The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-13

affects here were acquired before the
decision OF the State court was made.
| Carroll VS.. Smith, supra.)
| In these cases the Federal courts exer-
| else their independent judgment. Sub
| Jest. however, to these exceptions by
comfy or by the suggestion of public
policy, Federal courts adopt the decision
of State courts as to the construction and
validity of their local laws. In cases the
| Supreme court will change its decision
when the highest tribunal of a State has
given different Interpretation. In Nor
ley VS.. Lake Shore, &c. r. Co. 146 U.
| s. 1852, these propositions were affirmed.
| The rule of construction adopted by the
highest court of the State, in constituting
| it's own Constitution and one of its own
statutes, in a case not involving amy
question re-examinaIble I'M this court un-
der 2Jth section of the Judiciary Act,
| must be regarded as conclusive IN this
| court. (Provident Institution VS.. Mass.
q Wall GID '"The construction given to
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 upon the courts of the United States
as the text. Neffingwell VS.. Warren, 2
| Black, 599) The meaning of a State
statute declared by the highest court of
a State is conclusive on this court.
| (Randall VS.. Brighton.)
In Kibbe VS.. Ditto, SO Z. S. GA, the
decision of the highest court of a State,
| as to whether a Statute has repealed the
provisions of a former Act, was held
conclusive ON the Supreme court. SO
also the decisions of the highest court of
| a State that an Act of such State has
not been repealed was followed by the
Supreme court Peik VS.. Chicago, &c,
Ry. 81 Z. S. 1874.
Even if there be a diversion OF opinion
between the members of the State SUI
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 u.
S. at p. Gil. This general current Of
decisions is approved in the latest case
upon the subject. Hartford Fire ms.
Co. VS.. Chicago &c. Ry. Co. 20 Supreme
Court Reporter, (Nov., 1890 at page AZ.
The case of The State eX rel. Abbott
VS. JReddingfeld, "a SO. +. Rep. Az,
involved the construction of the Acts OF
the Legislature of 1899, 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:
at is established to be the law Of the
State. by Wood VS.. Bellamy. 100 n. G.
221, Of S. T.. 113. Day VS.. State Prison,
| 124 n. C. $50. 80 S. f. 74S, and State
VS. Jordan. 1874 y. C. Ge3, SO S. e. 139,
that an act is not repealed by the Legis-
latures saying it is repealed, when the
same act or contempOraneou acts show
that it is not repealed. And it is estab-
lished to be the law Of this State, by
Wilson vs. Jordan, supra, and the author
tiles there cited and by Arendell vs.
/ Worth tat this teaTm) 81 S. e. go, that
contennporaneous legislation about the
same subject-matter is in pari materia,
and may be read and construed together.
it is established law in this State, by
Hoke vs. Henderson. - n. G. /. (Which
has been approved i'm as many as 40
/ cases decided by this court, as shown in
the concurring opinion of Justice Douglas
/ i'm 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 q 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, Wood
VS.. Bellamy, Day VS.. State Prison, and
! State VS.. Jordan, sIrpra.) that the change
of the name from Railroad 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 materia, and read
| them together, as we are bound to DO,
unless we disregard all the former decis-
! 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 OF
the act of 1891 and the act of 1898 amen
datory 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 1897. State
VS.. Williams, supra"
The same court at the same term renter
ated it's conclusion in AbbOtt's case in
| State ex rel. Greene VS.. Owen, "a So.
| e. Rep. 424, and i'm State eX rel. Gattls
VS.. Griffin Ibid, 429, and in State ex rel
Mcall VS.. Webb, Ibid 430, State eX rel
| White VS.. Hill, Ibid 49,. The State OK
rel Abbott vs. Beddingfeld, is distinctly
recognized in the State VS.. Southern Ky
Co. Mss. Sept. Term 1899, 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 $40, Acts
of 1891 and its amendatory acts. is a
nulIity. That the new act ESTABLISHING
the Corporation Commission is but am
| 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, il
would appear that this course of decis-
ions of the court of last resort of North
| Carolina, as to the force and effect o.
their own statutes, ON matter of loca