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

page aus.
This Court as recently had occasion
| to re-affim the doctrine laid down in
| that oft quoted decision Choke VS.. Hen
dcrson), which has become too firmly es-
| tablished in the policy of our laws new
| to be questioned: but the varied ana
extraordinary claims now made there
under and the fact that we are the
only State in the Union recognizing the
! doctrine, may well cause us to pause and
consider if we have not carried it to It's
| fullest legitimate extent. 1t may be
doubted if the great Chief Justice him
self ever contemplated the extent to
which it would be carried"
| This language was used by our highest
| court only eighteen months ago, vet
| we find this doctrine so greatly extended
since that time that the claim Is now
made that the Legislature cannot abol-
ish an office, during a term Of Office,
| if its provides that any person shall per-
form the duties of that office thereafter.
! That is they hold that if there are 1wo
offices and one only is required, the
| Legislature cannot consolidate the offices
until the terms of the officers expire.
| This is new doctrine in North Carolina.
| Few men thought such was the law.
and if such is the law number of
men now private citizens are entitled to
Offices held by others.>
| In 1885 the Legislature created the OF
| fee of Criminal Court Judge of New
| Hanover and Mecklenburg counties. lie
| term of the Judge was tiXe1 ut eight
| years Judge Meares was appointed N
| the early part of 1885 and at the cxpi-
| ration of his time he was reappointed.
| His second term would have eSplred dur
| ing the early part of 1901. The Legis-
! lature of 1895. Chapter LOG. Section 10.
abolished this court and an the same
act created another court embracing
| those counties, and proceeded to elect
| Judge. The court decided that Judge
| Meares continued to be the Judge, tDut
not because the Legislature could not
| repeal his court and establish another
| embracing his district during his term of
| office but because the Legislature pro-
| ceeded to elect judge of the new court
| before the act creating the new cour.
| had been ratified Judge Meares held
| on not by virtue of his original appoint
| ment. but because the Governor APP
| pointed him Judge of the new court 20
| hold on until the next Legislature met.
| If the doctrine contended for the plain
| tiff is law, Judge Meares was entitled
| to the irdgeslip of the Criminal Court
| of New Hanover and Mecklenblrs. II
| indeed he was not entitled to the Judge
| ship of the Eastern Criminal Circuit
until 1901.
| The same kind of law was enacted
! and the Criminal Court of Buncomhe
| abolished and a new court embracing
| five counsies-fstablishe And in tn
case our court held that Mr. Ewart, the
| new Judge, was entitled to the office
and he held it notwithstanding the Bun
combe Criminal Court was abolished dur
| ing the continuance of the term OF JIdge
Jones and his office transferred by the
same act to Judge Ewart. In the same
| manner the Criminal Court of Hartford
| and the Inferior Court of Swain, Edge
| combe and other counties were abolished
! before the terms of the officers expired,
| and the duties and functions Of said
| offices transferred to the Criminal or
| Superior Courts. Years ago the Crimi-
nal Courts of Wake and New Hanover
counties were abolished during the term
| of office Of the judge. solicitor and clerk.
| and all these functions were transferred
| TO the Superior Courts. No one thought
! of calling into question the legality OF
| this legislation. And we may suppose
! that the public regarded them as legitf
mate acts of legislative authority. No
one contended that Hoke VS.. Henderson
held such legislation invalid. | mention
! these facts to show the marrow limit
| to which Hoke against Henderson had
been CARRIED, when Judge Douglas in
/ the latter part OF 1897 felt called upon i'll
| speaking for the court to warn against
/ the further extension of that doctrine
| The next case relied upon is Gotten
/ VS.. Ellis 81, $40. In this case there
| was no abolition of the office for the
| court expressly held that the office eff
! Acknowledgement was an offic, created
| by Act Of Congress which the Legisla-
i ture could not abolish. The court held
| that the Legislature might charge the
| manner of filling the office, but could not
deprive the present officer of his term
| of office. The office was not abolished
and it was not contended that the duties
of the office had been changed.
In Wood VS.. Bellamy 40, 212. the
1 court holds that the mere changing OF
! the names of certain officials at the
4 State hospitals and changing their terms
of office from six to four years did not
/ make them new offices, but that they
remained essentially as before the Act
| The decision in favor Of the old officers
| is rested distinctly in that ease on the
! ground that the new and old Offices are
| identical, and. that the change in name
/ is immatcrial.
/ In the recent eases of State Prison VS..
! Day and Wilson VS.. Jordan, the court
| decides for the old officers expressly
/ upon the ground that there had not been
| an abolition Of the office but that the
1 office had remained in all its
4 vitality and that the L.egisla-
4 ture had endeavored to transfer the
l office from its then occupant, and during
\ his term,s to, another; therefore such
legislation fell within the inhibition OF
i Hoke VS.. Henderson.
i The court in each of these opinions
recognizes the power.of the Legislature
|. to abolish an office (even during the tern
i of the incumbent) when it thought it eX
pedient to do so, and that the. Legislature
was the only judge Of that expcdiency.
4 We have then the court recognizing the
power Of the Legislature to abolish al
office whenever it sees fit to do so, ant
when so abolished the incumbent loses
!, his property therein.
In the case at bar, the Legislature has