The news & observer., 1901-03-15

er to declare acts OF the Legislature un-
constitutional has been narrowing AID con-
fnng the power of the General Assem-
bly, and has been adding to its own
authority year by year. and If it is to
go further than this and undertake TO con-
troll the officers Of the executive branch
OF the government it will soon be by
far the strongest of the three depart
mcnts and not the wealIests This was
apprehended when our government was
formed and the works Of Jefferson have
many warnings against the encroach-
ments Of the judiciary
The safety Of the State demands that
the right Of the General Assembly to
control appropriations should be retained
In state against Beavers, sc N. c.. 593,
Judge Ruffin uses this languages "Act
as she (the State) must necessarily DO
safety inperatively demands that her
specific instructions shall be observed,
ana only such authority eSorted in her
name as Is conferred by law Under the
law OF this State there is but one power
that can appropriate q public money. or
authorize any conversions Of the States
property, and that one is the General AS
sembly Of the State, and any officer who
having the States money or other proper
pose without the sanction OF that branch
of the State government is guilty OF a
branch of duty, however honestly it may
be done"
MISTAKE OF JUDGMENT"
But the respondents say further. that
if they have been guilty of violation
Of law, that it was a mistake OF judg-
ment and not intentional II may ap-
vfoo,. borcI, to CO W ttl,at tl,ic daeoo.e -.
not avail the respondents but we be-
lieve that a consideration of the mat
ter will lead to the conclusion that it
would be dangerous indeed to permit such
a defense. The maxim, that Ignorance of
the law excuses no one" is one Of uni
versal application, and has been applied
by the respondents themselves. In State
VS.. The Southern Railway, 122 N. c.. 1862,
the court OF which the two respondents
were members, said: Ignorance of the
law excuses nc one, and the vicarious ig-
norance of counsel has no greater value.
The law does not encourage ignorance In
either" The same defense was attempted
to be made upon the trial of Andrew
Johnson and the managers upon the
part of the House Of Representatives sub
niitted their views upon the question.
They said, But it may be urged that
if an officer charged by the constitution
and his oath with the duty of executing
the laws, knowingly and Intentionally sus-
pends the operations of an important
statute, refuses to execute another. and
violates the third, he does so with a
view to promoting the public interest
his motives are good and he is not inn
peachable." This view so plausible and
insidious, is nevertheless so dangerous
that its very monstrous character will
show that it cannot be maintained The
same fatal error of opinion and conduct
will be impeachable in one president who
knows the right, and the wrong pursues.
While another, who believes in a fallacy,
because he loves it, will escape unpun-
ished, though the inherent wrong in prin-
ciple and in effect is the same in both
cases.
The subject so far as it relates to or
dinary courts, is well understood Sedg
wick under the caption Good Faith, no
excuse for violation of statute. says: we
have already had occasion to notice the
rule that ignorance of the law cannot be
set up in defense. All are bound to
know the law, and this holds good as
well in regard to common as to statute
law; as well in regard to criminal as
peached in England for mislnterr reting the
laws and the Earl of Bristol for advising
against war with Spain; yet these were
doubtless honest, but were regarded by
the Impeachment power as mistaken and
pernicious opinions" 1t would he strange
indeed if the law SIN such condition that
the humblest citizen of the State, who
has mover seen a law book. is conclusively
presumed to know the law, and is held
liable fer every infraction of it, and that
judge of the Supreme court can escape
because of ignorance of the law. The
maxim that Ignorance of the law excuses
nc one" must be modified to except judges
And indeed, / think it would not be con-
tended even by the respondents. that
all judges could be excepted. And If the
exception is to be allowed 1t would prob
ably extend no further than the protec-
tion of the judges Of the Supreme court.
If however it is admitted that the
judges, in order to be liable for impeach-
ment, must have known that they were,
doing wrong; that they were engaged in
an Illegal act, what is meant by Knowing
ly?" Does it mean anything more than
that it was Intentionally done? And what
intent is necessary to be shown? AS ap-
piled to the ordinary individual, and in
the ordinary affairs of life. all that would
be required would be to show the intent
to do the act. and upon this intent be-
ing shown, liability would follow
In State vs. Hatch, 116 N. c., 1904, the
members of a Beard Of County Commits
sionors were held liable to Indictment and
were convicted, and their conviction sus-
tanned by the Supreme court, because
they had carelessly sold shingles belong
ing to the county for less than the full
value, and when 1t was found as a fact
that there was no corruption, and that
they had acted honestly, The court in
concluding it's opinion, says: However
honest the defendants may be, (and their
honesty is not called in question:. the
public have right to be protected against
the wrongful conduct Of their servants.
if there is carelessness amounting to a
willful want of care in the discharge OF
their official duties which Injuries the
public.
IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.
Again, in State VS. Mclean 121 S. C..
595, in an opinion concurred in by both of
the RESPONDENTS, the court said. "When
an act forbidden by law is Intentionally
done, the intent to do the act is the Grim