The news & observer., 1901-03-07

our Supreme court since that time, that
an oEice cannot be taken from one and
given to another by Legislative action
may readily be made mere nullitya
1t having been thus demonstrated that
the charters of the hospitals have not
been repealed, nor the institutions de-
stroyod, nor the offices Of director and
superintendent abolished, the defendants
contend that the Legislature did not have
the right or power to transfer these
offices to others, their terms not havnr,
expired.
In support OF this contention We need
hardly cite any other authority than that
of Hokc VS.. Henderson. Dew, L."
These respondents concurring with a
unanimous court held with the defend
ants that while the Legislature had in
express words pr0fessed to abolish the
OFFICES aeid by the defendants IL had
not done so in legal effect. and therefore
could not deprive the defendants Of their
legal tenure therein To that extent the
decision in Wood VS.. Bellamy was an
extension OF the doctrine of Hoke We.
Henderson TO cases Of colorado abolition.
es there was 10 attempt by the Legisla
turc to abolish the office held b. Hem
derson, but simply TO make it elective
by the people This extension was in no
sense change OF the principle but sim
ply an application of the same principle
TO different but not inconsistent state
Of facts. For such an application ample
citation Of authority was furnished by the
counsel for defendants, who especially
relied on King vs.. Hunter 65 ~ c.. sos
Cotton vs. Ellis. So ~ G.. 545, and Bailey
vs.. Caldwell 6S y. c.. 40.
Two years later, at it's February term
1890, the Supreme court (ncluding these
res oondentsl. was called on to decide q
class OF cases substantially identical in
principle with each other. and not essen
TALLY differing from WOOD VS.. Beilar,y.
! These cases are reported in volume 12f
of the Supreme Court Reports, and while
differing somewhat in minor particulars.
/ all practically depended upon the leading
! cases of States Prison VS.. Day and Alb
bott VS. Beddingfeld. With the reversed
/ political relation Of the parties this court
/ had no concern. II had unanimously de-
| clared the law upon constitutional prin-
/ eiples in Wood VS.. Beuamv. and a ma
! jority Of its members. in the absence Of
any change in the Constitution. saw no
! TedSuu 10 CilHISt iutlI tuuNLA uCbioh va iAN
mandatory provisions. What was the or-
! gauic law in 1897 remained the law in
/ 1899: and all parties who invoked it's pro-
/ lection were entitled to it's equal applica-
/ tion These respondents had concurred
! with a unanimous court in holding that
! Bellamy and his co-defendants were en-
titled to retain their offices for their vest
ed terms in spite Of tho fact that the
| Legislature. of 1897 had professedly abol-
| ished their offices; and these respondents
! decided the same In favor OF Day and Ab-
| bott The principal difference was that
/ in DAYS case the Office of superintendent
! was abolished in terms, and its duties by
| the same act transferred substantially to
an executive board This court gave full
! force and effect to the act OF the LRgisla
| ture except in so far as ii deprived Day
/ Of his vested right in his term of Office.
In Abhott's case, the Railroad Commission
was abolished TO take effect on April 4,
1899. and the Corporation Commission was
created to take effect on April 3. 1899.
Both acts were called on tbs same day
! wit; March G. 1899. As the States
Prison in it's very nature REQUIRES some
executive head. whose duties would nee
oessarily he identified with those Of sup
! erptendent and as those duties werc
| transferred = the same statute 10 an
executive board who would be compelled
/ to perform those duties either by them
selves or others. these respondents saw
! CONTINUED on Fourth Page)