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

the nortuAting I-sibc. Whsch lss. IL
rstsSd thc publsc coaEsSil.. Th~y
have -~n with r,grvi and ~iih ih-
dignAiiun shat .usid~n change Alssi
legislative iuierfcr-nc- in ca-- al
ie~tlng I-rr-snal right t-,,ou1e l,,s.. la
tn" hands OF ent-rFrl..ng aud infiu.
entisl sf.culAiurS. and sn&ry- tu th-
morc industrious aud l,-S- infnrm-i
IArt uf the .ommuniiy. They have
-.-n, to-, that onc legislative inter
ivr-n,' l. but the link Of iotsg
chain of repetition, every s1ls-.-
qucAi interference bcing naturally
proiuc~l by the -ff~-ts uf the I.r,~
c,Siing."
Mr.. Speaker, wA- struck with
degrc of sdmirxtiun, thu other day
when the gentleman from New
Hanover ssid that he wanted t.ac,.
anl wanted the State To -.ttlc back
10 her former condition. / can -Ay
amen 10 such statement. ! wish
We could stop political wnngling,
and engage In the I-riormAnc. of
our duties here upon this foor ~
members representing the various
counties in North Carolina. | am
tired Of political discussions being
dragged into our deliberations. cur
constituency did not send u her,
for THAI purpo-e. My p.-ople do not
want thee Judge impeach.d, nclth
er do believe that IL L. the wish
OF the people OF North Carolina. The
bar of the State, A. | understand IL,
outside of this body, l. almost =
unit against the Impeachment pro-
ceedings.
Mr.. Speaker and gentlemen. I de
sire now, by your permission, Ia
read from the case of Garner ~.
Worth, l22 y. C., page 3so-3-7.
This was a civil action by the plain
tiff vs. Superior Court Clerk of Car
teret county, to obtain Il maniamus
directing the State Treasurer Ia pay
certain claims against the State,
heard before Robinson, Judge, at
October term, 1897, of Wake SuIcI-
ior Court. notice, Mr.. Speaker,
that Mr.. Allen represented the
plaintiff i'm this action. I don't
know whether or not il il the same
Mr.. Allen who L. here advocating
the Impeachment Of the~e Judges
for issuing a similar writ. If this
is the same Mr.. Allen, il does seem
that he is a little bit inconsistent in
his course in this impeachment pro
ceeding; others can think and do a.
they wish, but a. for me, desire Ia
say that consistency of character il q
most noble trait, and no embellish-
ment can adorn human character
like it, and be placed On parity
with this most excellent virtue
Mr.. Justice Clark, who wrote q
dissenting opinicn i'm the case oi
White W. Auditor, 12G y. c., Iag,
80, and who became very much eX
ercised because he was not permit
ted TO write another i'm a case not be-
fore the court, at the time he asked
to be allowed to write such opinion
in delivering the opinion in thi
case, said: "The courts cannot Ill
rect the State Treasurer 10 pay
claim against the State, however jus
and unques Toned, when there j. M
Legislative appropriation 10 pay tin
same; and when there il such All ap
preparation the coercive power i
applied, not to compel the paymen
of the State liability but TO compe
a public servant to discharge his du
ty by obedience 10 legislative Ell
actment." Now Mr.. Speaker, yol
will see that Mr.. Justice Clark hold
in this case just what was decides
in the case of White W.. Auditor
!. 126 n. c., that unless there was a
appropriation made by the Legisls
ture to meet the demand, no writ O
mandamus could be invoked to fore
. its collection. Again Mr.. Justic
Clark said i'm rendering same opir
Fl ion: (Garner vs.. Worth "II
deed, the Auditors warrant wout
be no protection 10 the public Trea'
urer unless there was that 'appropr
alton to pay it, which is required
r Constitution, Article IA, Section
, Bank VS.. Worth, III y. C., Ia
, 1t is only when the legislative d.
: partment has appropriated a ceriai
fund to the payment Of a liabilit
q incurred or 10 be incurred and III
I Auditor or Treasurer refuses to obe
G the legislative mandate, that th
4 Court can issue its mandamus
compel him to do so. This rails.
o the sole question in this case. III
the General Assembly made any q
5 preparation to pay this claim"
!, And so / say, Mr.. Speaker,
! this case white VS.. Auditorl h
n the State, through its General A
y sembly made any appropriation f
: the payment of Mr.. Whites salar.
e This, / take it, is not controvef
/. ed, except in so far as the act
"a 1899 undertakes to repeal the act I
II 1897, making this appropriate
And as it has been held In all Il
4 decisions along that line in Nor
r. Carolina, that an act which purpOr
d to repeal another act, by a recital
: the act, that former statute W
> repealed or superseded by subseque
q acts, is not conclusive to such repe
o or supercedure. Whether a statu
! was so repealed is a judicial, al
|, not legislative question" /
= not see how these Judges can be II
o peached for exercising their judic
!, 2 functions in constituting the acts
10 1899, as amendatory to the act
i 1897, and issuing writ Of ms
~ damus to enforce the collection OF
q n n