The news & observer., 1901-03-07

tain criminal prosecution instituted
undaF the former act IT is a well set
tied fule Of Interpretation that Hll erlflii-
nal statutes, and parts OF statutes cflnl-
inal in their effect, must be strictly con-
strued in favor Of the defendant. There
fore if in that case there had been any
reasonable dljubt as to the Corporation
Commission act being in legal effect al
amendment to the Railroad Commission
act that doubt should have been re-
solved in favor OF the then defendant,
the Southern Railway Company Ihe
decision in Abbott VS.. Be1dingheld mas
also beeii ratified and approved by ire
sistible implication bS the executive aid
legislative departments of the state
government. and expressly followed by
the Circuit court of the United States,
i'm the cases involved the increased tax
alton If railroad ard telegraph PROPERTY.
In June. 1899, the Corporation Com
mission issued an order assessing rail
road and telegraph property in this
state for taxation at the sum of $42,-
102, ,O02. 81. being an increase of $9,579.
0S1. Al over the assessinent for the prev
iotfs year In August 1899, the principal
railroads in the State obtained a tenn
porary injunction from Judge Simon
ton, sitting in the Circuit court OF the
United States, restraing the Corporation
Commission, and all otller state officers,
from further assessing or collecting
said increased taxes on the ground,
among others, that the act creating
said Corporation Commission. did not
confer upon said Commission any au-
thority to assess such property or levy
such taxes. A decree was entered on
the 3rd day OF November 1899, making
said injunction perpetual OH said
ground alone. The opinion in Abbott
VS.. Beddingfield, was filed ON the 21st
of November 1899, holding that, by
construction OF all statutes in pari ma
terra relating TO such taxation, the Cos
poration Commission did have such
powers Of assessment. Immediately
thereafter the attorneys for the state
filed in said circuit court certified
copy of the said opinion. whereupol
Judge Siinonton, by decree entered on
the 10th of January, 1900, reversed his
former ruling in Difference to the Opin-
ion of this court and held that such
Increased assessment was within the
powers OF said commission, and there
fore valid unless otherwise visited ny
want of uniformity. If the commission
had no power to assess. their assess
ment was necessarily void and could
not be made the legal basis either of
suit or defense. If the decision Of this
court in Abbott VS.. Beddngfield was
not the law, then these increased rail
road taxes We're assessed and collected
without warrant of law. These respond
ents respectfully submit that they
should not now be denounced as de
serving Impeachment fer rendering a
decision which is correct in principle
and sustained by precedent, and which
has been taken advantage of TO the
fullest extent by every department OF
the State government with The result of
adding large amounts to the net reye-
nues of the State.
This court was composed Of the same
individual members without change
from the 1st day of January 1897, to the
beginning of the present year. Among
the office-holding cases decided during
that time, UP to the 127th volume OF
Reports, which is not yet published, the
following We're decided by unanimous
court without dissent:
Wood VS.. Bellamy, 129 n. c., 212.
Lusk vs.. SAWYER, 129 \. G.. 220
Person VS.. Soutberland, 120 n. c., 235
Ward VS. Elizabeth City. 121 n. c., s.
Cromartic VS.. Parker, III n. c.. 1873.
Harris VS. Wright. 12l n. c., 112
Shannonhouse VS.. Withers, III n. c.
376.
Holt vs. Bristol, 122 n. c.. 246.
Barnhill W. Thompson, 122 n c.. 1873
Cunningham VS. Sprinkle 124 n. c..
63S.
Cherry vs. Burns. ia n. c., 761.
LedfCrd vs.. Greene, 125 n. c.. 254.
Dowton VS.. Beardsley 126 \. c., 1i9.
Baker KS. Hobgood. 1876 n. c.. l49
White vs.. Alley, 126 n. c.. St.
Mott VS. Griffith. 126 n. c., 775.
Wilson VS.. Neal. 126 \. c., ISL.
In Greene VS.. Owen, 1@5 n. G., 2l2,
and two or three other cases the court
was unanimous as TO some OF the par
tics but not as to others. To the others,
with few exception, but one judge APP
pears to have dissented. In Caldwell
IS. Wilson. 121i n. c., 425, the dissent
ing judge was Chief Justice Falrcloth.
The political affiliations Of the parties
in no case had the slightest effect upon
these respondents, and as matter of
fact IT appears lnaL the idISe hieJOi'''
of office-holders kept in office by the
decisions concurred in by these respon-
dents were opposed 10 them in politics.
Such result, arising solely from the
intrinsic merits of the respective eases,
is inconsistent with the charge of pollt-
icai bias.
These respondents again solemnly de-
clare that While they have decided poll
tical convictions which they have con-
sistently followed in private life, they
have never permitted personal or politi-
cal reasons TO interfere in the slightest
degree with their judicial opinions.
They have at all times cheerfully ac-
corded to the Legislature the respect
and consideration due to it as the Law
making department Of the State, and
have always upheld it's acts when they
could do so by any reasonable construc-
ton but whenever these acts clearly
appeared to be in violation of the Con-
Stitution which it is their first and
highest duty TO preserve inNiolate, they
have said so in plain and firm but re-
spectful words. In concluding their
answer to this article, these respond
cnts adopt the language Of Chief JUS
tice Taylor. the first presiding officer
Of this court, who, i'm declaring an act
taf tl1a ici ftfpn I9ypOp f7It i0n1I in