The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-19
THE IMPEACHMENT
RESOLUTION WAS PAS
SEQ BY A 2 TO | VOTE
Continued from First Page.)

isIature: You have overstepped your
duty You have no right to take an office
| from one man in order TO give 1t 10
another This is what the Supreme
court held in the case of Hoke against
| Henderson and in all other cases of a
| like nature since that time.
1T is a fixed principle that there is no
| wrong for which there is not CORE
spending method of redress, and that
( there is way by which all rights ear
be preserved If Mr. White was appoint
ed to the office. he was entitled to the
salary, and if he did not get that salary,
he had means of redress by applying to
the courts for & writ of mandamus. The
Supreme court simply construed the act
OF 1899 as being amendatory TO the act OF
! 1897, and decided that the Legislature had
no right TO put a man out Of office in or
der to give that position to another II
they had stopped at chapter is, Laws OF
1899, which merely abolished the office,
this controversy would never have come
mp. But when in chapter - they re-enact
OF restore the Office of shell-lish commits
SIGN although in it was put in different
form and different language, they over
stepped their bounds.
This discussion has taken a wide range
indeed The Supreme judicial power is
denied the rights that was given it at
the beginning of this government. They
are charged with violating the Constitu-
ton of the State because they have con-
strued an act TO mean just what the Leg
islature intended it TO mean. Every man
in that Legislature knows that the office
was abolished and the new act passed in
crdcr 10 give the office to another man,
just as we did in the Fusion Legislature
of 1897 The only difference is that we
did it openly, while you did it in an under
hand way.
IF Judge Rpffin were here today. he
would be deemed impeachable, because he
decided that the acts of 1882 were uncon-
stitutional
is there any question as to whether
White is IN office today? If he is in cffice
could we take his salary from him?"
The speaker then read from Justice
Clark's opinion in Garner against Worth
that the only time when payment OF a
claim can be enforced by writ of man
damus is when the Legislature has made
an appropriation for it, declaring that this
done Judge Clark" he went on. lin
this case concurs in the opinion of the
present Supreme court because an APP
preparation was made for the payment of
this mans salary The attorney in that
ease, who applied TO the Supreme court
for Il writ of mandamus against the State
TO compel them to pay bill of costs, was
q Mr.. Allen. Whether or not this was the
Mr.. Allen who now calls upon the Legis-
lature TO impeach these judges, | know
not. Ii il was. other men may think as
they please, and as for me, l think con-
sistency is one of the most beautiful vir-
tues that adorn the human charcter."
Justice Montgomery's opinion in Wood
vs. Bellamv was then invoked. where it
is laid down that the emoluments of an
office are the same as private property,
and-that the same remedies may be APP
paied in case of their being taken away
as if a COW, or horse, or anything else
belonging 10 a man were TO be taken
away unless the incumbent of the office
assigns its duties 10 another, or sell the
office to another. unless he be guilty Of
malfeasance in office or unless the term
of office had expired. There is not
man who has spoken on this floor, de-
clared Mr.. Ebbs, who has denied that the
term of Whites office had not expired.
Judge Montgomery further says that you
can't shorten the term Of office.
In the case of Cotton against Ellis,
Judge Parson said that it appeared that
office had been transferred from one man
to another. and referred to the case OF
Hoke VS.. Henderson as settling the fact
that this could not be done.
Mr. Ebbs then read from Daniel Web
ster's speech in the case of Dartmouth
College vs. Woodward delivered in the
United States Supreme court, March 1Oth,
1878, in which the great statesman re-
fers 10 the tenth section of the first ar
ticle of the Constitution of the United
States, and says: The material words OF
that section are: No State shall pass ANY
bill of attainder. ex post facto law, or
law impairing the obligation OF contracts.
THE courts, continued Mr.. Ebbs,
have held that this is the same as
private contract. Therefore, when the
Legislature enacted that law which pre-
vented the carrying out of the contract
mad by the State With Thcophilus White,
they violated the Constitution OF the
United States.
of there being so much politics mixed up
in this question, and said: Il was struck
with much force and admiration few
days AGO at the remarks OF the gentle
man from New Hanover (Mr Rountree)
in regard to cessation of all this fight
ing. We ought to stop it. We ought to
do nobler deeds then wrangle over pollti-
cal matters. Let us do our duty, and
allow the Supreme court scope to do what
it is entitled TO do by the Constitution
of North Carolina.
Mr.. Ebbs then cited the case OF Bailey
against Caldwell. y. c. GS, page Az, 10
show that while the Legislature might
alter. amend or repeal an act liking a
salary, it could not take away the salary
altogether, without some substitute
Now Judge Clark" he said, has dls-
scented from this opinion of the court, but
in the case OF the State against the
Southern Railway l25 \. G., page 666, he
says:
THE other point. and the one primer
nalIy relied on by the defendant Is that
the statute under which the indictment
was drawn. Laws of 1891, chapter S20'
o.4;on &c ranaaIed nv chapter l0b,