The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1899-04-20
THE DAY DECISION.

The Supr, me CUT. 10 y decision
written by Justice Montgomery, has
declared The act OF the recent legis-
.,ure attempting to legislate Our o.
Office Capt. Day, the Superintendent
4 the psnitentlary, uuconstitution-
|, aud that Capt. by ia entitled t.
= id aud continue tn exereue the Of
ice Of Superintend-nr. A maj rl'y |
IF the Cour, sustained the Opinion |
sri'ten )y Justice Montgomery. Jus
tee Clatk writing d sc.ntIug opln-
ION. The decision OF the court seems
- be in line with the unbroken de-
clsions Of the court for over half a
.entury, beginning with the fam"u
.se Of II Ike vs.. Hell derson, in which
It was held that public Office was
property and that q man elected to a
public office for certain length OF
ume hel4 a contract with the State
md could not be Ousted by the lePis
l.ture in order to give the flee t"
,ome one elst; but that the leglsla
ture could abolish the Office complete
~. While it seems that the court
naa properly declared the law, sccor-
ling to long line of previous decis-
IONS, yet We are frank to say that VT
think the decision Of the court in th'
case Of Hoke vs. Henderson, and all
4 subse quent decisions along the ga M
line, as bad law and unfortunate de-
clsions, to say the least. The DIS
,entlrg opiulou Of Justice Clark
seems to have the arguments OF IS
uce and common sense behind it. W.
10 DOT think any Legislature should
be able to bass any law which sub
s. qu-nt legislature could not rept a.
or amend; and surely the interests Of
the State should always be para
mount to the property interests ina
any flee holder might have claim
Ia , fl q held under the State. w.
do not wish to be understood, how
ever, as endorsing the action Of thu
recent gisla,ure in attempting t.
legislate out of flee Capt. Day ant
a large number Of others, for thu
simple and sole purpose of furnish
ing lbs for hungry party heelers
We think such action on the part o
auy Legislature is highly reprehen si
. BILE and should be Condemned by tn
, people at the polls in the next cleo
, ton by electing a d # ,rent legisla
, Iture. But every Legislature is pre-
, sumed to b. honest aud patriotic an
to leglslate solely with the view t.
q the public welfare. There fore, the
should have the fullest power, aud i
they abuse this power there shout
: be appeal only to tho people.
Therefore, We regret exec dingl
that the court did not IL, this op
portuni'y to reverse the folmsr d.
cisions OF the court and reuder a de
;, csi,n m ore in harm my with CON
mon sense and common justice. w
consider the II Ike VS. Henderson d.
cision and o'her subse quent decision
along this line as aim st as unfortu
fuate as thu famous Dartmouth Col
,, lege decision, in which the monstrou
doctrine was laid down that q fran
,. chise grated to a corporation wa
y not privilege ex ended by the Stat
which could be taken away at tn
=. pleasure of the State, but that it wa
4 contract with a corporation, an
y, that the State was bound to observ
4 it as right vested in the corpors
ton. The monstrous decision ha
been a verita BILE Pandora's box c
evil 1t has been the hot bed for ger
y Grating most od,ous and opprcssiv
monopolies and trusts, which hav
/ well-nigh usurped the liberties of til
people and corrupted the fountai
springs of our governmental itself.
$ Courts are too prone to follow
& long line Of previous decisions. Tn
e should be done only when the deci
- ions, however old or numerous, al
II founded on justice and comm
y sense. We trust the court will y
axe the position so ably set forth (
ID Judge Clark in his dissenting OPT
ION.