The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-20
Il don't think he did, but he may have

] have not. and am compelled to stand by
the letter of the Constitution.
"If he said that, / don't remember it."
"As a court was any order given?'
None a
/ "As a court was any advice giyen?"
"None as court. We gave it as in
dividuals. | told him thought it his duty
to issue the writ and Judge Douglas and
/ Chief Justice Faircloth said the same
thing
| did not Judge Clark offer to strike out
| the parts of his opinion that were OBJ
| iectionable?"
| 81 think he said something. of the kind
and / said: Judge Clark it's all objection
able to me- But that was not the ground
en- which we refused to allow him to file
| it,"
FIRST CASE ON RECORD.
I HAS there ever been case decided
| by the court prior to the Day case, in
which the act was declared unconstitu-
| tional, when the duties of the office abol-
ished and those of the office created
were different?"
The witness said he had not investi-
gated the case with a view to answering
this question, but he thought there was
no difference in the office abolished and
the one created in Wood VS.. Bellamy.
.'Now, from Hoke VS., Henderson to
Wood VS. Bellamy was there ever case
in which the court decided the act un-
constitution, where the Legislature had
even pretended to change the Office"
~ don't know about that"
Mr. Pou read from the opinion in Wood
VS.. Bellamy, and asked;
do you remember before three years
| ago, any single instance in which an Of
fee was abolished by one act and re-creat-
ed by another and that act was set aside
by the court
Cotton VS.. Ellis did that"
But that was decided upon the ground
that the office was created by Congress
and the Legislature could not abolish it,
wasn't it,"
well, Bailey VS.. Caldwell"
"But in that case the decision was dis
tinctly put upon the ground that the Of
fee was created by the Constitutional
convention of 1868. Is not that true?"
"The decision itself will show"
Then Mr.. Pou turned his attention to
the acts repeating the Western criminal
court district, after which the Legisla-
ture in separate acts recreated the dis
trict with engagements and changed
powers.
AS to these acts and the decisions
touching them, the witness said he would
refer to the Supreme court reports. But
he added:
1--WE held that the court was not abol-
shed in the counties where it was estab-
lished before so far as the act abolishing
it interferred with the vested rights of
the parties holding office"
''I'll ask you if the court didn't construc
the law just as if the repeating act had
never been passcd?"
The witness acknowledged that it did
CREATURE GREATER THAN CREATOR
wasn't that court created by the
Legislature?"
ut was"
"Can the Legislature not abolish it,"
1T cannot and then recreate the Office
in almost the same words"
Us there any way by which the Legis-
lature can abolish legislative office and
at the same session confer the duties of
that office on some one else?''
Il am not prepared to answer that
question. We simply passed on the acts
in regard to it that the Legislature did
pass"
I'm the Mccall cases, you held that the
Legislature could add counties to Nc
Calls district, but couldn't take any !
away, didn't you?"
1--WE held that they couldn't interfere |
with his vested rights. They might have
established different court. but not the !
same court"
'.The effect of the decision was to give
the district one Judge and FIVE solicitors
wasn't it?"
Five or six
1.-THE intention of the Legislature was
to provide solicitor for each county
wasn't it?'
Yes. but we held that they could not
appoint a solicitor for county in which
Mccall had been elected, until his term
of office expired"
Now the Railroad Commission act was
taken up, and Mr.. Pou asked If the Legls-
lature of 1899 did not pass an act repeal
ing the Commission act
They did; then in few days they
enacted law. large part of which was
copy of the original act, recreating the
commission
Were the acts not very dissimilar in
many terms? Did they not change the
name of the Commission?''
THAT was done in Wood VS. Belamy."
Did they not change the salary?"
81 don't remember"
did they not change the manner of
election from the Legislature to the peo-
ple?"
I'm Cherry VS.. Burns the appointment |
was changed from the Governor to the !
Senate"
But Judge. that was not the point in
Cherry VS.. Burns"
THAT may be So"
Ibid they not give additional duties |
to the new commission--the supervision Of |
banks. building and loan associations and |
the like?"
That is common egislation-adding /
new duties to an ofifae-and for the dis
charge of these duties the bond of the
officer is liable"
The duties, though, of the Corporation
Commissioner were larger than those of /
the Railroad Commissioner, were they
not"
yes"
And the oath was different.
Il don't remember