The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-22


on both sides, as to whether the legis-
lation of 1899, chapter SOC and chap
ter 164, repealed the act of 1891, chap
ter 800 and the acts amendatory there
of or supplementary thereto. As inn
portant as this question is, TO our minds
it has in principle been decided by this
court in a number of cases, and it is
only necessary that we should refer to
some Of these cases and apply the prin-
ciples announced in them to the pres
emit case.
1t seems to us that no one can read
the acts of 1899, chapters 506 and 164
without coming to the conclusion that
it was not the purpose of the Legisla-
ture to abolish the Railroad Comnls-
sion--the duties and functions of that
institution or commission, but to abol-
ish-to change-the officers holding and
exercising the duties and functions OF
the commission. lAnd in saying this we
must not be understood as criticising
the action of the Legislature or impugn-
ing its motives in passing these acts.
We have no doubt but what those yot-
ing for these acts thought they had the
right to do this, and to put the office
the relator held in the hands of party
in harmony with the political sentiment
of that party which controlled the
Legislatures: that they Thought this leg
islation constitutional, on that they We're
at the time inadvertent to the question
of its constitutionality King VS.. Hun
ter. ca II. C. COB. But it presents this
question for our determination, so far as
1T affects the rights of the felator. Ih1s
is the question before us, and we con-
slider it with a view to this single qneS-
ton. If it is constitutional as to him
if it does mot affect his vested right of
property in the office he was holding
them we see no constitutional objection
to the legislation; but, ON the other
hand. if it does affect his vested rights
and takes from him his office with its
emollments, before the expiration OF the
term for which he was elected, then,
to that extent, it is unconstitutional and
void
Chapters SOC and 164, both passed and
ratified ON the 9th day Of March, 1899,
are in pali materia and must be read
and considered together for the pur-
pose of ascertaining their meaning. Will
son VS.. Jortlan. 124 y. c. GS7; Rhodes
VS.. Lewis. so y. G.. 1856. When these
acts are read together. it is seen that,
ON the same day March 6, 1890 the
Legislature, protesting TO repeal the
act of March. 1891, under which the
relator Abbott claims to hold, re-enacted
tie act of 1891 in almost the very
words in which it was originally enact
cd and which was part of the statute
law of the State on the 9th of March,
1899 Indeed it does more than this:
Tie Legislature of 1897 passed an
amendment to the act of 1891. chapter
206 extending very greatly its juri.-
d:ction and powers. This amendaialy
act of 1897 (Chapter 206) gave the Rail
road Commission jurisdiction over street
railways, express ard telegraph COM
Ianies and power to require telegraph
companies TO extend their lines and es-
tablish new agencies TO make rules for
receiving. forwarding and delivering
messages. and makes n violation of these
rules a penalty. None of these powers
did the Railroad Commission have under
the original act of 1891.
The forty-secomd section, chapter 169,
of the acts of 1897, by express terms
made the Railroad Commission a Board
of Appraisers of railroad property in
these words: Shall constitute a board
of appraisers and assessors for railroad,
telegraph, canal and steamboat COM
panies.
The act of 1899, chapter 164, which
was passed the same day of the repeal
ing act, in declaring the powers of the
Commission. re-enacts the statute claim
ed by defendant to be repealed Tin section
% ON page 300 i'll the following
words: $40 perform all the duties and
exercise all the powers imposed or
conferred by chapter 800 of the Pub
lie Laws of 1891 and the acts amenda-
tory thereto"
Here we have an act processing 10
rfpeal chapter 800 acts 1891, and in
an act passed the same day and under
which the defendant claims to holi lis
office, it is re-enacted with all amend-
ments thereto. Thus we see that the act
of 1891 (chapter oz0) is expressly re-en-
acted and continued in force by tn ;
act Of 1899, chapter 1854. State VS.. Will
liams. 1T y. C. 7o3; wood VS. Bellamy
100 n. C. pa; Wilson VS.. Jordan,
supra.
The act of 1899, chapter 164, does
not constitute the Corporation Commits
sion a board of appraisers of railroads,
etc. and it seems to be at least doubt
full whether chapter II, section Al, or
the Corporation Commission" a board
of appraisers and assessors for rail-
roads, telegraphs, canals and steam
boat companies, as the act of 1897,
chapter 100, section ~, did. And if the
Corporation Commission is considered
a thing separate and distinct from the
Railroad Commission, and the act OF
1891 establishing the Railroad Commits
| sion and the acts amendatory thereof are
repealed-dead and of no yalidity-it is
! at least doubtful whether the Corpora
/ ton Commission has jurisdiction to as
/ sess the taxes ON railroads, etc, which
| constitutes the principal powers and du-
ties of the Commission. But if the legis-
lation of 1899 chapters SOC and 164,
| are construed to be amendments to the
act Of 1891, establishing the Railroad
| Commission and to the act of 1897 which
! amended the act of 1891, then the
| powers of the Commission to assess the
| taxes ON railroads, ETC., it would seem