The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-24
WHITE v. HILL.

w 4A4 \ ~ v. I11ILs
In the case Of White VS.. Hill, Judge
Clark dissents for the reasons given
in the dissenting opinion in Abbott VS..
Beddingtield at this term, and for the
further reason that chapter 10. Laws
1899, under which the defendants claim
provides an entirely different system
from chapter -, Laws 1897, under which
plaintiff claims. The territory covered
is changed, the compensation is changed.
The old act applied only To oysters; the
act of 1899 covers all Shell fish, includ-
ing clans, crabs, etc The clam indus
try of the State is great one, and it is
well known that within the last two
years the crab industry has become of
large proportion. These industries are
placed under the protecting care of the
Board of Commissioners. who now ex-
ercises functions formerly exercised by
the chief inspector? Clerks of the SUI
perior courts of the various counties ex-
ercise some, The Secretary of the Board
s0me the Secretary of State some, and
about the only one exercised by the de-
PENDANTS is the custody of the steamer
Lille" The whole system and fu1c
tions are changed Many of tie fune-
tons are abolished and new ones added.
Many of those continued are now ex-
ercised by persons other than the parties
to this action. The Plaintiff certainly
cannot recover his lost office Gf it has
been recreated) from the defendants, be-
cause they do not have it.
In Ward VS.. Elizabeth City, 121 n. c..
j, it was held that the addition of some
territory to the city made the office Of
city attorney a new office. That decis-
ion has never been questioned.
1t may be observed that chapter Is,
acts 1899, ratified February %, 1899
amends the Act of 1897 by striking out
Onslow and inserting Beaufort in line 5
Of section 2; that it materially modified
section 4; that it strikes ont all duties
10 be done by the chief inspector and
deputy inspectors in section Z, and pro-
yides that the statement required by
section shall be filed with .'the clerk
Of the Superior court Of the county
where the said oysters are purchased.
1t repeats sections IL, II, 10, Is, 16, II,
Is and 10, and leaves no law providing
for a chief inspector or deputy inspec-
tors. The repeating act went into effect
on February rs. 1899. The act undcr
which the defendants claim was ratified
and went into effect on the 2nd of March.
1899 The words deputy inspectors" ii
the Act Of 1897 might mislead They
We're not in the ordinary sense Of the
word deputies of the chief inspector. but
were independent officers created for GER
tain purposes with fixed functions aud
duties as set out in the act They are
allied in sections Is and rs and perhaps
elsewhere inspectors" Their duties
are prescribed by the statute, and are
different from those of the chief. The.
salary is paid by the State; they give
Bond to the State; they report to the
clerk Of the court and turn over All
taxes collected Ly them to said clerk.
etc Their authority would evidently
chief, whereas az ordinary ieputy e
merely the agent of the officer and can
exercise only the functions his principal
could exercise, and the officer is respon-
sible for his acts 20 A. & Il. End Ed.
$500 and his authority would cease upon
he death of the principal q bid 1872
and the principal could remove him at
pleasure Ibid 1888; PLAN VS.. Taylor.
i13 n. G. /; Lane VS.. Gotten, 13 Mod
Rep. AT; Colraine VS.. Mccain, IA N. @.
30S. IL the court possessed the veto
which our Constitution has denied to the
Governor il might say we viii mot give
effect to this act
Besides, chapter q, Laws 1890, ex-
pressly forbids the Treasurer to pay any
officers claiming under the abolished Act
If 1897. This not only put the ''in.en-
ton" of the legislation beyond the pow