The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-03-19
STATE PRISON CASE
HAS ITS HEARING
Argued at Length Before the
Supreme Court.
THE PLAINTIFFS CHARGED
THAT THE PRISON WAS REOR-
CANNED THROUGH POLITI-
CAL MALICE.
THE PLAINTIFFS CHARGED
THE DEFENDANT CLAIMED NECESSITY
The Court Room Was Crowded With Those In.
terested in the Case. Hearing Lasted
Three and Half Hours.

the Supreme court yesterday in the mat
ter OF the superintendency of the State
Prison. Lengthy briefs were read by
counsel on either side, the hearing last
ing from ten O'Clock to half past one.
Inc Supreme court room was filled
with interested auditors of the case,
many members of the bar being pres
ent. Counsel in the similar cases that
have been brought were nearly all on
hand to catch the line of argument.
Judge McRae. c. II. McRae. +. NJ.
Argo and T. y. Hill appeared for the
plaintiff and Shepherd and Busbee and
X. y. Burton for the defendant
THE CASE FOR CAPT. DAY.
Counsel for the plaintiff. Judge Nc
Rae speaking first, claimed that the
place of superintendent of the State
prison was a public office. that an office
is property and the incumbent has the
same right to it as to any other prop
erty, that the incumbent cannot be de-
prived of this property by legislative en-
actment because that would violate arti-
Gle /, section IL of the Constitution,
that an Office may be abolished when
no longer public necessity. but there
must be a total abrogation of the office
and not simply a transfer of duties.
Counsel for defendant urged that there
had not been any abrogation of duties Of
the superintendent, that they had merely
been transferred to the board of direc
tors. The State entered into a contract
with the incumbent of an office and
corid not escape the obligation to be
imposed by the contract.
With regard TO the act Of 1899 incor-
porating the State prison counsel alleged
that 1T was not Il corporation because
there We're no grantees with a common
name and power of succession. The
office was a constitutional office and the
Governor was not bound to nominate
to the Senate. The act was unconstitu-
tional as a whole if part was unconsti-
tutional. The power to appoint to office
was constitutional and could not he
altered. modified or restricted by the
Assembly. The tendency of the leg
islative department to encroach on the
powers of the other departments snould
be called.
C. II. McRae. of counsel for the plain
tiff, submitted "a separate brief. Mr..
McRae alleged that section 3. article II
of the Constitution made provision for
the erection and conduct of the State
prison, necessitating the creation of of
fees to conduct the prison and that
when filed the Legislature gould not
shorten terms of incumbents, and if it
could not shorten a term could not de-
stroy the office. IT could not deprive
a constitutional officer of, his salary.
''If the Legislature attempts to abol-
ish an office. it must. in fact, do so.
1t can not. for the purpose of getting
19G tlpa 70, aIp III
his office and in tha same act create
a new office and transfer each and every
duty Of the abolished office to the new
ONE
Counsel declared:
at seems from this act that the Legis-
lature was thinking very much more
of making places for claqueurs than of
the proper management of the institu-
ton. And. If they could not get charge
of the institution. they would at least
find employment for a part of the hun
gry."
Under the constitution the Legislature
had no power to appoint directors of
the State prison, only the executive
could do that
ssThe political history of North Caro-
linn since 1870. has been a series of
encroachnents by the Legislative De-
partment upon the Executive and TO-
dav. the Executive stands stripped of
all its prerogatives except, possibly. The
power to pardon, occasionally, con-
yict'
s.The object of the act of 1890
was to get control of The
patronge of the State prison There
are 100 places in this instiiu
tion. Unless the superintendent were of
their making these places could not be
theirs. The act was one scheme to get
office. and all its parts must stand or
fail together"
THE CASE FOR THE BOARD.
q N Rusbee presented the brief for
Shepherd and Busbee. Mr.. Busbee al
legged that:
..The Act of 1899 in terms abolshes
tho office of Superintendent of the
states prison, claimed by the defend
ant.
.sI,he mower of the General Assembly
"a obol;sb an office has never been ques-
toned in this State.
"In the absence of tonstltusona'
restriction. the creation, continuance,
duties and emoluments of an Office are
matters of political eXpediency. 10 be
iudged OF solely by the Legislature
"The act of 1899 is in no sense so
Yearly a repetition of the former law
(chapter 219, Laws 1897. under which
ahe defendant claims TO hold as 10 sus-
tain the contention of defendant that
fine former law is not abrogated and his
office abolished" The office of super
intendent was abolished because the
ctoto n,.;son was made a corporation
and fine office was no longer necessary.
IN Ala method of government had pro-
.,ad ON extensive failure and it was
necessary to change lf.
The State prison was duly incorpora-
"a according to decision as to Other
State institutions. .:4,.;., ).
giving the Assembly power to appoint
directors. 49, Assembly -