The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-01-06

secure Inc Taltnfut ana enclent per-
formance Of public duties.
Moreover. every presumption is in
favor OF the constitutionality of an
act of the Legislature, and all rea-
sonable doubts should be solved in
Its favor.
Another constitutional objection
to the act has been argued with great
force, and has received our NEST
careful and serious consideration.
That objection is that the act inter
feres with the independent tenure of
the Judiciary So essential to the
proper enforcement Of the law
and the protection of the citi-
zen. This Commission was com
pared to the Criminal courts Of the
State; and the danger of placing the
lives and liberties of the people in
the keeping of judges whose Official
tenure might depend upon the nm
certain complexion of the legisla-
ture or the arbitrary will of the Gov
ernor, was ably and elcquently por-
trayed.
"Our conclusion is that the rail-
road Commission does not stand
upon the same footing as the Crimi-
nal courts, inasmuch as it is an ad-
ministrative and not judicial court.
While it was made by a subsequent
statute court Of record, it was
clearly the object of the act simply
to give authenticity to its records
and proceedings, as it added nothing
to its duties or powers.
1--WE are Of the opinion that the
disputed provisions Of the act are
constitutional, and that the power of
suspension rests in the hands of the
Governor, which when exercised in
an orderly manner, is not reviewa-
BILE by the courts. Whether the &C.
ton of the Governor is justified by
the facts, which he alone could find,
is not for US to say. That the de-
fendant has not been deprived of
his property without due process Of
law; that the only property he could
have IL the effico WAS that given to
him by the statute, which must be
construed in all its parts. His COM
mission, which is his title deed, ap-
pears to us with the fateful words
Of the creative act written across it's
face by the hand of the law. What
ever right to trial by jury he might
otherwise have had, was waived by
his acceptance of the Office under
the conditions Ct the statute, at
least SO ar as the action of the Gov
ernor was concerned. In the court
below, as all the material facts that
could there be inquired into were
practically admitted, there was
nothing left but the bare question Of
law, and upon those questions we
see no error in the ruling Of the
court. The judgment must there
fore be affirmed, but in view Of
the public interests involved, we
deem it proper, not to remand the
case, but to enter final judgment in
this court. This action IS taken on
motion of counsel made without OBJ
lection in open court upon the hear
ing of the case, and under authority
of section 957 of the Code, as recog-
nized in Bernhard VS.. Brown, 1ls
n. c., 100, 710. The judgmea: vii!
| therefore be entered that the rela.
tor is entitled to the Office of Rail.
road Commissioner; that the defend
ant be ousted therefrom, and thai
the relator be placed into possession
of said ofice, together with all it,
records and other appurtenance:
thereunto belonging"
| THE DISSENTING OPINION.
In dissenting Chief Justice Fair
cloth comedies the right of the legis
lature to abolish any Office of it
own creation, sin which event th'
officer goes with the off1ce," but say
that it must not be done upon any
notion of implied notice in the &C
ceptance, but because the Legislature
has the power to abolish
"My conception is that the act 0
the Governor in suspending the de
fendant was not an executive fune
ton; but simply the act of an agen
of the legislature with such powe
as they attempted to confer on thei
agent. l can see no reason VIII
, the Secretary of State could not a
we'll have been the agent, with d.
rections, for the causes mentione'
in the act, to suspend the Governo
from his Office until the legislator
= should have an opportunity to RI
move or restore him, as they nigh
3 choose to do, without any hearin
for him.
$50 the real question is the powe
: Of the legislature to suspend and n
t move a judicial eff Ger from his ofhe
: and thus forfeit his property Will
/ out giving him a trial.
/ Judge Faircloth then goes on
argue that the act is unconstitution;
Q and against public policy; that tt
:, Commissioners have been deprive
2 of their property without due pr
s cess Of law or just cause.
= "The defendant specifically i
g MES each material allegation. Whe
, brought before the Superior cou
s. under the form of a trial, the d
). fendant demanded to hear the pro
II of the matters alleged, to confro
l. his accusers, to cross-eXamine,
q introduce his own evidence, and
have the issues determined by
D, jury of his peers. These reques
If were all refused by the court al
t. judgment was pronounced declaril
lr that defendant had been duly So
:e pended from his eff :e, and orderil
f. his custer therefrom. This court
to now appealed to to afir
ID said judgment and approve the p,
al cedure below in this case.
Of 81 think the plaintiffs contenti
a. is ipj furious, subversive and contra
IS to the organic law Of our system
rt government, and that it is unreaso
is able and unjust, and that the {
a cisions of any court in any Sta
ne disregarding those principles, MI
ht soon fall under the condemnati
ne of the legal mind in this country.
er On the following day a mott
r.olo h- NJ n ~