The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1898-03-31
In error to the Supreme Court Of the
State Of North Carolina.

this court would feel justified in say
ing that there had been a failure OF
due legal process. Wemight ourselves
haye pursued a different course in this
case, but this is not the test. The plain
tiff in error must have been deprived
of one Of those fundamental rights, the
observance Of which is indispensable
to the liberty OF the citizen, to Justify
our interference"
This statement isquOted with apprO-
val in HO"eg v. EHiou, {lG7 L. $. i09, at
| ii3
No such fundamental rights we're in
vOlved in the prOcee dings before the
Governor. In its internal administra-
tiOn the State 80 far as concerns the
Federal Government. has entire free
dom of choice As to the creation of an
| office for purely State purposes, and of
the terms upon which it shall be held
by the person filing the Office. And
in such matters the decision of the
State court, that the procedure by
which an officer has been suspended or
removed from office was regular and
was under constitutional and valid
statute, must generally he conclusive
in this court.
In kenndrd v. LOuiS0n0, (92 u. S.
1907 the proceeding under which the
title to the office of Justice Of the Su-
preme Court of the State was tried, was
held not to violate the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the
United States. The court said the Of
before he was condemned. There was
no intimatiOn in that case that hear
ing such as we had here would be suf-
| ficIent or that the officer would be en-
titled to be CONFRONTED with his accus-
ers and to crOss-examine. the witness
es," and to have a jury trial. In Foster
v. Kansas, (l12 u. 5. 2Ol,) the Kenndrd
case was approved. Neither case gives
any support to the claim that such
hearing as was given in this case
would be insufficient under the Four
] teenth Amendment.
| Nothing in that amendment was in
tended to secure a jury trial in a case
of this nature.
The demand made by the plaintiff in
error for such a trial in the court below
must have been made for the purpose
of submitting to the jury the question
of the truth of the allegations set up
in the answer regarding the proceed
ings before the Governor, and to claim
that if the jury found them to be true,
he was not legally suspended. But the
motion for judgment on the pleadings
was equivalent to demurrer to the
answer for insufficiency, and was,
therefore, an admission of all the facts
we'll pleaded. The question then be-
came one of law for the court to decide,
and in granting the motion the court
did decide that no defense was set
| forth in the answer. In case like
this, such decision of the State court
is conclusive. The mere refusal of q
Jury trial, in and of itself and separated
from all other matters, raises no Fed
eral question. (ITaIker v. iSdurinet, 80
u. $. 9O).
In the proceeding for trying the title
to office in the case of Kenndrd v. Lou
jsjond, COZ u. 5. suprd), the statute pro-
vided for hearing without jury, and
this court held it was not Objectionable
for that reason.
Upon the case made by the plaintiff
in error, the Federal question which
he attempts to raise is SO uDfOunded in
substance that we are justified in say
ing that it does not really exist; that
there is no fair color for claiming that
his rights under the Federal COnstitu-
tion have been violated, either by de-
priving him of his property without
uuc pTUCcSS vi Jaw Ny I'LL
the equal protection of the laws.
In UambHn v. Western Land COmpdna
147 u. s. 53l), it was stated that "s
real, and not q ficticiOu, Federal ques
f tiOn is essential to the jurisdiction O.
this court over the judgments of Stat'
2 courts. (Mllingar v. Hartupee, 6 Wall
= 25S; New Orleans v. Neac Orleans IIdte
= Works Co., 142 U. s. 70, S7). In the lat
), ter case itlwas said that the bare aver
: ment of Federal question is not in al
0 cases sufficient. 1t must not b. who'll.
e without foundation. There must be q
s least color of ground for such averment
e otherwise Federal question might b
set set up in almost any case, aud tn
S jurisdiction of this court invoked sim
n ply for the purposes of delay"
! We think this case falls within tn
8 principle thus stated. Although a
!, office has been held in North CarOlin
n to be generally and in . certai
restricted sense the property OF tn
n incu bent, yet in this case the Suprem
1t Court held that the incumbent, in tax
l. ing the office, holds it subject to tn
,s act creating it, which binds him by a
.e it's provisions, all of which were hel
is to be valid. We should be very r.
luctant to decide that we had jurisdic
,e ion in such case, and thus in an &C
,e ION of this nature to supervise and RI
d view the political administration of
l. State government by its own Officia
It and through its own courts. The juri
IN dictiOn of this court would only ext
e. in case there had been, by reason of II
a statute and the prOcee dings under
p such plain and substantial departuI
a. from the fundamental principles upC
re which our government is based that
ne could with truth End propriety be sa
of that If the judgement were suffered
n. remain, the party aggrieved would
is deprived of his life, liberty or prOperl
ut in violation of the provision of Il
n Federal Constitution.
tn We are of opinion that the facts her
al in present no such case, and that Il
he Jurisdiction of this court does not e
On tend to the case as made in the recO
n now before us.
to For these reasons the motion of t
ch defendant in error to dismiss this WI
re should be granted, and the writ is a
cordingly Dismissed.
he
81 The court IN brief supplements
er- decision decided that Pearson and Cal
to we'll were not guilty of contempt
ie- taking possession of the Railrod Col
in mission office. The decision closes
'ty follows:
,ut ave see no evidence of any intentio
rat al contempt on the part of relator, a
fiji our conclusion is that the rule must
nrt Discharged
ith In No. $50 IS Ohio Wilson, Plain
nd in Error, v. The State of North Carroll
in &cO the aame questions are invOlv