The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1901-03-19
OF JUDGES FURCHEs AND DOUG
Las TO THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT


ment exhibited against them bv the
House of Representatives, is a strong
and carefully prepared document
n we regret that we are unable to
give it in full. We Go give, however.
u most important portions.
In the first place it should be borne
In mind that the chief charge against
the accused judges is that in issuing
the mandamus compelling the pay
ment of Theophilus White they
violated Art. A, Sec. 9 of the Consti-
tuition of North Carolina. That Sec
ton reads as follows:
"The Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction to hear claims
against the State, but its decisions
shall be merely recommendation n O
process in the nature of the execu-
ton shall issue thereon; they shall
be reported to the next session of
the General Assembly for it's action"
Meeting this issue, the accused
judges assert that the suit of
Theophilus White did not involve a
claim against the State. Their Ian
guage is as follows:
"These respondents say that it is
true that Article 4, Section 9, of the
Constitution of North Carolina, does
not confer upon the Supreme Court
Original jurisdiction to hear claims
against the State but these respond
ents deny that the said controversy
of Theophilus White VS.. Hal. w.
Aver, State Auditor, and w. II.
Worth, State Treasurer, referred to
in said specification, involved a claim
against the State of North Carolina
on the contrary they aver that it
was merely a money demand made
by the said TheOphilus White, an
officer Of the State, upon the said
Auditor, and Treasurer, for the
salary due to the said TheOphilus
White, as such officer, and for the
payment of which a sum had been
appropriated by the General Assem-
bly, and that it was admitted in the
controversy (aS set forth in answer
TO article J. that it had been col
lected and wa then in the hands of
the State Treasurer for the purpose
of paying the salary due to the officer
under the law, as the court should
construe it that the said cOntrO-
versy was submitted without action
upon an agreed state of facts las set
forth above) to a judge of the Su-
periOr Court of Perquimans county
for his decision, the parties thereto
making no question as to the proper
but seeking only, for their
guidance and instruction, a decision
of the Supreme Court as to the
rights of the plaintiff and the duty
of the defendants therein"
In answering Article ) of the
charges of impeachment, the judges
further discuss the White claim and
the issuing of the mandamus as fol
lows:
''These respondents admit that
they and Chief Justice William T.
FairclOth, now deceased, caused the
said writs of mandamus to issue,
inasmuch as they concurred in de-
livering the opinion of the court in
White VS.. Auditor, 1875 N. c., $40,
wherein they modified and affirmed
the Judgment of the court below
ordering a peremptory mandamus
and causing Judgment to be entered
thereon.
cit is true that at the last Septem-
Der term they refused to instruct the
clerk of said court to issue said writs
of mandamus, but this refusal was
placed upon the express ground that
the action had proceeded to final
Judgment at a former term of said
court. and that therefore there was
nothing before the court on which it
could officially act.
"The case of White VS.. Auditor, In
which the said writs of mandamus
we're issued, did not originate in the
Supreme Court, but came before said
court in the due and orderly course
of procedure on appeal by the State
Auditor and Treasurer from a Judg-
ment rendered in the Superior Court
of Perquimans county. There was
no suggestion either in the record OF
by counsel on appeal or by any mem
Der of the court, of a want of juris-
diction by the. court below, or of the
Lo &c 4hn Ambition and Treasurer