The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-27

THEY HAVE NO SHADOW OF
RIGHT.


When Col. John S. Cunningham de-
nounced those members of the Board of
Agriculture who are trying to usurp pow
er as fit disciples of Kirk and his brig
andd he was too mild in his denunciation.
KirN and his band of cut-throats had
some shadow of authority from corrupt
officers to carry out their programme OF
violence and knavery. The concocted
conspiracy to usurp powers which the
hoard less than two months ago did not
claim will be condemned from one end of
the State to the other. Upon the adj
journment of the Legislature, the chair
man and secretary of the Board OF
Agriculture wrote to the thirteen menu
hers they now refuse to recognize, noti-
flying them of their election and sum
nloning them to attend a meeting of the
board They came. sat with the RusselF
board of nine and both the old and
new members unanimously elected Col.
Cunningham chairman of the board.
They acted together in naming commit
fees. and the last issue of the Bulletin,
the official organ of the Agricultural De
partment contained the names of all the
new and all the old members together
as composing the state Board of Agri-
culture of North Carolina, 1899" After
such recognition. it is scandalous and
smacks of Il job for the old members
to hatch up a conspiracy to deprive the
new members of the positions to which
they have been elected.
The old board have no shadow of right
to arrogate to themselves the power
they assume. We make this statement
in view of the decision of the Supreme
court in the Day case. The Constitution
of the State uses almost the Identical
language with reference TO the organiza-
ton of the penitentiary that is used
with reference to the organization of the
Agricultural Department. and in both
the Legislature has the power to create
be filed In his opinion, III the Day case,
Judge Montgomery, among contentious
that are too well settled to be re-
opened. virtually put the usurping Board
of Agriculture out of court. In order to
show how completely the Day decision
destroys the claim Of the agricultural di-
rectors. we quote the following extract:
"a great deal of the learning which
was displayed, however, was not new
Many of the questions discussed had
been so often and so consistently de-
cided by the adjudications of this court
that they could not be held to be open
questions: as, for instance: That such
a place as Superintendent of the State
prison. with its attendant duties, is
public office CLARK VS.. Stanly GO n. G
80: Hoke VS.. Henderson,, 10 y. c. |,
Wood VS. Bellamy 20 n. c. 212(: Thai
an office is property and the incumbent
has the same right in it as he has to any
other property, except that he cannot
assign it tIIoke VS.. Henderson, Supra,
King VS. Hunter 10 n. G. p. SOB: Col
ton 5. Ellis. % n. G. 545; Wood VS..
Belamy. SUPRA: That the General As
SeHlDIt has Tic power " Az
office created by legislative authority.
Cotton VS.. Ellis - n. G. $40; State vs..
Smith 65 y. c. 1863; Wood VS.. Bellamy.
supra: Woods VS.. Elizabeth City. III
\. G. u: That the Legislature can, ex4
cept in those instances prohibited by the
Constitution, take away some parts OF
the duties of an officer ana make an
inequitable reduction of the officers
salary Cotton VS.. Ellis, y n. c. 545;
Bunting VS.. Gales, II n. G. 2S3; King
vs. Hunter, Cd y. G. 603). But in those
cases it is also held that the officers
entire salary can not be taken from
him and thereby starve him, nor. could
the Legislature select Il particular Off
Ger and by special law applicable TO
him alone. deprive him of any material
part of his duties and emoluments:
That the words, in section 10, article III
of the Constitution of 1868 viz: THAT
the Governor shall nominate and appoint
all officers whose offices are established
by this Constitution, OR WHICH
SHALL BE CREATED BY LAW
AND WHOSE APPOINTMENTS
=, - NOT OTHERWISE PRONI-
DED FOR, AND NO SUCH OFF,
GER SHALL BE APPOINTED OR
ELECTED BY THE GENERAIl AS
SEMBLY" meant appointments not
otherwise provided for in the Constitu-
ton: and therefore, the Governor had,
under that Constitution, the general
power of appointing to office lthe ex-
ceptions being the cases where the APP
pointments were otherwise provided for
i'm that constitution to the exclusion of
the Legislature, Mckee VS.. Nichols, rs