The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1900-01-16

Supreme court viii change its decision
when the highest tribunal of q State has
| given a different Interpretation. In Nor
ley vs.. Lake Shore, &C.. K. Co.. 146 l.
S. 1872. these propositions We're affirmed.
The rule of construction adopted by the
highest court of the State, III constituting
its own Constitution and one OF its own
statutes, i'll 4 case not involving any
question re-examinabie IL this court I'M
der 25th section Of the Judiciary Act,
must be regarded as conclusive in this
court. Provident Institution vs.. Mass.
6 Wall. 611.l The construction given to
a statute of a State by the highest judi
cial tribunal OF such State is regarded
as a part of the statute and is as bind
ing uDon the courts OF the United States
as the text. Ieffingwell vs. Warren, ,
Black. 599.) The meaning of a State
statute declared by the highest court OF
a State is conclusive ON this
(Randall VS.. Brighton.)
In Kibbe vs.. Ditto. % [. :. GA, the
decision of the highest court Of a State,
as to whether q Statute has repealed the
provisions of q former Act, was held
conclusive on the Supreme court. SO
also the decision of the highest court of
q State that an Act of such State has
not been repealed. was followed by the
supreme court. 1elh vs.. 1uicdeO, Nt.,
BY. 81 e. S. 164.
Even if there be a diversion OF opinion
between the members Of the State Su-
preme court, such diversion, although a
close one. does not prevent the opinion
of the majority from becoming the de-
cision of the court, and as such conclu-
sive on the Supreme court Of the United
States. Williams VS.. EgglestOn. 10 l..
s. at n. 81. This general current of
decisions is approved in the latest case
rpon the subject. Hartford Fire ms.
Co. vs.. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. 20 Supreme
Court Reporter. Nov. 1899 at page f..
The case of The State ex rel. Abbott
vs. .Reddingield. 81 SO. f. Rep. 412,
involved the construction of the Acts OF
the Legislature of 1890. repeating the
Railroad Commission Act and establish
ing the Corporation Commission. The
language of the court is distinct and its
purpose is clear. 1t says this:
1T is established to be the law of the
State. by Wood vs.. Bellamy, 100 \. c.
221, 81 S. T.. 113. Day VS.. State Prison,
124 y. C. 362. % S. f. 74S. and State
vs.. Jordan. 124 y. C. GS3. 33 S. F. 1870,
that an act is mot repealed by the Legis-
~lature's saving it is repealed. when the
same act or contemporaneous acts Show
that it is not repealed. And it is estah-
lished to be the law of this State. by
Wilson VS.. Jordan. SUPRA. and the author
tiles there cited. and by Arendell VS..
Worth Cat this term 81 S. E. 232. that
contemroranecus legislation about the
same subject-matter is in paIi materia,
and may be read and construed together.
1t is established law in this State. by
Eoke VS.. Henderson, Is \. c. [. (Which
has been approved in as many as 40
cases decided by this court. as shown IL
the c~oncurring opinion Of Justice Douglas
in State VS.. Jordan,) by Wood VS.. Bella
my. and by Day vs.. State Prison, supra,
that a public office. to which there is at
tached a salary. is a vested interest,-a
property in the holder. and as such prop
erty holder he is protected by the law and
constitution of this State and the laws
and constitution of the United States.
1t is the settled law of this State, NNood
VS.. Bellamy. Day VS.. State Prison, and
State vs.. Jordan, supraD that the change
of the name from "Rai!rOad Commission
to that of 'Corporation Commission
does not deprive the ~relator Of his office
his legal and constitutional rights to
hold said office. If we consider the two
acts Of 1899 in pari matelia. and read
them together, as We are bound to do,
unless we disregard all the former decls-
ions Of this court. we find that the
two acts of 1899 did not repeal the act
Of 1891 or the act of 1897, but are amen
datory thereof; that the re-enactment cf
the act Of 1891 and the act of 1893 amen
datCry thereof. in the same legislation
that it is contended by defendant re-
pealed them. had the effect to continue
in force the acts of 1891 and 1891. State
VS.. Williams, supra
The same court at the same term reiter-
ated its conclusion in .Abbott's case in
State ex rel. Greene Us. Owen, "a SO.
e. Rep. 424. and in State ex rel. Gattis
vs.. Griffin. Ibid, 429. and III State e1 rel.
Ncall vs.. Webb. Ibid $50, State eX rel.
White KS. Hill, IBID 1872. The State ex
rel. Abbott vs.. Beddingfeld. is distinctly
recognized in the State VS.. Southern ky.
Co.. Mss. Sent. Term 1859. Supreme
court Of North Carolina. There can be
no doubt as to the conclusion Of the
Supreme court of North Carolina. That
court holds that the LEGISLATURE, however
distinctly it may declare its intention to
repeal an act, cannot repeal it so as to
deprive an incumbent OF his office. if by
another act it attempts to clothe other
persons with his duties. That therefore
the attempt to repeal Chapter 800, Acts
Of 1891 and its a~mendatory acts. is a
mullity. That the new act establishing
the Corporation Commission is but an
amendment OF the Railroad Commission
Act, operative in every respect but the
change Of officials, and that the persons
heretofore elected as Railroad Commits
sioners retain all the powers and duties
heretofore devolving upon them. under
going only a change of name to that of
Corporation Commissioners.
. Under the cases cited above from the
Supreme Court Of the United States. it
would appear that this course OF decis-
ions of the court of last resort of North
Carolina. as to the force and effect of
their own statutes. on q matter Of local
law. is obligatory on this court. It must
recede from its former ruling made CON
temporaneously with these decisions Of
the North Carolina Supreme court. but
not brought to its attention. 1t is so
ordered.
In the argument of the case in this
court four grounds We're taken against
the constitutionality of the action of the
Corporation Commission.
l. It was denied that it had amy power
70 lnvy tho nscCccp,nnt oN,,Dl,.oI e