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

49, &SiSSSu w Aio oCkCk
lion by the constitution and laws of
this State. 1t is at least Of equal
dignity with a tax sale certificate,
whose titles are held to be evidence
prima facie as to slI and conclusive
as to many Of the facts therein al
legged. De Freville vs.. Smalls, 98 L.
s. 5l7, SPA.
The defendant has not been
denied access to the courts. la
fact he did not attempt to ap-
peal from the action Of the Gov
ernor nor seek the aid of the
courts, but forcibly retained posses
sion of an Office from which he had
been rightfully suspended, and forced
The plaintiff to seek redress in this
action. The Governor in his mott
hcation of suspension to the defend
ant distinctly recognized tbs right of
the defendant to have its legality
tested in the courts, and made no at
tempt to dispossess him. The plain
tiff has sought possession only by
the law of the land, as shown by the
bringing of this action. =
tine defendant may we'll be
deemed to have waived his right to
trial by jury, and Il such right how
ever had, 0y accepting office uIder a.
statute which expressly provided that
ne might be suspended by the Gov
ernor without reference to jury.
I'VE see no error in the trial of the
action in the court below, and we af-
firm its judgment after a full hearing
of the defendant s appeal.
THE defendant herein was not
suspended by the Governor as pun
shment for any crime, but simply
with a legal disqualification. The
| object of his suspension pending
legislative determination was to pre-
vent the danger and scandal of hay
ing important official duties perform
I'd by one legally disqualified. The
| Railroad Commission was constltu
ted by the Legislature in obedience
to a strong popular demand, and
the people have a right to require
that the men charged with the grave
duty of deciding between them and
the great transportation companies,
which practically control the CON-
merce of the country, should be abso-
iutely free from slightest suspicion
of interest or bias. Such a require
ment is based upon the highest prin-
ciple of public policy, and is no more
unreasonable than to say that clerk
or sheriff must give bond for the
faithful performance of his duties,
that an executor or trustee cannot
Ouy at his own sale, and that judge
shall not sit in his own case.
The court very properly, the opin-
ion goes on to say, refused to allow
any issues to be submitted to the ju-
ry. "There are no disputed facts be-
fore the jury. 1t is not denied that
the Governor notified the defendant
to appear and answer; that the de-
fendant did SO appear and answer;
that the Governor subsequently sus-
pended the defendant, giving him
written notice of said action and ap-
pointing the relator; that the relator
only qualified, demanded possession
of the Office, was refused by the de-
fendant, and brought suit.
There was absolutely nothing to
90 to the jury unless the court went
behind the action of the Governor,
which we think could not be reviewed
by the court. The suspension by the
Governor is not a fnal determine
ton of the defendants rights which
must ultimately be passed on by the
Legislature, sitting somewhat in the
nature of a court of impeachment
If it should determine that the de
-endant had been suspended without
Just cause, he would be reinstated
and be entitled to his full pay from
the time of his suspension. The du
~ of suspension was imposed upor
the Governor from the highest mo
tives of public policy, to prevent tn,
danger to the public interests which
might arise from leaving such grea
1 powers and responsibilities in th'
hands of men legally disqualified
To leave them in full charge of thei
: Office until the next biennial session
4 of the Legislature or pending litiga
ton, which might be continued TO
g years, would destroy the very obs
of the law. AS the Governor was
I therefore, by the very letter and spin
4 it of the law, required to act and &C
, promptly, necessarily upon his owI
e findings of fact, We are compelled t
;, hold that such official action was
: under the circumstances, due process
of law Even if,it were proper, tn
S Governor would have no power to di
: rect an issue, like a chancellor.
}, "Our decision in the case at ba
C does not conflict with that in Hok
J. vs.. Henderson. The statute now uE
g der consideration is not retrospective
} and does not interfere with any We:
d ted right. Being part of the a.
e originally creating the Office OF Raj
I, road Commissioner, it prescrlbes
d rule of property in said Office, an
n IL odifies the extent Of interest an
r tenure therein 'prospec'ively.' Tt
a defendant, taking under the &C
a holds subject to the act and relyiu
1t upon his contract is bound by all l
o. provisions. One of its express pr
S, visions was the reserved right of II
le Legislature to remove, and the po'
Is er and duty of the Governor to su
I'd pend under given state OF fact
~ This power of suspension, togeth
ot with the necessary method of its e
er forcement, was asscented to by Il
r defendant.
sin Ewart VS.. Jones, 116 n. c > 81
De which was an action in the nature
" a quo warranto, this court, in ses
a. ing the relator, held that under O
Is. present Constitution the Legislatu
he had the power in establishing the
he fee of judge of the criminal court,
e. prescribe its powers, jurisdiction a.
te methods of appointment, of remov
ty and to elect the incumbent. (Chl
yh Justice Faircloth delivered this OPT
e. ion.) If the Legislature can tn
as elect judge of the criminal cot
ng and provide for the manner of