The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-05-10


same session of the Legislature upon
the same subject matter are and must
be considered as one act and must
ne construed together, under the doe
trine of in pari materia.'
In tne last three pages he losses
the following bomb into the camp
of the Legislature:
at is claimed that the court should
look for the object to be attained by
the enactment-what was wrong and
what was the intended benefit to be
effected by the legislation. But when
we apply this rule. and look for the
evil under the act of 1895 and the
benefit to be accomplished under the
act of 1899. we find none, as the court
under the act of 1899 is precisely the
same, except as to the personnel of
the clerk. The plaintiff is out and
t..e defendant is in. We can find no
reason for this change. unless we
were to enter a fed of inquiry that
we. as coordinate department of
the government, have no right TO en-
ter. and which we have no more dis
posluon to enter than we have the
right to do so. That field of inquiry
to us is a sealed book"
Continuing, as to the powers and
duties of the court. Judge FurcheS
Says:
This court being purely crea
ture of legislation. has no functions
or powers except those given it by
legislation. 1t has no judge or other
officer except as given it by legisla-
ton. It's officers have no fees, except
as prescribed and fixed by legislation.
None of its officers. witnesses or ju-
rors. except the judge and so..citor
have their fees and compensation fix
ed by the act of 1899. without refer
ring to the act of 1895. The act of 1895
prescribed and fixed all these fees and
compensation. The act of March 3
provides that they shall be the same
as now fixed by law. The act of 1895
is the only law fixing the fees of the
officers of this court and must be the
law referred to in the act of 1899 We
are thus led to the conclusion that the
acts of 1899 must be considered to-
gether. and are in pari materia with
the act Of 1895 and act of 1897 creating
a criminal court in Mcdowell county
and putting it in the criminal circuit
with iBuncombe and other counties
Thus considered, they are but amend
ments to the act of 1895 and the act
of 1897, and do not abolish the crimi-
nal court of Buncombe county. And
this being SO. the relator Wilson is
entitled to his office under the doe
trine of IIoke VS.. Henderson. and ev-
cry other case decided by this court
since HOke VS.. Henderson where the
question has been involved This
case has been the pride of the bench
and of the bar of this State for inore
than 60 years; and whatever others
may say we find it to be the settled
law of this State, based, as we believe.
upon just principles and sound rea-
soning.
I'VE have recently heard the argu-
ment advanced that public officer
has no interest in the office. but only
in the salary and fees of the Office
This is new doctrine to us. The sal
airy and fees are but Incidents of the
office. and if one has no office he has
no interest in the fees. Take the of
fee from its owner. and you take
from him the fees
Then comes an addenda. lurid one
it is, too. 1t was filed after Judge
Clark wrote his decision, to one part
of which it is a rep.y. Judge Furchcs
says:
Prom the intimations made bv
member of this court we are induced
to say that we have discussed the
legal questions arising in this case
as they appeared to us; we do not in
vite criticism; we have no right to OBJ
ject to fair criticism, and we do not
do so. If such criticism shall be in
dulged in, as is not just or legitimate,
we believe that an intelligent and
learned profession will discriminate
between that which is legitimate and
that which is not.
1T has been suggested by member
of this court that the legislature has
the power to impeach a iudge--tllat it
has recently done so-and that there
is no appeal from its Judgment. Such
a suggestion as this has never occur
red in the history of this court until
now. This suggestion added nothing
to the strength of the argument adj
vanced for the defendant. Why they
should have been made. we do not
know. But remembering our position
as members of this court, we will not
express our sentiments as to such
suggestions, and will only say that in
our opinion that,any member OF any
court, who would allow himself to
be influenced by such suggestions, is
unfit TO be ilIdpe;