The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-07-16
Office for Which he Fights
no Longer Exists.
ARGUMENT OF Mr.. POu
CORPORATION COMMISSION AN
ENTIRELY DISTINCT BODY.
THE RAILROAD COMMISSION IS DEAD
Every Act Of The Legislature Which Killed il
Valid Unless in CONFIRMATION Of Some
Section of Our Con-
sttution.

Section Of Our Con-
stituton.
The last Legislature repealed the Rail
road Commission. That ended DR.. Alb
bott-much to the regret of those rail
roads which he mad served with great
faithfuness. The people applauded!
But Abbott and the political railroads
don't want the doctor to give up. And
he is making fight for an office to
which he never was elected, and hoping
the Republican Supreme Court will
pull him through.
The case was argued yesterday before
Judge Moore. DIR. Abbott was repre-
scented by MacRae and Day, Argo ana
Snow, and J. C. l.. Harris. The legal
commissioner. Mr.. Beddingfeld. was
represented by Simmons, Pou and
Ward, J. n. Holding and j. II. Flem-
ing. The counsel consumed most of the
day with the argument. Judge Mac
Rae opened for DIR. Abbott. Mr.. James
H. pou, of counsel for Mr.. Beddingfeld,
who made the opening speech for his
side, said:
MIR. POU'S ARGUMENT.
May it please Your Honor:
In the argument of this case a single
subject has been assigned 10 me. HAS
the General Assembly abolished the Of
flee of Railroad Commissioners Ii
that office has been abolished, then DR..
Abbott cannot recover in this action. We
contend that the office of Railroad Com
missioner and the institution known as
the Railroad Commission were abolished
by chapter 5O6, Public Laws of 1879.
(Mr. Pou then read the act.l
This act is clear and unmistakable
expression of the legislative will upon
subject clearly Within the province of
the Legislature; and as the Journals of
the Legislature show, after long deiib-
Grafton.
The Legislature found an Institution
in existence costing many thousands of
dollars a year, which apparently had
lost its power to do good. From num-
Der of causes the. institution had lost its
hold upon the confidence of the people
and had become, to some extent. dis
credited. For two years almost, it had
been a very storm centre of confusion
and disturbance.
Unseemly contests before the courts
of this State and of the. United States,
going at last within the halls of the
General Assembly itself; policy of
vacilation and uncertainty; establish
ing a rate, or making an order. and
abrogating the same within a month;
these and other things demonstrated to
the General Assembly that the Railroad
Commission had failed of its mission
and should be abolished.
Chapter 5O6, Public Laws of 1899, is
the concrete expression of this senti-
nlent.
Is this law effective? Is it an aboli-
ton of the Railroad Commission? If
so we need go no further and the plaintiff
must go out of court. The plaintiff
says that this Act has not abolished the
Railroad Commission because the Gene
raj Assembly at the same time re-estab-
lished the office of Railroad Commits
sioner, under a different name, and that
therefore the two acts of 1899 are but
amendments to the Railroad Commission
Act of 1SuA.
The plaintiff relies upon certain decis-
ions of our Supreme Court to sustain this
view t
He cites the case Of Hoke VS.. Hender-
son ID n. c., page 1. In this case there
was no claim that an. office had been
abolished. The Legislature provided Il
different method of filling the office OF
Superior Court clerk and the voters Oh
Lincoln county attempted to exercise
that method before the term of the in
cumbent expired. The court held that
their election was of 10 effect.
There was no suggestion that the
office held by Mr.. Henderson had been
abolished, nor was there any claim Il 1t
the office sought by Mr.. Hoke was an
Office different from the one held by Mr.
Henderson. = The office was but one--the
question was as to the legal holder there
of. And in that case SO strongly relied
upon by the plaintiff, the court uses these
words: And as the creation so is thu
continuance of the office question of
sound discretion in the Legislature, OF
= which a court cannot question the ex
ercise." 1.-The office itself when it ceases
to be required for the benefit of the PEG
pie. may be abolished" There is ne
obligation ON the Legislature or the PEG
pie to keep up a useless office or To
pay an officer who is not needed. Ht
takes the office with the tacit under
standing that the existence of the Of
fee depends upon the public necessit.
for it and that the Legislature is TIT
judge of that"
This case established the doctrine il
this State that where the office is con
tinued. the officer may not be dis
charged and his office given to another.
but it recognizes equally as distinctly tn
right of the Legislature to abolish, dur
ing the term of an officer, amy offic
not required for the public good, ant
that the Legislature Shall decide wheth,
the office is required. Now let us re
member that the statute then under con
sideration did not purport to abolish tn
office in controversy, and there was n
question about THE extent of the office
and we will see how far removed III
case Of Hoke VS.. Henderson is from III
case at bar.
There has in recent years been dis
position to extend the dot he enun
ciated in this case with the result o
hampering if not thwarting The legsla
tive will. This tendency has been nc