The news & observer., 1901-03-20
He didn't think the Treasurer had be

He didn't think the Treasurer had be-
| fore declined to pay.
Hasn't the Supreme court before de-
4 eided that all suits against the Auditor
4 and the Treasurer are in fact actions
against the State?'
/ There may be such cases; don't re-
1 call them
Didn't Judge Clark's dissenting opin-
H ion call such cases to your attention.
\ Il do not remember"
\ do you remember the case of Boner?"
\ Il do not
/ AGREEMENT OF COUNSEL.
Did you notice in this case agreed
/ brought before you that counsel seemed
to agree pretty well as to the law?"
] 'IC was stated by counsel that the
Trt asurer and Auditor simply wanted the
| op nion oc the court"
Did you notice that the case came from
Percuimans
Il guess l did at the time"
THE law does provide that actions shall
be brought in the county in which parties
live, does it not?'
II believe it does
do you remember the case of johnson
VS.. Commissioners il which the court
criticises officers for bringing actions in
other counties than those in which the
parties live?'
II do not
did you noticc. that this case was made
up and the affdavits sworn to here in
Raleigh after Perquimans court had ad-
lourned?"
1T was pct CO lied to my attention
THE Legislature of 1897 appointed
White for four years, didl't it?"
yes"
MAY HOLD FOR LIFE.
"Co'Lldn it, mder your decision, have
put 'Lim in for 40 years, so that no sue
Gee lirg Legislature could turn him out? %
4 presume it could In Hoke VS.. Hen
derson it was held that an officer could
4 hold life tenure"
But the Constitution has been changed
since then hasn't it?'
Yes"
IF Days case and Abbotts case be
correct, couldn't this Legislature, just
adjourned, have elected officers to every
place in this State, not provided by the
4 Constitution itself. to hold for life and
they could not be disturbed?"
That would seem to be the logical
conclusion. AS long as the office remain
ed in existence you couldn't disturb the
vested term
Gould you have got rid of them except
by Impeachment or by destroying the Of
flee, under the construction you have Civ
en- Hpke VS.. Henderson,"
Il think not
You provided in your opinion that
White, who was in the law of 1897 named
as Chief Inspector, should sign his name
as Chairman of the Shell-fish Commits
SION in order to get the money out of the
treasury, did you not?"
1.-THE decision will speak for itself"
, Ibid you have any information from
Mr.. Pritchard, at the meeting in Green's
| boro, that as soon as the Legislature adj
journed application would be made to
the court for a mandamus?"
Il had no such information.
THE DISTRICT JUDGESHIP.
did you not say that you would be
appointed District judge but for the fact
| that lou didn't want to turn the court
oVer to political opponent?"
Il did not
Didn't you tell Mr.. e. j. Justice that?"
| 'I did not l told him that / had
been elected on the Supreme court bench
| for eight years and it was objected to my
| appointment as District Judge that the
! appointme of my successor on the Su
! preme Court bench might be turned over
| to political opponent. You know when
you don't want to give a man a place
you can find many excuses against it,
This caused a laugh among Senators.
A number of questions were now asked
the witness touching the duty of the Au
ditor in regard to claims, and he was
| asxed:
Hasn't our Supreme court decided that
you can't compel the Auditor to per-
form a discretionary act?'
81 think it has"
"Then can you issue a mandamus to
compel him to perform such an act?''
I'VE can issue a mandamus to compel
him to audit claim and issue voucher
en- it, and then we can issue mandamus
compelling the Treasurer to pay ii"
Didn't you in the White case do that
very thing?"
Yes"
Didn't Judge Starbucks judgment give
White his salary from March 20th to No
vember 30th. 1892"
81 don't remember
well, those are the dates, and yet in
your decision and mandamus you gave
White salary and expenses up to Noyem-
ber, 1900, didn't you?''
Il don't remember"
Gould your appellate jurisdiction allow
you to go beyond the facts in the case
agreed?"
I'VE lcduldn't go beyond the facts
agreed
"They were agreed as of November,
1899, are they not?'
my understanding was that the action
was brought to settle the question OF
his permanent salary
MONEY TO PAY 1T.
What evidence had you that there was
money in the Treasury to pay this claim
1T was so stated in the facts agreed.
But it was not stated there that there