The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-26
FOUR MORE SPEECHES
CONTINUED from Fifth Page.I

amount is definite and fixed and the
| fund as it appeared to the court was In
| hand
He contended that in this instance the
| duty of the Auditor involved no discre-
| tion--it was purely ministerial, and went
| on to say:
IF there was any discretion necessary
| for the Auditor to exercise in making the
| calculation to ascertain the exact amount
| from March Is, 1899 at $500 per snnum,
| or $33.221h per month, the writ did not
interfere with this discretion, nor did it
| interfere with his discretion in ascertain
ing the expense account and mileage"
On this point a long list of decisions
was cited, also to sustain the point that
mandamus writs are authorized.
Touching the writ of mandamus, Mr.
Long said:
'We have heard so much said about the
writ of mandamus that one would sup
pose that it was very dangerous crea-
ture lurking in the closets of the courts.
Long ago our Supreme court held that
it is not prerogative or extraordinary
writ, as. it was considered in the days OF
it's childhood, but is simply writ OF
right to be used as ordinary process IN
any case to which it is applicable. II
has been so held in Haymore VS.. Com
missioners, 85-26S; Brown vs.. Turner,
1898: Burton VS.. Furman. 115-166
'The judgment regular--the writ logl-
cally follows
1T has been said that interest follows
the principal as the shadow does the
substance so / assert that an execu-
tion as naturally follows Judgment.
What account is a judgment without an
~ hat o1tto &c
that fails to render judgment agreeably
to it's convictions and to enforce it when
rendered."
THE FACTS IN THE CASE.
The speaker now went into a lengthy
and minute review of all the fact in the
case white VS.. Auditory from the day 1t
originated in the lower court till the
issuing of the mandamus and the pay
ment of the money on 1T by the Treas
urer. When he had finally waded through
all these and answered all objections to
at least his own satisfaction, Mr.. Long
said:
eff these decisions are the law, support
ed as they are by so many precedents,
you cannot be otherwise than acquit thesc
Respondents on the first article But II
your understanding of the law is differ
ent or if you would have reversed the
precedents and decided otherwise than
these Respondents did, we insist that you
will credit them with absolute good faith
and acquit. Because they both swear
that they acted in good faith and with
honest intentions, and the evidence OF
Judge Montgomery confirms their state
ment, and their statements are confirmed
by testimony incontrovertible which is
found in their consistent opinions which
have been written and appear in the re-
ports from 1896 down till the last line in
the thirty-nine office-holding cases was
written"
Touching the second Article of I'm
parchment which charges the Respondents
with the usurpation of legislative tunc-
tions and intending to bring the General
Assembly into disrepute and contempt
uously violating and defying chapter 81
Laws of 1899, he said:
This argument fails because chapter
q does not forbid the payment of Whites
salary and expenses the person VINO
makes the claim under chapter 21, must
be a person who is authorized to render
services under chapter 10; the person
forbidden to make the claim is he who
is not authorized to render the services
under chapter 10. Constituting the Laws or
1897 and 1899 relating to the same sub
ject matter together, the Supreme court
held in White vs.. Hill, four justices
concurring, that White had term for
four years in his office which had not
been abolished-that it was his duty to
render the services of chairman of the
Shell-fsh Commission and the other duties
under chapter 10. In his suit for his sal
t,;r, ala,Y iC
for services under all the acts in force
and not repealed, and Judge Furches
expressly says that as he is in Office
and required to perform the services IN
der chapter 10, 1t is not necessary for
the court to pass upon the validity of
chapter 81 and say whether it is consti-
tutional or not This deferential and
reasonable construction of the statutes
by the court-construing every section
in every respect, except only in so far as
the effect of chapter IS was to take
away the vested right Of White to the
remainder of his TERMS now sought to
be conveyed into an infamous offense
and a contempt of legislative power.
''The court has done nothing TO inter-
fere with their full and complete pros
pective operation. If the term of Cap
tain White of the steamer Lilly has ex-.
pired-and | understand it has-Captain
Hill or his successor, can go on board.
and sail the seas of all oysterdOm within
his jurisdiction, with none to modest or
make him afraidi
IF Hoke vs. Henderson is the law
White VS.. Hill is the law. If White VS..
Hill is the law White was entitled to
his term and pay fixed by law, and
hence White VS.. Auditor is the law.
FOUNDED ON PRECEDENTs.
IF these principles are founded in pre-
cedents so numerous why will it be
urged that these respondents are guilty
OF any wrong.
|'The prosecution relies upon Wilson VS..
Jenkins, r. 5, to sustain their conten-
ton that the mandamus could not issue
under the provisions of chapter q. The
case does not fit for several reasons:
Il. Chapter q does not forbid payment
to White.
~. Because Whites office and salary
were not taken away by any of the acts
and could not be as long as the duties
continued.
20. If chapter 81 could be construed to
have this purpose, the fact that White
had q vested right in the balance of his