The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1899-12-21

Dnssred &C the Post Once N Raleigh,
N. G.. ~ second. class mail matter
MAS NOT THE COURAGE TO PUBLISH
TsE FACTS.
The following editorial appeared
IN a recent Issue of tho Raleigh
News and Observer:
"THE CAUCASIAN gets indignant
because this paper condemns the par
usan Supreme Court for usurpiDg
the power to veto legislation, but II
dares not deny that the Supreme
Court Of North Carolina 10 the only
court In the civilized world that holds
that IN ONCE il q private contract
instead of . public agency. The peo-
pie know that the Repop li-cans de-
termined through the court to de-
stroy the result OF the election OF
1893. TIE Legislature made one
big mistake when ii did not impeach |
Governor Russell. 1t may be neces-
ssry to do q little impesching yet TO
teach the negropholists that the
white folks intend to rule in North
Carolina"
We suppose that paper intended
the above as reply to our recent
editorial stating the facts and expo
sing the hypocrisy and inconsistent
cy of those who now attempt to
criticise the Supreme Court. Ii the
News and Observer had had the
courage to publish the facts con-
tanned In our editorial, then 1t
would not have dared to insult It's
readers by Offering the above as
reply thereto.
In the FIRST place the News and
Observer repeats its charge that
the supreme Court Is partisan That
this Ii absolutely false, and base
libel upon our State Supreme Court
no one knows better than the editor
of the News and Observer. We
challenge that paper to compare
the record of this court with
Democratic courts, and to show
that any Democratic court has ev-
or been fairer and more impartial
Next, the News and Observer at
tacks the Court for what 1t calls
"usurplng the power to veto legis-
lation." The News and Observer
takes the position now, for the first
time In Its history that the Su-
preme Court of q state has no pow.
or to declare an act of the legisla-
ture unconstitutional, even when 1t
Is clearly unconstitutional. Over
ono hundred years ago the Supreme
Court Of North Carolina took the
position that IL had that power
Since that time we think every Su.
preme Court in the Union has Ia.
ken the same position. Every Dem
ocratic Supreme Court that the
State has ever had has taken that
position and exercised that power
It Is true that In some recent dis
senting opinions, Justice Clark, Of
the present Court, has questioned
that power but to say the least, Il
has been very recent discovery oil
his. He has never before dissented
when the Court exercised that pow.
or, and, besides, he has written nu.
merous opinions Of the Court where
that power was exercised. Whether
the Supreme Court of a State should
exercise that power or not is no,
the question we are discussing. W.
are stating facts.
Next, the News and Observer
charges that The CAUCASIAN "dart
not deny that the Supreme Court
Of North Carolina Is the only court
In the civilized world that holds
that an office Is a public contract
instead Of public agency" No
TEE CAUCASIAN does not deny thi.
statement, for it may be a fact, and
indeed The CAUCASIAN was the first
paper in North Carolina In recen,
years to call attention to the fac,
that the prevailing opinion was the
other way. The CAUCASIAN called
attention to this when the Supreme
Court rendered its decision in the
case Of Wood vs. Bellamy, but al
that time the News and Observer
was busy praising the decision, anG
It's editor personally congratulated
the members of the Court upor
what he then called a great non
partisan and righteous decision. II
now seems that the editor of thu
News and Observer was moved Il
all Of his praise and enthusiasm
not by an conviction, but simply
because the result of the decision
of the Court put n Democrat in Of
fee and put a Populist out.
TIE CAUCASIAN has never believed
in the doctrine Of Hoke va. Hender
son, and when the Wood VS.. Bella
my decision was rendered, express
cd regret that our Court did no
see At to override the doctrine lai,
down In that decision. But let u
think for q moment what thes
partisan Democratic papers woul'
have said II the Court had over
ruled Hoke va. Henderson In tn
: case Of Wood vs.. Bellamy. Jude
Ing by their recent conduct In nov
criticising the Court In upholdin
the same doctrine that then ha'
their uYAiee. IL In clear that the