The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-07-16

Its authority over transportation COM
panies, telegraph and telephone lines is
| more extensive than the Railroad Com.
| mission ever possessed. And besides
| this, the Legislature conferred upon the
| Corporation Commission the supervision
of banks. buildings and loan associations.
| These additional powers never even re-
| motely appertained to the Railroad Com
| mission and the plaintiffs relator never
| had the slightest claim to the right to
| exercise them.
Let us look at the scope of the duties
| conferred upon the Corporation Commits
| sion, which the Railroad Commission
| never mad.
| On December 10th, 1897. the
| capital stock of State, pri-
vate and savings banks i'll
! this State was ......... .S2,o64, 04394
| Inc surplus .............. ooU,3Ul 80
| The deposits ............ o.iSI ,63294
| Total available fund SSH ,57S77
In the last year and half this has
increased until it is now greatly in ex-
| cess of nine million dollars.
| There are thirty building and loan
! companies. l am not able to give the
| estimate 10 put the amount of the peo-
| pie money now in the hands of banks
| and building and loan companies under
the supervision of the Corporation Com
| mission at ten million dollars. Over this
vast sum Of money the Corporation
| Commission stands guard
BY what authority does DR.. Abbott
claim the right to exercise these duties =?
| I'D ~, D.,,1v n AT
| for it did not even mention them. Not
under the Corporation Commission Act
| for that Act provides that three Corpora
| ton Commissioners to exercise these
powers should be elected by the Legsa-
tire of 1893, and he was not elected
| Not under the decision of the Supreme
| Court, for that court has never held that
| new duties should be exercised by the
old officer. in any of the cases from
| Hoke VS.. Henderson to Wilson VS.. .Ior-
don. On the contrary the court has
held whenever it was IN point that new
| duties or new powers made a new office.
| As in Wood VS.. Elizabeth City.
And in State Prison VS.. Day, after
| carefully showing that all the powers
| conferred upon the Executive Board
| were powers heretofore held by the SUI
| perintendent save alone the power to
dsburse the special appropriations and
bond proceeds. the Supreme Court re-
fused to transfer this power to Day but
held that the Executive Board continued
in office for the purpose of exercising
| this single power. To-day we see "a dual
management Of the State Prison-Super-
| intendent Day exercising the powers
conferred by the Acts of 1895 and 1897,
/ III ,,,I h.
/ additional conferred by the Act of 1893,
because being new power the Snperin-
1 tendent had no right to exercise it. This
being. the law. does t4not annihiate DIR.
! Abbott's claim to the office of Corpora
| ton Commissioner!
| The Legislature has expressly abolish
| ed the Railroad Commission. To leave
no doubt of its intention it made this act
o. abolition an integral piece of legisla-
| ton discovered from all else. This Act
ended the office held by Doctor Abbott.
| And unless the Legislature continued his
office and conferred it upon Mr.. Bed
| dingfcld, the plaintiff has no standing
| court. We have seen that the office
| held by Mr. Beddingfield is a very diff
ferent office from that held by DIR. Alb
| bott--salary different. manner of election
| different, powers and jurisdiction differ
| ent. 1t is not the same office. 1t is n
new office-one never held by DR.. Abbott
and one which the courts cannot confer
! upon him.
/ The Counsel for the relator invoke the
doctrine of IN pari material and ask
| the courts shall construe all the acts of
| the General Assembly as being parts of
| one system and to reconcile them one
1 with another.
| We he.d that this doctrine has no ap.
| plication to the ease at bar. That doc
| trine is invoked when the Legislative III
| tent is not clear. 1t is used in interpret
ing the will of the Legislature but never
| for the purpose of thwarting or vetoins
| the legislative will.
1.-THE rule of construction that statutes
| in pari materia are to- be treated as one
| laws is not absolute and is not to be re-
/ sorted to- when the obvious intent Of the
| Legislature would thereby be defeated
| either by a strained reconciliation OF
| such statutes or by regarding statutes in
| pari materia which are not really So"
| Tt rs a canon of Interpretation that the
legislative purpose and the object aimed
| at are to be borne in mind, and that
| language susceptible of. more than ONE
construction is to receive that which will
bring it in harmony with such object and
purpose rather than that which will tend
to defeat it,
ITO justify a departure from the lit
eral meaning of words, the intention
must appear with reasonable certainty
for where the words plainly express the
intent, the construction must be in ac
cOrdance Herewith" American anG
English Encyclopaedia of law, VOL %
pages 81. $40, 81.
This rule Of construction lis to he re-
| sorted to only in eases of doubt and am
biguity, or where the words in their or
binary and prima facie significance wout
raise an undersigned conflict with previous
laws.
1t is not applicable when the statute
is plain and unambiguous and needs ne
aid to reconcile it with the existing body
of laws. In such cases there is no occa
sion to resort to any extrinsic circum
stances to determine the meaning of the
statue, nor is it justiiabl& to do so. The
! Legislature must be understood to have
expressed rs meaning in the words EN-
ployed. 1t would be a perversion of thu
rule to apply it for the purpose of de
r. - "A