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

CURED in by these respondents were
opposed to them in politics. Such a
result, arising solely from the in
trinsic merits of the respective cases,
is inconsistent with the charge of
political bias. The first of the So
called "ofice- holding cases" determ-
ined by these respondents and the
late Chief Justice William T. Fair
cloth was not Days case, which was
decided in 1899, but was the case of
Wood VS.. Bellamy, decided at the
February ERIN, 1892, and reported in
12O N. c., on page 212. This case of
Wood VS.. Bellamy, which clearly
laid down the essential principles
that have governed the decision OF
the court in all subsequent cases,
was delivered by a unanimous CO TT
under peculiar circumstances that
absolutely excluded any possible in
tent on the part of the court to show
any ~disrespect to the Legislature or
TO bring it into public contempt or
disrepute. The General Assembly
was then, and had been for the past
two years, under the absolute con-
troll of a political party to whose
votes every member of the Supreme
Court owed his seat upon the bench.
This party had long been out of
power, and consequently found prac-
tiCaIly every place of honor or profit
in the hands of it's political oppon-
ents. Desiring the fruits of it's vic
tory, it sought to obtain possession
of such offices by a series of statutes
that clearly expressed the legislative
will. Those holding such offices
claimed a vested right therein dur
ing the terms for which they were
appointed, and refused to surrender
possession thereof to the a]ppointees
of the Legislature.
Under such circumstances the case
of Wood VS.. Bellamy, with the kind
red cases of Lusk VS.. Sawyer and
Person VS.. Switzerland, commonly
known as the "Asylum cases." came
before the respondents, as members
of the Supreme Court, for final de-
termination. Had these respondents
been influenced by any motive either
of fear or favor, they would have
then yielded submission to the will
of the Legislature but across the
path which political utilization and
personal friendship would have
prompted them to follow, they lay
the stern mandate of the Constitu-
ton and the sacred obligation of
their judicial oaths.
After careful consideration the
Supreme Court, including these re
spondents, reaffirmed the constitu-
tiOnal principles decided in Hoke VS..
Henderson, Is n. c., 1, and decided
in favor of the official incumbents.
The practical effect of said opinion
was to defeat the will of the Legisla-
ture and leave all the public institU-
tons of the State in the hands of a
defeated party whose political pur-
poses and opinions were utterly at
variance with those of the majority
of the Legislature and the court.
The decision was based upon the
leading case of HOke VS.. Henderson,
which vas decided at the December
term, 1888, of the Supreme Court,
and which has been accepted as set
tied law and uniformly followed by
the court up to the present time
The opinion therein, written by
Chief Justice Rufin and concurred
in by Justices Daniel and CASTOR,
has been cited with approval by the
Supreme Court of this State in more
than thirty different cases; and
among judges writing the said Opin-
ions, or cOnCurTing therein, appear
the names of every Chief Justice
who has since presided over this
court, and all the Associate Justices
before whom the question was ever
raised, until February term, 1899,
sixty-fve years after the rendition
of the original opinion. The essen
tial principles involved can best be
stated by the following extracts from
the opinion in the words of Chief
Justice Rufin:
"The Office is created for public
purposes; but it is conferred on Il