The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-03-31
James w Wilson PlaiDtif in Error.
rs.
he state uf North Carolina on the re-
latiOn Of J.. e.. Caldwell
March II, ls9S.

March
Two motions were made in this case
The defendant in error made a motion
70 dismiss the writ on the ground Of
want Of Jurisdiction. The plaintiff IN
error obtained from this court a rule
against the relatOr Caldwell to show
cause why he Should not be punished
~ for contempt in proceeding upon
the Judgment of the State court after a
writ Of error from this court had been
allowed and a superseteas bond duly
filed. The two motions were heard to-
gether. The following were the facts
presented upon the motion to dismiss ::
Here is set out historical review
OF the case commencing with the first
action Of Governor Russell toward sus-
pending the Wilson's down to and
including the final decision Of the
state Supreme Court.
Mr.. Justice PECKHAM, after stating
the facts, delivered the opinion of he
Court.
a consideration of the facts convinces
us that the motion to dismiss this writ
Of error for lack OF jurisdiction ought
To be granted.
ndrr the statute of 1891, creating
the railroad commission and providing
for the appointment, suspension and
removal of the officers of such COM
mission, the act of the Governor in
Suspendng the plaintiff in error was
not a finally. Before there could be
any removal, the fact of suspension
was To be reported to the next legisla-
ture by the Governor, and unless that
body removed the officer the effect was
To reinstate him in office, and he then
became entitled to the salary during
the time of his suspension.
In speaking of the statute and the
purpose of this particular provision
the Supreme Court of the State said ::
"Ihe duty Of suspension was imposed
upon the Governor from the highest
the danger to the public interests
great powers and responsibilities in
the hands Of men legally disqualified.
TO leave them in full charge of their
Office until the next biennial session
of the legislature, or pending litiga-
tiOn which might be continued for
years, would destroy the very object
of the law. AS the Governor was,
therefore, by the very letter and spirit
OF the law, required to act and act
promptly, necessarily upon his own
findings of fact, we are compelled to
hold that such official action was,
under the circumstances, due process
Of law. Even if it were proper, the
Governor would have no power to di-
rect an issue like a chancellor"
The highest court of the State has
held that this statute was n0ta viola
ti0n of the constitution of the State
that the hearing before the Governor
was sufficient; that the Office was SUBJ
AZ al uH mi nj OF rot nj l.
though the commission was designated,
by n statute subsequent to that which
created it, court of record; that the
officer taking office under the statute
was bound to take it on the terms pro-
ylded for therein; that he was lawfully
suspended from office; and that he was
not entitled to trial by jury upon
the hearing of this case in the trial
court. \ a result the court held that
the defendant had not been deprived
Of his property without due process OF
i law, nor had he been denied the equa
protection Of the laws.
The controversy relates exclusively
TO the title TO State office. created by
statute of the State, and to the right:
Of one who was elected to the office 81
created. Those rights are to be meas
ured by the statute and by the cOnsti.
tuition of the State, excepting in 81
far as they may be protected by an!
provision of the Federal Constitution.
Authorities are not required to sup
port the proposition that in the con
sideration of the constitution or laws O
State this court follows the construct
ion gwen to those instruments by tn
highest court of the State. The excep
tlOns to this rule do not embrace tn
case now before us. We are, therefor,
concluded by the decision of the Su
preme Court Of North Carolina as t
the proper construction of the statut
itself, and that as constructed it doe
not violate the constitution of tn
State.
The only question for us to review
whether the State, through the actiO
OF its governor and judiciary, has dt
prived the plaintiff in error of b
property without due process of Law
or denied to him the equal protectiO
of the laws.
We are of opinion the plaintiff i
error was not deprived of any rigl
guaranteed to him by the Federal Coz
st'tutlon, by reason of the proceeding
before the governor under the statu
above mentioned, aud resulting in h
suspension from off e.
The procedure was in accordan,
with the constitution and laws of I'll
State. 1t was taken under a val
stature creating q State office in q col
sIltutlonal manner, as the State cOu
mas held. What kind and how mu(
OF hearing the officer should have b
lore suspension by the governor was
matter Tor the State legislature to d
termine, having regard to the CO
s..eation OF the State. The prcedu
IroViued by a valid State law for Il
purpose OF changing the incumbent
otate Office will not In general j
VoiVe any question for review by I'll
court. law of that kind does b
provide Tor the carrying ..out and e
lOrcement OF the policy of State wi
reference to its political and intern
administration, and a decision of {
state court in regard to its construct
and validity will generally be co
elusive here. The facts would have
De most rare and exceptional viii
would give rise in case of this natU
to a Federal question.
Upon this subject it was said, in
case OF Alien v. Georgia, (1G6 U. s. i;
es follows: ITO justify any interf
nee upon our part it is necessary
now that the course pursued has
prived, or will deprive, the plaintiff
frror Of his life, liberty or proper
without due process of law. With,
attempting to define exactly in wi
uue process Of law consists, it is su
cient TO say that, il the Supreme Co
OF state had acted in consOnance W
he constitutional laws of State q
Is own procedure, it could only be
very exceptional circumstances 81