The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-08-14
NO ACTION YET TAKEN
CONTINUED from First Page

and City Attorney Busbee. Col. ArgO rep
resented Mr.. Norwood. He said he was
certain that the cause of all this trouble
was a simple error-an error partly on
the part of the mayor, and the attorney
who made application for habeas corpus,
but most on the part of Judge Clark.
The warrant, he said, was never valid
one. and the mayor has no right to issue
warrants, by leaving blank, signed war
rants to be used in his absence. The
Code prescribing the manner in which
warrants are to be issued was read.
/ Mr.. Norwood, said Col. ArgO, had no
right to fill out or issue n warrant, even
though it be Il blank warrant with the
mayors name signed TO it. NorwOod's
verbal order to a subordinate would be
as valid as was that warrant The war
rant he issued and latter tore up was
nullity and the warrant he substituted
was as good as the one destroyed-both
were worthless.
1.-The whole thing is a simple, mutual
mistake, in which the mayor, Judge
Clark and the attorney who took out the
habeas corpus proceedings, are concerned
and, think, Judge Clark has made the
biggest mistake of the three. No warrant
was needed in such a case as this. The
mayor has no jurisdiction in this case.
He had nothing to do with it.
1.-THE issuing of warrant is judicial
function and can't be delegated.
Norwood had right to order the ar
rest of this man, and he did it-he ar
rested him on his own responsibility, as
the law gives him authority to do" The
law touching this point was read.
mo judicial officer directed Norwood
to have this arrest made. He, therefore,
had to report to no man. The mayor had
nothing to do with the case. Norwood had
o right to discharge the man. The mayor
had no right to do so. Norwood not only
did not do wrong, but he did the only
thing he could do. If he had held that
man a minute longer George Davis could
have sued him for assault and battery.
Then the habeas corpus proceedings
were irregular. The writ was directed to
the mayor; it should have been directed
to the chief of police. The mayor has
never had the man in charge. The chief
of police had the man in charge and he
was the person to discharge him, and he
ought to have done so; but they go catch
the man again and turn him loose again
just to see him run.
Norwood has been bound over for
an escape. He is not guilty under the
law, and l doubt whether the Solicitor
even draws bill. a man is never
guilty for doing what he has a right to
do. 1t was NorwOOd's duty as an Of
ticer to discharge the man as soon as he
found he was not the person wanted.
Pm satisfied Judge Clark is more to
blame in this case than anybody else,
though everybody seems to have acted
with good motives. Norwood has done
nothing upon the face of the earth but
his simple duty"
Mr.. Busbee agreed with Col. Argos
Interpretation Of the law in every parti-
cular, except one. He argued that it
was the chief of policies duty to report
to the mayor whenever a felOn has
been incarcerated in the city prison, and
to hold him subject to the mayors or
der. The chief of police, he argued, was
simply q ministerial officer, and man
who is under arrest is in the custody of
the municipality. Mr.. Busbee agreed with
Col. Argo that this was an unintention-
al error, but it was, he thought, an er-
rOr on the part of the chief of police,
in not consulting with the mayor in dis
charging q man charged with so grave
an offence.
On motion of Alderman Drewry the
matter was referred to the Police COM
mittee to report at a subsequent meet
ing.
Immediately after adjournment of the
Board the Police committee met and
asked the city attorney to join them in
considering the question at issue. But
after remaining in session but few min
utes the committee adjourned to meet
again at 10 O'clock Monday morning, and
decide upon it's recommendation to the
Board of Aldermen.