The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-03-19

particular man and accepted by him
as a source of individual emolument.
To the extent of that emolument it
is private property, as much as the
land which he tills, or the horse he
rides or the debt which is owing to
him. Between him and another
man, none will deny the right of
property. For if one usurp an Office
which belongs to another, the owner
may have an action for damages for
the expulsion, for the fees of office
received, and a remedy by quo war
ranto to enquire into the right of
the Usurper, and by mandamus to be
himself restored. When we find
these remedies established to en-
force the right of admission into
Office, to secure the possession of it
and it's emOluments, we cal no longer
doubt that in law, an Office is deemed
the subject of property and valuable
property the officer, as we'll as an in
stitution for the convenience of the
people. If it be so, it falls within
those provisions of the Constitution
which secure private interests, and
cannot be Invested without some de-
fault of the officer, or the cessor of
the office itself.
In King VS.. Hunter, 655N. c., COB,
Justice Reade, delivering the opinion
of a unanimous court, cOncurred in
by Chief Justice Pearson and JUS
tees Rodman, Dick and Boyden,
says in part as follows:
Nothing is better settled than
hat IN Office is property. The in
cumbent has the same right to it
that he has to any other property.
There is a contract between him and
the State that he will discharge the
duties of the ofice-and he is pledged
by his bond and his oath and that
he shall have the emOluments-and
the State is pledged by it's honor.
When the contract is struck, it is as
complete and binding as a contract
between individuals and it cannot
be abrogated or impaired except by
the consent of both parties"
These doctrines were not only
worthy of the highest respect from
their intrinsic merit, as we'll as the
eminent ability, learning and charac-
ter of the judges who had affirmed
Them but had been SO long acquiesced
in as to become settled rules of law.
Had these respondents ignored them
in deciding Wood VS.. Bellamy, in
1897, their action would have been
Justly condemned by the bar and the
people of the State as contrary to all
precedent, destructive of vested
rights of property, and subversi ye
of long-established principles of law.
If those principles we're the law in
1897, they yer equally the law in
1895, and after these respondents
had re-afirmed them in 1892, they
did not feel at liberty to reverse
them in 1899.
IN CONCLUSION.
And further answering all and
singular the said articles of impeach-
ment exhibited against them by the
House of Representatives of North
Carolina, these respondents declare
that n all the matters and things
therein charged and alleged against
them they acted in their judicial
capacity as Justices of the Supreme
Court of North Carolina, and not
otherwise, seeking honestly and
faithfully to discharge their official
duties to the best of their knowledge
and ability. They conscientiously
believed it to be their solemn and
imperiOus duty to affirm the said
Judgment of the Superior Court CT
dering the said mandamus to be
Issued; and they considered tben-
selves then, andsstill consider the. &.