The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1901-03-07

HE -p~seA wss F.lI 81 t->s.i Arx~-s~es
Thss cosss Nos =. H-rst~ss II. s-rS<-ss
Assiass isap~sehess, Wa. Ist~-s~os-s
by Mr.. EIstA~.

lContinussi from last week
Nos, Mr.. Sls~ker. II al oiiiC- J.
property, AisI Aua sure lher. l. no
menber here on this fioor that viii
deny this proposition. IL follows A.
| natural sequence that thc Incidents
| or efnoluinenis Of all officc arr no
le-s private property, ''As much" a.
Was said in Hoke ". Henderson.
''as the land which one tiii., NJ the
| horse he ride-, or the debt which l.
owing 10 him. The eInoluments
Of public office being then private
Property, il would seem to follow
logically that the term for which
White WAS appointed, To Wit, four
years, not having expired at the
time Of the enactment OF chapters
Is, 10 and u OF the acts Of 1899, he
could not be ousted except for cause,
that Is To say, for the committal of
some malieasance In Office, or unless
he had failed and refused 10 perform
! the duties Of his Office, or unless the
office itself had been abolished, none
Of which can be claimed In Whites
case.
In the case OF Wood Va Bella my
l2O \. c. page 2lS, the court said,
| Montgomery speaking): "As long
as the office is continued, the term
Of office, ii does seem in reason and
justice, ought to be private property
of the holder; and to take il from
him and give it to another by legis-
latiOn is in effect and reality a judi
cial act, and the sentence is pronoun-
Iced without trial and without
hearing," Now, Mr.. Speaker, il
does seem to me that the act Of
1899, chapter 1s, 10 and 2l, can
have no other effect, in the case OF
White. 1t is clearly decided in
HOke VS.. Henderson and approved
in Bunting VS.. Gates II \. c., 2S3,
"that as long as the Office is in exis-
tence, the term likened to a grant
for which the holder has been elect
ed or appointed cannot be lessened
to the prejudice Of the grantee" In
the case of Cotton VS.. Ellis, D. n.
c., 545, it appeared that the office
of Adjutant General had not been
abolished, but that the duties Of the
Office had been transferred to anoth-
er before the plaintiffs term had ex-
pired, and Chief Justice Pearson,
delivering the opinion Of the court,
/ said: ''The legal effect. of the first }
appointment was to give the office
to the applicant lin mandamus) and
he became entitled to it as a vested
right for the term of three years,
from which he could only be re-
moved in the manner prescribed by
law and of which the legislature
had no power to deprive him. This is
settled in HOke vs.. Henderson, Ii
n. c., l."
Mr.. Speaker, there is no way to
get away from the doctrine as enun-
5 ciated in Hoke vs.. Henderson, it il
the very foundation upon which our
, judicial decisions rest, in cases like
5 White VS.. Auditor, for soundness,
1 truth and justice. In King VS.. Hun.
ter, 65 n. c., COB, Judge Reade,
who delivered the opinion Of the
court, said: "NOthing is better set
s tied than that an Office is property
l The incumbent has the same right
. to it that he has to any other prop
g erty. There is contract between
e him and the State that he will dis
e charge the duties of the office-anC
| he is pledged by his bond and hi.
: oath; and that he shall have tn,
f emoluments, and the State is pledg
t ed by its honor. When the contrac
h is struck it is as complete and bind
: ing as contract between individ
uals, and it cannot be abrOgated O
: impaired except by the consent o
: both parties"
t In the case of Wood VS.. Bellamy
l2O, n. c., 219, Montgomery, speak
# ing for the court, said: $50 that
whatever the law may be in othe
e States, it is settled beyond question
+ in North Carolina that public offic
e is property, is vested right, exist
by contract between the State an'
d the holder, and that as long as tn
3 Office is continued the holder canno
. be deprived of his term against hi
K consent, unless he has committe
g some act which works a forfeiture
We have no desire to disturb tn
e decisions of our court On this subject
l. They are founded On the principle
1T of justice and of safe public policy.
ell And yet, Mr.. Speaker and gentle
s, men, this legislature is seeking t
he impeach these Judges because the
b. sought in the case Of White VS.. Al
er ditor to not disturb the decisions {
y the Supreme Court of North Carol
l ma. Now if it is true that an offiG
exists by contract, then / ask i'm a
ne candor and sincerity if the legisl
n ture, in trying to abolish it, is n,
OF infringing upon the provisions {
to the Constitution of the Unite
ne States. Article 1, Section 10. Dal
In iel Webster said, in speech deli
ID cred in the United States Suprem
e Court, March 10, 1918, in the Cas-
at of Dartmouth College VS.. Woodar'
IL Webster's Great Speeches, Vol. i
ne page 1850. eBills Of attainder, e
be post facto laws, and laws impairin
n the obligation of contracts, are col
es- trary to the first principles of II
e. social compact and to every prime
tie pie of sound legislation. The tv
tn former are expressly prohibited I
the declarations prefixed to some
tn the State constitutions and all
zee them are prohibited by the spiI
OF and scope of these fundamental cha