The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-04-13

The Argument. Heard by Judge Adams
A synopsi..of the Complaint and Answer
and Of the Pleading of Counsel on botn
Sides.

Raleigh, ~ T., ApTH "ueS
ans gave notice this afternoon thai at
midnight he would end the hearing OF
the insane hospital cases. There were
speeches this afternoon and at SIS"
O'Clock argument was resumed
c B.. Aycock specially summarized
for your correspondent contention or n
defense and J. c. L. Harris summar-
lied the contention OF the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs contend hat the offices in
question are statutory, absolute crea-
tons Of the legislature as
guished from such offices as those OF
governor n state offices, judge and
solicitors. which are mentioned in the
constitution. The latter are beyond
control of the Legislature. The terms OF
an officer cannot be shortened or their
salaries reduced by the legislature,
The former may be abolished. terms
shortened, salaries reduced, and duties
may be diminished. Three corpora
tions created by the last general as
sembly are public corporations entire
ly. No private individual or private
corporation has any interest in the
business or management of these cor
porations. No c~ontractual relations ex-
list between them and the state, and.
therefore, the legislature has the right
TO repeal the charters whenever il sees
fit to do so. Any person who accepts
office under one OF these public corpor-
atoms takes it with full notice OF the
power of the legislature to repeal the
-
salaries, and diminish the duties of the
Offices. The office of superintendent is
abolished in so many words, and the
contention of the defendants that the
repeal of the charter is but a reaffirm-
ance of the former charter because the
act certain sections of the
former charter as found in volume .
of The Code, is without force because
there is a change of duties of the prin-
cipal and resident physician, as he is
known under the new charter; a
change of term of office from six to
four years; a change of term Of trustees
from two, fou and six years, and
three classes, to one class with a term
of four years. These changes show
clearly the motives of the Legislature
repeating the charters and these
changes show that the act of the last
Legislature is absolutely r~epugnant to
the former charter, and this fact would
work a repeal by implication We're not
a repeal made in 50 many words;
so that there is no foundation for the
contention of the defendants that there
is no repeal of the former charter, but
simply a reaffirmance of the former
law and that the repeating act endeav.
ors to transfer the offices to another
without abolishing the office, because
the former charter is repealed in terms
and the offices of superintendent is
abolished in so man words.
Defendants contend that repeating
the charter and abolishing the super
~intendency is not in fact a repeal be-
cause, in the same act the old law is
substantially re-enacted. The new act
differs from the Did law only in the
change of name of the several institu-
tons and their respective officers, if
that much, while retaining all their
right, powers, privileges, duties and
functions. For this position the de-
PENDANTS rely upon the cases of the
State vs.. Sutton, 100 n. c. r., State VS..
Williams, 107 N. C. r., and State VS..
Baldwin, 40 Conn, and a great array Of
other authorities. Defendants further
contend they are in under a contract
valid and binding upon the legislature.
They admit the power of the legisla-
ture to abolish useless and unnecessary
offices. They deny, however, the pow-
er of the legislature to change the
name Of the office merely n leaving
all Of it's positions intact to transfer
that office from one man to another.
For this contention they cite Hoke VS..
Henderson, 4 Devereux and every case
decided by the supreme court of North
Carolina since that year 1888. Defend
ants say there is nothing in the con-
tention that these are statutory and not
as much constitutional Offices as was
the office Of clerk of the superior and
county court, which was the subject in
controversy in Hoke VS.. Henderson,
wherein h great principle was estab-
lished in North Carolina that an office
cannot be taken from one person and
given 10 another while the office and
term exist. Defendants futher con-
tend, that the offices of principal and
resident physician and trustees are the
same as superintendent and directors.
they having the same functions and
duties, citing Nichols VS.. Mckee, IS n.
c. r., People VS.. Raymond, 81 n. Y, and
other authorities; that even ~conceding
that these We're legislative offices, yet
the right held under the legislative
grant is as i%nviolable as unconstitutional
one, again citing Hoke VS.. Henderson. |
They admit the power of the legisla-
ture to repeal the charter and thus
to destroy the institution and to abol-
ish the offices Of superintendent or di-
rePtOrS and Tins mt an epd 70 rhair