The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-26

| pfOSpecLlVeIy, DuI not TeIIoSpSCII'0iy' ~
| as to destroy vested rights.
IF the acts of 1899 were intended to
| GUST White and continue the office in
/ Hill and others it is clearly in conflict
| with Hoke VS.. Henderson, unconstitutional
( and void.
"If it was intended to abolish Whites
| term and divest his emoluments, earned
| and to be earned under the appropria-
| ting acts providing for his pay, or to
| continue the office and destroy his rem
! edy. chapter q in such case would i'm
| pair the obligation of a contract and
| be null and void
THE APPROPRIATION MADE.
The speaker then argued at considerable
| length that White had a contract with
| the State, which secured to him his Of
| fee and the emoluments thereof.
Also he contended that : in ordering
| White paid. the Supreme court neither or
dered him paid out of an appropriation
which never existed nor out of one which
had been repealed, but ordered that he
be paid out of an appropriation which
chapter 81 itself expressly recognized as
having been made and still existing.
eyes, the appropriation was there,
recognized as being there by the Legs-
lature when it passed chapter q in ref
erence to it, recognized as existing by
the Treasurer in the facts agreed in
White VS.. Auditor, recognized as existing
by the Supreme court in it's opinion, it's
final destination only being in contro-
yersy, but it's existence never questioned
until this trial
Touching the fifth Article, Mr.. Long
cited James VS.. Railroad wherein, the
court has he said, expressly held that
it could not make an order in the cause
at a subsequent term after filing the
opinion. He declared that the prosecu-
ton never offered to prove by Mr. JUS
tice Clark that he had a right under the
rules and the decisions of the court to
file either the protest or the dissent
in October, 1900. They proved that he
offered to file them. That is all"
1.-The Respondents emphatically and u
terly deny each and every one of the
allegations in the fifth Article, and they
especially assert that in rendering opin-
ions in these cases they were not in
fiuenced by partisan or political consG-
erations This general and sweeping
charge is intended to cover the entire
official life Of these Respondents upon
the bench. In indictments in the Superior
courts there is sometimes a count put in
the bill as a kind of saving clause, and
this count is commonly called by the law
yers the drag net or onnium gatherum.
The fifth Article is so general in its al
legations that it fails TO furnish a charge
in specific trims so as TO enable me to
comprehend its meaning, unless it is in
tended to charge that In every opinion
written by these Respondents in these
office holding cases they were actuated
by the malign purposes attributed to
them in the general terms of the arti-
Gle. Fortunately for the respondents, all
of the decisions of the Supreme court are
in evidence. Every opinion which either
one of them has written in these cases or
concerned in is a matter Of history and
speaks it's own story. The record is too
long to read but, Senator's it is your
duty to read these opinions There are
thirty-nne of them. In twenty-thrGe
these respondents either wrote or con
CURED in opinions which ruled in the
Democrats and ruled out the Republicans
In about sixteen Of them the effect OF
the decisions was to retain in office or
TO give the emoluments of the office to
those who were of the same political
faith as the respondents. but upon legal
principles which were the same in sub.
pies which retained in office the adherents
of the political party different from that
to which the respondents belonged"
In regard to the charge that the court
had been reckless in declaring acts of
the Legislature unconstitutional, Mr.
Long said:
81 believe l heard no cases cited, how
ever, except these office holding cases
If the Senate can take the time to in
vestigate the question it will find that
every judge who has ever sat upon the
bench of this State has either written or
eoncurred in an opinion of the court de-
claring the acts of the Legislature I'M
constitutional except Judge Toomer who
was upon the be-, ch for about month,
and Judge Turner, who was on the bench
only from June to December and the
younger Ruffin, who was on the bench
only from 1881 to 1888. And these opinions
rendered from time to time beginning
with Jones VS.. Crittenden in the 4th n
G. Reports sos, down to an including the
18th N C.. Reports. 1t will be found
that these different judges wrote or con
Cured in opinions declaring acts OF the
Legislature unconstitutional as follows:
Judge Ashe, five times; Judge Avery, hye
times; Judge Battle, six times; Judge
Boyden five times; Judge Burwell, once;
Judge Bynum. six times; Judge Clark,
six times Judge Davis, six times; Judge
Dick, four times; Judge billiard, twice;
Judge Daniel, twice; Judge Faircloth
(while Associate Justice), once; Judge
Hill. once; Judge Henderson; once; Judge
Manly three times; Judge Merrimon,
eight times; Judge MacRae, twice; Judge
Nash three times; Judge Pearson, twenty
times; Judge Reade, twelve times; Judge
Rodman, twelve times; Judge Rufiin,
three times; Judge Settle, seven times;
Judge Shepherd, six times; Judge Smith,
seven times; Judge Taylor, once; Judge
CASTOR. twice. l do not know whether
these great judges were right or not in
all of their decisions invalidatirg acts of
the Legislature. 1t may be that they
were sometimes wrong, but it is far from
my thoughts, and it seems to me 1t
should be far from the thought of any
one, to imagine that they committed an
impeachable offence by declaring an act
of the Legislature unconstitutional. Right
or wrong. | have no doubt as to their
good faith and honest intentions.
In his closing remarks Mr.. Long used
these eloquent words:
''The first judge ever saw was Judge