The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-19

was dependent upon and fell with those
nat Of chapters IL and 10 of the laws of
$500 which had been held to be void and
adiudged that White was entitled to his
$3.50 If SIS per month, as provided in
nc act Of 1897. and ordered the writs to
- ,ssred. The Auditor ana Treasurer
a,oooIed and in this way the case came
$50 the Supreme court The parties
,,,aro represented by learned counsel and
ooirt was yet raised as to venue or
t ~ or that the debt was claim
against the State.
STARBUCK'S OPINION.
"The case was argued and Judge Star
bualx,s Judgment was modified in two
particulars: First, the court held that
white was entitled to salary of $500
. year as prescribed by chapter 10, Of the
laws Of 1899, instead of $500 as provided
II the act ofS1S97; second, it did not hold
Thai chapter II was invalid, as Judge
starhuck had held, but that nasmuch as.
unon q proper construction of the acts of
1897 and 1899 on the subject of the oyster
and she'll fish industry, chapter 19, of
tho laws of 1899, was merely amendatory
of chapter 1S of the laws of 1897, White
was authorized in law to act under the
provisions of chapter 10 and therefore
there was no reason for applying the pro-
visions of chapter 81 in the case before
the court. With these notifications,
Judge Starbuek's judgment was affirmed
and Judgment was entered in accordance
with that opinion. Lot us see whether
or not Judge Starbuk and the Supreme
court were correct in their views of this
matter"
1t was ther argued that this was no
"claim against the State" but part Of
the necessary expenses of the State gov
eminent.
THE payment Of salaries by the State
is an expenditure of money for it's own
existence-expnses necessary for the
protection of society and the welfare Of
it's citizens. Such expenditures are as
necessary to the life of the State, as the
expenditures Of an individual for his own
personal needs.
"Theophilus White was an officer of the
State, as much so as the Governor. His
title to his office had been passed upon
and held to be valid. Suppose the imS'-
tor and Treasurer were to refuse to audit
and pay the accounts of the State officers,
upon the ground that they did not like
those officials. or on any other ground.
According to che logic of the managers,
the salaries Of these officers are claims
against the State, and and the courts
would have no right to enforce payment
by mandamus,I but would be limited to
making a recommendation to the Legis-
lature. A recommendation to do what
CO. IL, h. 7 ;clo
ture cannot issue an execution or a man
damus-only the courts can do that. BY
recommending, the Constitution means
suggesting or advising the Legislature to
provide means Of payment; but the Legis-
lature has already provided the means
of payment by it's revenue acts providing
for the payment of the eXepnses of the
State government, and in Whites case by
the appropriation of a specific fund, for
the payment of the salaries and expenses
of those engaged in the supervision or
promotion of the oyster or shell fish in
dustry. aH ~
SAL4ARIESaARE NECESSARY.
I'VE take the position, Mr.. President,
that by their very nature the salaries of
State officials are necessary ~ the life of
the State. and can in no case be claims
against the State, and it makes no diff
ference whether there are funds on hand
or not. If it does not appear that there
are funds On hand available, for their
payment, then it would be the duty of
The court to issue an alternative man
damus. If on it's return it appeared that
there were no funds available. the court
should then refuse peremptory man
dsmus. But if it appeared as an admitted
fact that there were funds available. it
would be utterly without purpose to is
sue an alternative mandamus. and in such
case the peremptory writ should be is
sued to compel the Auditor and Treasurer
Continued on Fifth Page.)