The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-19

| stroyed our statute law for the sole pur-
| pose of reinstating the fusion office hold
| er. There was "a greater purpose beyond.
| They were going to the destruction of
| that which was permanent, that which
| guarantees that this State and her future
| destiny shall be controlled by the, moran
| and intellectual manhood of North Caro-
| lima.
! Finally they came TO the case of White
| against the Auditor. The gentleman from
Forsyth was talking the other day about
mental gymnastics but by some kind of
| judicial gymnastic these judges leapeG
| over all repeating statutes, they got upon
| the stills of in paria materia and leaped
| over the Constitution and the law and
! turned out Hill and the six other COM
| missoners. They went to the archives
| and searched up the old English doctrine
| of in paria materia. They gave to it
| meaning which it never had In order
| 10 perform their duties the law prescribed
| that these seven Shell Fish Commissioners
| must be at their post of duty in seven
| different places at the same time. AL
| though in the case of the States Prison
| VS.. Day they have decided that the duties
| of an officer could not be transferred to
| another, in White VS.. Hill they clothed
| White with duties that were never given
| to him by any statute; and in the opinion
in Abbott VS.. Beddingfield they invested
| Abbott with the powers not only of Rail-
| road Commissioner but bank examiner
| and powers heretofore exercised by the
| State Treasurer and the State Auditor.
1 This was not only in violation of every
law and every statute. but in violation
| of the doctrine laid down in States Prison
| vg. Day.
why did we pass chapter 21 Laws of
! 1899? Why did we passs it gentlemen? We
! were afraid that the Supreme court would
turn Hill and the other six commissioners
| out, were we not? And we did not intend
| that the court that turned them out
| should usurp the powers of the govern
| ment by placing any one else in, and
! We know that White wanted the money
| that was in it. and that was all that he
| cared for; and so the statute provides
| that he could not get his money. Would
| the judges say that they did not know
that was what the Legislature meant?
I read chapter q, Laws Of 80.
Now gentlemen, | thought that was
where the gentleman from Franklin got
| confused in his argument. The Act says
| The State Treasurer shall not pay any
| person OF persons ulleSS Sucu person OF
| persons be authorized by
| what? By the Act of 1899. He is not
| forbidden to pay any person unless he is
performing the duties prescribed by the
| Act of 1899; he is no forbidden to pay
! any persons unless they are carrying out
the objects of the Act of 1899. but he is
| forbidden to pay any person unless that
! person be authorized by the Acts of 1899
! He must go to the Treasurer clothed
| with the authority of the Act of 1899. Hill
| and six other men are the only ones au
! thOriZed by the Acts of 1899; White is
! not authorized. CHARTER q says in words
| as plain as can be written that he should
| net be paid by the Treasurer That is
| the legislative mandamus. IL eminates
| from the only power that has the right to
| control the finances. The Legislature
| said that he should not pay. These judges
| said that he must pay. The Legislature
! had the right under the Constitution to
| say that he should not. When the judges
| said that he should it was a plain ana
| unmistakable usurpation of power and
! in defiance not Cnly of the statute but
! of article I, section of the Constitution.
| This law is so plain that no one can
| misunderstood it, What shall we do with
| these judges, gentlemen? That is really
! the only question. 1t is almost unanimous
| ly admitted by the Democrats of this
House that they have wilfuIly violated
| the law and the ns;itution; that they
| are impeachable. The question is, what
| shall we do? The gentleman from Wilson
| in his speech in their defence, said in
| substance that they had violated the law
and eliminated in violating the law, and
! that We ought to illuminate against them.
| What? illuminate and illuminate and cul-
| inmate in Illuminating? Laughter.) Was
| there not illumination from this General
Assembly when It met here in June. 1900,
and when every one of these opinions had
| been handed down? Has there not beer
delivered a warning to these judges in
| the shape CT a dissenting opinion? Why
shall we illuminate? Has not the Chief
| Justice defantly declared that no threat
| OF impeachment will deter him. A fulmi-
nation such as the gentleman of Wilson
| would have us adopt, is nothing more
nor less than a threat CT impeachment
| The gentleman from Wilson properly
| says that II a threat would deter him
| he ought to be impeached; if 1t would
| noS deter him Ii Is vain and idle. | DO
not mean TO reflect upon the gentleman
| from Wilson. He Is one Of the ablest
| men in this State and one of the best be-
| loved men whose presence honors this
| General Assembly. certainly would not
men who favor the substitute for men
who can walk up and face a proposition
| like that could stand unterrIfied before
| an army with banners.
What shall we do? The gentleman
| from Wilson saws we must not apply the
heroic remedy. We have applied heroic
remedies in North Carolina. But for
heroic action we would not be here
will ask the gentleman from Scotland
how was it that only two votes were cast
against the Amendment in his county if
it we've not on account of the heroism OF
tthe men of Scotland (Applause.) Why
is the high minded and able son of Will
sen here TO serve his county and his State
except by heroic action of his cOnsti-
tuents? In the mountain section of this
State ! have stood in the presence OF
ermed and enraged multitudes where
there were three Republicans to one Dem
ocrat, and proclaimed the truth of De-
mocracy The men that stood by me
were heroes, every one of them. Gap
plause.) They feared not death itself.
They defied the power of the enemies OF
this State. Yes in defiance fthe Fed
ale