
-Culsr bill Indeed they should have
made him more careful If there had
been a thousand bills instead of 361, and
fhe House had been Bedlam and tho
number OF his clerks twice, as great az
they were. 'h. could easily enough have
taken tlss che bill Out OF the DatCn al
ter his attention Was called to it; and
called to 1T as a bill that had been tabled.
and have placed it where it would nave
been enrolled. Although others of his
duties might have been Impossible of
performance on that day, owing to the
matters he mentions, yet there could
have been no excuse for a failure to
make an effort to prevent this tabled
bill from being enrolled after his at
tention had been called to It.
The Indictment contained two counts
the first one charging that he permitted
the enrolment negiigently, and the sec
-ond that he did it or had it done know
ingly, wilfuliy and corruptly. He was
convicted on the second count. The only
question necessary to be decided is
whether there was any sufficient evi-
-dence to be submitted to the jury on the
question of negligence. / do not know
how it admits of doubt that there was
such evidence. The following is the
evidence:
The bill, House Bill 1918, had on its
back, with others, this endorsement:
Tabled March 18th, 1885," and in fact
it had been tabled on that day. The
Journal of the House showed no entry
that the bill had been tabled Books
were kept by the defendant, as principal
clerk of the House, in which were kept
receipts of the Enrolling Clerk for all
bills received by him for the principal
clerk. This bill, 1918, as appeared from
these books was not receipted for either
by tile or number. II. l.. Smith, a
member of the House of that session,
introduced the bill. Smith, for the State,
testified that he requested the Speaker
to place the bill before the House; that
such course was taken and that the
bill was tabled on March 18th. The
witness further testified that on the
next day, the 18th of March, he saw
the. defendant in the possession of the
tabled bill The following is the exact
testimony Of the witness Smith on that
point:
F'The next day, 18th Of March, / met
Satterield, Chief Clerk, just at the left
or the Speakers chair, and he said he
had one of my bills. / asked him to let
me see it, and what was he going to do
with it? He showed me the bill; he
said he was going to give it to the
Enrolling Clerk / told him it was
tabled last night. He said he would
20 back and see about it. He turned
back towards the desk of the principal
clerk, which is in front of the Speakers
chair. Since then he asked me where it.
was I met him. / told him and he adj
mitted it,"
The defendant, after having been in
the possession>of the bill as described
In the testimony of the witness Smith on
his way to the Enrolling Clerks office
and after he had been cautioned about
It, when he came upon the stand as a
witness for himself, did not give out
one word as to what he did with the bill
after that time, or as to whether he
took any precautions to have it put in
the possession of Mr.. Ellington, the as
sistant clerk, whose duty it was to place
the bills into proper apartments in a
desk which he kept for that purpose,
and which desk Ellington kept locked,
keeping the key himself. BY the testi-
mony, Ellington was the custodian of
the bills, such as had been passed and
such as had been tabled, and the bill
was never in his possession as far as
the evidence discloses. The defendant,
it is true, contradicted the witness
Smith as to the nature Of the CONVERSE
ton which they had when Smith discoy-
cred him going to the Enrolling Clerk S
office to have the tabled bin enrolled.
The defendant was aware OF the inn
portance of that testimony. There was
a conflict, but sboth sides Of It was a
matter for the consideration of the jury.
The evidence, including the defend
ants own testimony, tended strongly to
hsow that he did not use one particle
of care to prevent the enrolment.
/ think the verdict of the jury and
the judgment Of the court below ought
to stand, for the verdict was justified
by the evidence, and the Judgment ac-
cordng to the law. t{fAf "a
- -cnncDr m this dissent,--clark, j.
State VS.. satterfeld Opinion Of the
court was delivered by the Chief JUS
tice.
The defendant is indicted rs principal
clerk Of the House Of Representatives
- the General Assembly for causing and
comnftting to be delivered to the en-
rolins clerk a certain pretended act OF
- o. ssa A IT, -.