The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1897-05-05
JUDGE ADAMS SUSTAINED.
The Supreme Court Decides the Asylum Cases
| in Favor of the Present Officers.

in Favor of the Present Officers.
| The RoBEsoNIAN in a recent
issue noted the fact that Judge
Adams, in Wake Superior Court,
had rendered dcision in favor of
the present incumbents in the State
asylums, and that the officers
elected by the late Legislature
were not entitled to the positions.
An appeal was taken to the SUI
lpreme Court and that body sus-
Itained Judge Adams. The cpin-
ion was delivered by Justice Mont
gomery but the decision of the
Court was unanimous.
The gist of the decision is that
office is property and that the act
changing the name of the officers
did Interchangeable officers. The
Court further says the act is but an
amendment of the older law. The
case of the insane asylum at Raj
eigh is the one on which the opin-
ion is based, it being taken for all
the others. The Court says Sup
erintendent Kirby and the other
defendants at the time of their
appointment were public officers
and are entitled to their offices,
their terms not having yet expired
The Court says that in examining
the act with the view of arriving
at its construction and effect, it il
not disposed to inquire into the
motive of the Legislature in enact.
ing the bill into law, nor is il
necessary to do so to arrive at 8
proper legal conclusion. If the
Legislature has in some of the pro.
visions of the statute gone beyond
tits powers, such course may be
attributed to another motive than
wllful attempt to violate the con.
stitntion.
The great opinion of Chief Jus.
tice Rulfin, in the case of Hoke
against Henderson, is cited. Au.
thority In this and other States
causes the Court to adhere to the
opinion that an office is property
and is subject of protection like
any other property under provis
ions of section II of article l, Of
the constitution.
Emoluments of public office
being private property, it follows
that the terms for which the de
PENDANTS were elected not having
expired, they could not be ousted
except for cause, unless they failet
to perform their duties or miles
the offices were abolished. 1t i
clearly decided in Hoke VS.. Hen
derson, and Bunting VS.. Gales
that as long as the office exists thu
term cannot be lessened to TIL,
: prejudice of the holders of the of
} flee. The principles of the case
cited are founded in justice ant
safe public policy. 1t is true tha
: in this State an Office can be abol
ished, unless it be one created b.
the constitution, but, in this in
stance the Court holds that tn
? office was not abolished. Act o
1891 declaring that the office O
superintendent of old corpora
. tons are abolished and Offices O
D principal and resident physician
/. substituted and latter elected fo
four years, the plaintiffs con
: tended that Offices under the oil
9 corporations We're abolished, blu
1 the Court docs not sustain thi
+, contention. The Court then re
ferred to the act of 1901 (whic,
4 the legal profession are familia
| with) and discusses the cases @
g Nichols VS.. Mckee, SO N. c., an
o that class of cases, in support q
t the ruling in this case. The Cou1
: in conclusion, says:
: "The effect of the act, then.
: that it has only prospective opel
s alton as to change of name of tn
q institution or names of officer
7 connected with it, and the defend
e ants are entitled to hold their OF
!. fices-the defendant Kirby for tn
t term for which he was elected. an
Q the other defendants for the term
8 for which they were appointe
T and until their successors are dul
n elected and appointed and quail
It fed"