The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-23

"The Legislature may reduce the sala
ry of an existing legislative office. if this
is done for the benefit of the public, and
not for the purpose of injuring the incum-
bent and to starve him out. But if it
clearly appears that it was done for that
purpose, it would be void. In cases where
only a part of the salary is taken from
the officer, it would have to appear from
the legislation itself that the object was
unlawful, or the courts would not inter-
fere But if the Legislature should I'M
dertake to deprive the officer of the
whole of his salary, while his office still
continues, the intent would so plainly APP
pear that the act would be declared
void
THE OFFICE NOT ABOLISHED.
Judge Furches then reviews the legis-
laton of the last Legislature in regard
to the fish and oyster industry of the
State and it's regulation. adding as fol-
lows
THE fact that the Legislature Of 1899
changed the name of An act to promote
the oyster in dustry of North Carolina
that of Shellfish Commissioners, did not
not abolish the plaintiff office. Nor does
| the fact that the act of 1899 changed the
| name of the plaintiffs office from that
| Chief Inspector to that of Chairman of
| the Shellfish Commission GUST the plain
| tiff from his office or deprive him OF his
| salary"
| Having thus, to at least his own sat
| sfaction, decided that the Hon. Theoph-
| illus is entitled to his office and the
salary attached thereto Judge Furches
proceeds to inquire what is his salary
! under the legislation as it now exists and
how is he to get it?'
The court then recites the fact that
the Legislature (chapter 10. acts Of 1899
reduced the salary to $500 per annum
and adds: 1--WE cannot say that this re-
duction was not made for the public ben
eft. and we have no power to change it
and no disposition to do so if we had.
The reduction may be made
HOW TO GET A SALARY.
Then coming to that (to Whte) all i'm
portant question of How to Get It. the
court makes note of the fact that the
acts of 1899 (chaper 10, section 81, pro-
vides that this shall be done upon the
warrant of the Auditor, which warrant
shall be issued by the Auditor upon the
certificate of the secretary Of said board
and countersigned by the chairman of the
| Shellfish Commission" but playfully dis
misses this solemn act with the remark
that this was only a matter of retail, y
and was passed when it was thought
| that Hill and his force would be in Of
| fee" The court continues in the same
| playful strain: This in our opinion
| would be to construe the Act to mean
what we think the Legislature could not
| do But, it adds, in the classic Ian
guage of Judge Furches ut should be
/ complied with as near as may be. That
! is, the certificate should be issued by the
clerk Of the present board and counter
! singed by the plaintiff who is acting as
chairman, in place of HILL and the Aud
itor's warrant should issue upon this GER
), tificate.
HOW MUCH SHALL 1T BE?
Having thus laughingly cut the gor-
dian knot, Judge Furches closes after
copious quotations from Gotten VS.. Ellis,
Sc n. c., $40, with these words:
| "Our opinion then is that the plain
| tiff is entitled to the salary and compen-
saticn provided for in the Act of 1899,
chapter 10 (and the same that Hill
would have been entitled to if he had
remained in Officer to be paid by the
| Treasurer of the State out of the oyster
fund appropriated by the Act of 1897, and
the Act of 1892 admitted to be now in
| his hands Provided that the expenses
Of this commission do not exceed the
sum of 5000 per annum, and that the
certificate and warrant shall be issued in
the manner we have indicated"
JUDGE DOUGLAS CONCURS.
Judge Douglas writes a concurrng opin-
ion in which he can "see no reason to
override the unanimous opinion of this
court as expressed in Wood VS.. Bellamy."
Following that case he feels himself
forced to concur with the court in the
case at bar In fact the case as now
before us presents no substantial Difficult
ties to my mind. Whatever complica-
tons may have existed were solved
J when we decided that the plaintiff was
entitled to the office. The only question
now before us is whether he shall receive
/ the compensation which the Legislature
! attached to the performance of its du-
ties"
NOT FOND OF CYCLONES.
J Concluding his opinion Judge Douglas
thus shakes hands with himself and the
court in congratulation:
"Of course | deeply regret to see my
! native State visited by earthquakes or
, cyclones of a civil or material nature and
| am glad to say they have no germ
in the decision we are rendering. This
case is a small one actually and poten-
TALLY. 1t enunciates no principle
and involves but little money"
THE DISSENTING OPINIONS
Judge Clark Shows the Fallacies in the Court S
Decision.