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

prescribed in the Act. would it fail to
occur to intelligent minds that A. Il. has
AN office between any two such appoint
ments? The long recognition of such a
conclusion would at least raise Il doubt
of the plaintiffs construction. Do the
duties of the Board cease as soon as ii
has made Il biennial appointment? sup
pose the State proxy or any State direc-
tor should prove unfaithful TO the State $
interest in the railroad at any time
dring the two years. how would he be
removed and his place be supplied except
by the action of the Board, which il
could not be according to the plaintiff $
contention. The Act of 1897. chapter
122. section /. expressly requires the
Board to remove for cause and hill the
/ vacancy in such cases. and the Act rati-
| fed March 6. 1899. does not repeal said
section !. but only amends it by eimnn-
ating the word Governor from the
Board 1t appears to this court that 'tc
| be appointed biennialIy' ex vi termlni
implies a two years term of Office.
.'The simple question of the power of
the General Assembly TO remove Il legal
incumbent from his office and confer
it on another has been so much discuss
ed decided and settled. that it seems to
have become automatic The law is Il
legal standard, based on experience in
the past and established to avoid I'M
certainty. that it may be known of
all men, Facts seldom repeat themselves
exactly. but in different cases they ap-
proach each other SO closely that they
fall into the same class and are necessar-
lily governed by the same legal standard
| This question: of legislative power
over the property of the citizen was pre-
serted to this court in 1865 in the inter
esting case of the University VS.. Foy.
: n. C. IS q Murphy SO. 81 BY the
Act of 1889, the Legislature granted to
the Trustees of the University all the
property that had escheated, or should
! thereafter escheat to the State. The
Act of 1900 repealed the Act of 1879
and declared that any property. real or
personal. that had in the meanwhile
escheated and was held by the Univer-
sity should revert to the State as the
property of the same, as if the Act of
1889 had not been passed. In the mean
time. valuable property in the Whining
ton district had escheated. ana was sued
for by the University. The court after
elaborate consideration held that the
University should recover and that the
Act of 1900 was invalid as to the prop
erty The opinion was - clear ana
strong that Mr.. Webster. in his able ar
gument in the famous case of Dart
mouth College. cited and quoted from
the opinion. and the court he was adj
dressing adopted the same principle that
! l., = al.
against Foy. Some mOdernized sugges-
tons have been made against the Dart
mouth College opinion. but none of them
have offered any reason or cited any au-
thority to support their suggestions
presumably for the reason that none were
convenient.
I'm 1888 Il similar question arose in
Hoke VS.. Henderson, Is n. G. c. /.
This referred to property in an office.
| 1t is now admitted that an office is prop
erty. and that it is protected by the
rule which applies to property of a more
tangible character 1t was held that the
Act, Undertaking to deprive the legal in
cumbent of his office without his CON
sent. was void.
1T may not be amiss here to remark
that the people of North Carolina. when
assembled in convention, We're DESTROYS
of having some rights secured to them
beyond the control of the Legislature,
and those they have expressed in their
bill of Rights and Constitution.
1.-THE principle involved in Hoke VS.
Henderson has been followed by full
list of decisions without exception to the
present time. That principle is the basis
of the recent decisions in Wood vs.
Bellamy. 100 n. C. 212, and States pris-
on VS.. Day, at the present term.
1T has been suggested further not by
the counsel. that if one legislature can
confer an office for two years and the
officer cannot be removed by the next
legislature without his consent otherwise
than by abolishing the office. then it may
confer an office for life. for 30 years
fer 100 or 800 years. However, logical
such proposition might be In mon
archlcal form of government. it has no
standing or logic under our government.
When our people We're organizing a new
State. they did not leave themselves to
any mere chance. They intended to
relleye themselves from burdensOme fet-
tiers and trammels, and did whatever
was necessary for their safety and to
promote the general weITare This rea-
sonlng is not mere question of con
struCtion. Passing by the unreasonable
ness of the proposition we are consider.
ing, we turn to positive law against it.
1t is declared in the Constitution Arti-
Gle l, section Z: No man or set of
men are entitled to exclusive or sepa-
rate emoluments or privileges from the
community. but in consideration of pub
lic services in Section 30: NO heredi-
tary emoluments. privileges or honors
ought to be granted or conferred in this
State and in Section 81: Perpetuities
and monopolies are contrary to the GEM
us of free State and ought not to be
allowed
IF therefore the apprehended danger
should be attempted. which has not for
century. the fundamental provisions
above mentioned would prove efficient.
Take for illustration Section IA OF the
same Article, which forbids unusual pm
ishments. etc. Bail may be required,
fines imposed and punishments inflicted.
but ii they are excessive unusual or