The news & observer., 1901-03-07
7 HE JUDGES FILE
THEIR ANSWER /.
Continued from Third Page. ]

the new allegations contained in the said
fifth article, these respondents further
ray: These respondents admit that they
and Chief Justice William 7. FRircloth
now deceased, caused the said writs OF
mandamuS to issue, inasinuch as they
concurred in delivering the opinion o.
the court in White VS.. Auditor, 126 N
c., $40. wherein they modified and af-
firmed the judgment of the court below
ordering a peremptory Inandamus and
causing Judgment TO be entered thereon
1t is true that at the last September
term they refused TO instruct the clerk
of said court TO issue said WritS of man
damus, but this refusal was placed upon
the express ground that the action had
proceeded 10 iinal Judgment at a former
term of said court. and that therefore
there was nothing before the court ON
which ii ccll Officially act. Upon APP
plication OF the clerk. they severalIy
gave him their Individual opinion that
the intent an legal effect cf the judg-
nient OF the Supreme Court in said case
was TO efititle the pls ntiff to the writ
Of mandamus that was the object of his
suit and that ii became the duty Of the
clerk ofsSaid court to issue such man
dalnus in accordance with that opinion
upon the application of the plaintiff.
These respondents mention these facts
simply to exhibit the entire truth of the
transaction. and without any intention
or desire TO shift the responsibility for
the issuing of said writs or to avail
themselves of any technical defense.
Except as herein set forth, these re-
oil
tion In said article contained.
They especially deny that In render
ing said opinion. or any other opinion
by them coneufred in. they We're actuat-
cd by any imuroper motive whatever. or
that they have knowingly or wilfully
exceeded tteir authority in any respect.
They further deny that they have ever
shown an disrespect to the Legislature
which they llayc always recognized as
an equal and coordinate department.
Of the State government, to whose acts
theyhave always given full faith. cred
il and effect in SO far as such acts We're
not inconsistent with the Constitution.
which all branches of the government
are. equally bound to obey and support
The said case of White VS.. Auditor, in
which the said writs of mandamus were
issued, did not originate in the Supreme
Court, but came before said court in
the due and orderly course of proce-
dure on appeal by the State Auditor
ana Treasurer from Judgment render
I'd in the Superior Court of Perquimans
county. There was no suggestion either
in the record or by counsel on appeal or
by any member of the court, of a want
of jurisdiction by the court below or
Of the right OF the Auditor and
Treasurer TO prosecute their appeal.
IL thus became the duty of
these respondents as Justices
OF said court, to pass upon the mer-
it's of said case and to determine tho
legal rights of the parties thereto. In
rendering Judgment therein these re-
spondents solemnly aver that they acted
solely from a sense of duty and in strict
accordance with what they honestly be-
lieved to be the law OF the land Per-
sonally they neither had nor could have
any possible interest in said action di-
rectly or indirectly. nor were they SUBJ
ject to any influence whatever that could
In the slightest degree prejudice their
judgment. They further solemnly de-
clare that every official act of theirs
since they came upon the bench, in
this and in all other cases, has been iu-
tiuenced by the same integrity OF pur-
pose and unbiased judgment.
While fully recognizing the rights, pow
crs and responsibilities of the legisla-
tive and executive departments of the
State government. they have always felt.
and stRl feel, that they have no more
tight 10 shirl tho just responsibilities
ofitheir office than they have to exceed its
lawful powers; and they deem it their
duty to decide all cases properly before
thep in Strict accordance with the legal
lights of the respective parties as &C.
termined by the Constitution and the
laws Of the State, not Inconsistent there
with. Section of Article w of tho
Constitution of this State provides that
The Supreme Court shall have juris-
dlction to review. upon appeal. any de-
eision of the courts below upon any
matter cf law or legal Inference And
the jurisdiction Of said court over issues
Of fact and questions OF fact shall be
the same exercised by it before the adop-
tion of the Constitution Of 1868, and the
court shall have the power to issue any