The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1898-08-20
INCOMPETENT FUSION LEGISLATURE.

1 they nave not seen so nlucH OIL CHe HlColi
petence of the gang. AS the books are
| in their keeping, and they insult every
taxpayer who asks to see them, it is i'm
possible to know any of the incOmDc
tence except such as gets into the courts
That has been enough to Gown any
party.
issued there is Il chapter showing thu
number of eases in which the Suprc.
court had to amend or to annul their
acts. 1t is as follows:
SIN Mcneil VS.. McDuffie. 119-336. i
was held that Monday was not Monday
when it was convenient.
Chapter So, Acts 1895. provides for
Superior court to be held i'll Cumher
( land county ION the Sixth Monda!
after the first Monday in March, t,
continue for two weeks" Chapter 2S1
passed at the same session, provides thai
Il term of the Superior court shall he
held in Richmond county ION the sixth
Monday after the first Monday il
March, Both counties are in the same
judicial district, and it would seem that
the conflict was such that one court
could not be held; but not so, for the
Supreme court comes to the relief of the
incompetent FusioniStS and holds that
the judge can hold one court awhile and
then hold the other awhile; making the
judge an oscilating one rather than Il
rotating one.
BY Acts 1S95. Chapter POI. the Lcgis
tlftt ,ft tod thn
~ of Craven to levy n tax in excess OF
the Constitutional limit, for the spccia
purpose of maintaining the public fer
rics. etc. etc. Of said county, and for
meeting other current expenses of the
county. In Williams vs.. Commissioners
1880, the court held that the latter
clause invalidatcd the whole Act, and
thus defeated the purpose of the Repub.
leans to steal the funds of the county
under that flexible clause. The plaintiff
in the action was the member of the
House from Craven at that session, and
had the Act passed. His purpose was
defeated, and Williams went away sor-
rowful
In State VS. Brown, 119-7S9 the
fraudulent assignment Act" put
through the session of 1895. again hobs
up. Brown was indicted for fraudulent
ly permitting. as enrolment clerk, the
enrolment of that bill, which, by the adj
mission of all, never passed the Legis-
lature at I'LL. He was pulled out of
the hole" by the Supreme court after
having been convicted by Il jury OF
Wake county fusionists. Clothed with
his honorable % discharge, he is now
hungrily asserting his fitness for anoth
or fusion job. He has shown himself
worthy and qualified.
Russell VS.. Aver, 120-1S0. the Gov.
ernor against the Auditor, furnishes a
notable example of fusion ncompetency
The plain mandate of the Constitution
is that the equation of taxation shall he
preserved. G., that the tax on $500
worth of property shall always be the
same as the poll tax. No clause in the
Constitution is better known. 1t was
inserted as protection to property
But the Fusion Legislature of 1897
either did not know it or undertook t.
override the Constitution. or they coulC
not multiply correctly. Under the Reve
nue. Act of 1897 the poll tax was fixcC
at S1.29, and the property tax at #
cents on the 500; or three cents moro
than it should have been. The Su
preme court held the levy unconstitu
tional, and had to fall back on former
law.
Wood VS.. Bellamy. Lusk VS.. Sawyer
Person VS.. Switzerland 120-2G5, arc
the Insane Asylum cases The Legisla
ture of 1897 attempted. by circumlocu
ton, to turn out the experienced officers
of all the asylums, and put in their
places new and untried men to look after
the poor unfortunateS who walk in the
shadow of a vacant or disOrdcred mind
In these cases, as in others, they "didn't
know how to do it," Seemingly, theiI
minds were disordercd by an Allwis,
Providence to prevent this detestable
crime.
The Supreme court held all the Acts
unconstitutional and thus saved these
poor creatures from the miserable fate
the Fusion Legislature had prepared fol
them.
Carr VS.. Coke, 116- 223-the fraudu
lent assignment Act" Governor
Carr brought an action to prevent this
act. found among the ratified Acts
/ (Acts 1880 from being Incorporated il
the printed laws of the State. 1t was
admitted that it never passed the Leg
saturc, but was fraudulcntly enrolled
and was signed 10y the presiding officers
/ of 9th houses. The court held that the
Judiciary was eXhaustcd;" that there
was no remedy, and that a paper writing
which it was conceded had never beer
passed by the Legislature, was the law
of the land! This is equivalent to hold
ing that all that is necessary to enact
| laws for the government of the people
are two presiding officers; and "A later
decision Range Co. VS.. Carver, rs \
G. 32S) would seem to hold that ever
this is not essential.
Wyatt VS.. Manufacturing Co., 11G y
c., 223. on the same question is anoth
or monument to the rascality of tn,
Legislature of 1890.
But the court pulled this Legislature
out of the hole it had put itself in, by
declaring in Farthing VS.. Darlington
11G-31J. that the Act did not apply t.
mortgages made to secure Indebtedness:
created at the time it was made, ant