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

4 al 4 vi ~ 49,
| of -four years and another for a term of
SIX years. At all subsequent elections
the term Of the person elected small be
| six years.
The duties Of this board are infinitely
| specified. very similar to those Of the
Railroad Commissioners with respect TO
| the railroad. steamboat Or canal conf
| panies, express and telegraph companies.
| And adds to these supervision over tele-
phone companies. building and loan as
sociatiOns, sleeping car companies ana
banks.
A separate distinct provision in the Act
Is '"To perform all the duties and eXer-
else all the powers imposed or conferred
by Chapter 800, Public Laws Of 1891,
and the Acts a~mendatcry thereto.
Neither this Act. which by the way
was made Of force the day after the
repeal of the Railroad Commission Act.
nor as has been seen, this last named
Act itself say anything whatever about
the assessment and taxation Of railroad
property.
The Corporation Commission proceeded
to assess for taxation the property Of the
complaining railroad companies, and the
question was made as to the right Of the
commission so 10 do.
Unaided by any decision on this point
~ III ~ IL last ISSCII II -f,1th 90
lima. the conclusion was reached that i
had no such power. This power Of as
spsemen was entrusted to the Commits
cioncrs elected under Chapter 32e. Laws
of 1891. and for this purpose they were
constituted a Board of Appraisers. The
Machinery Act of each succeeding year
had done this. including that of the year
1909.
The LEGISLATURE of 1890 repealed thar
Act in toto so far as language and in
tent could do so. The conclusion then
seemed inevitable that the Act was IN
fact repealed. Beside this, one day at
fer the Act was said to be repealed. the
Legislature put in force the Corporation
Commission Act. by which they declared
their purpose to establish the North Car
olina Corporation Commission. by elect
ing then and there three Commission
ers. to whom was given a different term
from that of the Railroad Commissioners.
whose successors would hold for 4 term
differing wholly from the Pail"oad Com
m~:SsiOncrS. who after one election ny the
Legislature. would thereafter be elected
by the people. whose vacancies were fill
ed. not by the Governor. but by the
Board of Internal improvements. and
who received a different salary and took
Il different oath of office. With this light
the conclusion was reached that the Act
providing for Railroad Commissioners
was repealed: that other officers had been
elected differing in tenure and in other
important respects from them, and that
as was stated at bar, two of the former
Railroad Commissioners having accepted
election under the new Act. and having
taken the oath of Office Hereunder. nee
e~sSarily vacated their former office and
there remained but one person who could
claim to be a Railroad Commissioner.
So as he could not act as a board himself.
and in fact did not act with any one. and
as the Corporation Commission was not
empowered to make the assessment. the
conclusion was reached that the supposed
assessment was void and action under
it was eniOined.
But whilst the case was before this
court, there was pending in the courts of
North Carolina. an action. the state eN
relatione Abbott. the Railroad Comnl:s-
sioner. who was not elected on the Cor
DGrati0n Commission VS.. Bcddingfic!d,
who never having been q Railroad Com
missioner. was elected ON the Corpora
ti0n Commission.
Abbott claimed that he had property in
his office, of which he could not be de-
nrived. except by the abolition of the Of
fee. And that so long as the duties of
the office We're continued, q mere chang
of the name of the office did not abolish
it or extinguish his right to it. That the
Corporation Commission was but the
Railroad Commission under another name
and that its passage IN no way affected
his right to his office. and that Bed
dinGfield was an intruder therein. The
cause was heard in the court Of last re-
sort in North Carolina. That court award
Cd the office to Abbott and excluded
B~eddingfeld. Constituting the Acts QUOT
ed above the court held that the Railroad
Commission Act was not repealed in fact.
That the Corporation Commission was,
the same Commission to all intprtS and
purposes. except the name. That when
the LEGISLATURE passed 1t, they defeated
their declared purpose. because under
the law of North Carolina, established
by a current Of decisions from EIoke =.
Henderson. 10 \. G.. /. that a public
office is property, of which the incull-
bent cannot be deprived so long IS the
duties of the office, under whatever
name CT title, must be performed. That
constituting these two Acts in pari ma
terra. the Corporation Commission Act
was an amendment to the Railroad Com
mission Act, and that the two commits
eicns were one and the same. They
seated Abbott on the Corporation Com
1itSSlOI. dihl Uplu uliil ne WIS 1t cD!it-
ponent part thereof by virtue Of his office
as Railroad Commissioner
This decision as to the action of the
/ Legislature and the construction put up
on the repeating Act Of 1890. and the
! Corporation Commission Act differ toto
i coelo from the conclusion reached by this
court on the case presented by these
bills in equity.
| The question now is what effect should
! the Judgment of the Supreme court of
North Carolina nave upon the action OF
| this court. Ought it to lead to a re-
| consideration of IT'S opinions and the recall
of its action thereon?
We are bound to presume that when
a question arose in the State court. it
was thoroughly considered by that tri-
hunal. and that decision rendered en-
| bodied its deliberate judgment. Gross VS..
| Allen. al, e.. S. $50.
1t is the practice of the Supreme court
of the United States, whose practice con-
trolls all Federal courts. to adopt the
Interpretation given by the highest tri-