The news & observer., 1901-03-07


performing tha official duties prescribed
by that act. Can we say that the prima-
ry object OF the Legislature was not the
public welfare but the private beneht
of the individuals named in the act
Have We any right To say that the Legls-
iature in providing for the protecuot
and supervision OF one Of The greet IN
dustries Of the State. intended to say 20
tha Treasure: we think that the proper
supcrvision of the shellhsh industry IS
necessary for the public welfare, ana
fer this purpose we have appropriated
tho public money, but if that public
money cannot 90 into the pockets OF our
parsonal friends whom VIC have named
in the bill. We prefer that those impor-
tant public duties should remain unpet-
fol med aud these great interests entirely
neglected" The Legislature has not SAID
SC: ii could not legally say so, ana u
shall not be made to say so, even lhler-
eutjaliy by any construction OF NINE.
II ie my duty as we'll as my pleasure to
nlace upon its acts a construction IN mar
monv with the public interests winch
thcv arc bound 10 protect and the 'on-
stihiion which they are sworn to OBEY.
They NAV we'll have believed that the
office held by the plaintiff had been Ie-
ealIv abolished, and that they had the
right ~ fill the Offices they had presum-
ablv created So believing, they may
have intended simply 10 instrnct tne
Treasurer nof to pay any mere claimant
under any other act, but If he could no.
pay their apTointees to hold the rune
until il was legally determined to whom
II sbcuId he paid Such would have been
their legal intent, and such prefer tc
believe was their actua( intention.
OF course would deeply regret to
see nv native State visited by earth
ouakes or cyclones Of Il civil OF material
nature. and I am glad TO say they have
no germ in the decision We are rendering.
This ease is small one. actually ana
potentially 1t enunciates no new prin-
clple and involves but little money. Con
STRUNG tho two acts together. we ma
an office created by the Legislature vita
a salary attached thereto, and fund
specifically appropriated for the payment
thereof All we now say is that the
man legally and rightfuly performing the
duties of the office is entitled TO the
compensation thereunto affixed by law.
North Carolina Supreme Court.
No. lS-Perquimaus County.
rhecphilus White against II. W. Aver.
Auditor. and w H. Worth, Treasure
Of North Carolina
Judgment.
This cause coming on TO be heard. Il
Is adjudged that the plaintiff is entitled
to the salary and compensation provided
for in the act of 1899. chapter 10, to-
wit, the sum OF four hundred dollars
per annum, and FIVE cents per mile tray
cl, when engaged in his work. and extra
expenses not 10 exceed fifty dollars per
annum. and that tho same be paid by
the Treasurer of the State out of the
oyster fund appropriated by the act o;
lS97 aud the act OF 1899. admitted 70
be now in the Troasurers hands: Pro-
vided however that the expenses of the
commission do not exceed tho sum of six
thousand dollars per annum.
1t is further adiudged that the certih-
cate and warrant shall be issued in the
manner indicated in the opinion filed
in this action, md that the defendants.
pay the costs Of appeal.
W. T. FAIRCLOTH, G. J.
The respondents deny that in rendering
the said opinion and IN comforting upoh
the clerk by the Judgment IN said coz
The said writs. or in any matter or thing
connected herewith they were unmind-
full OF the duties of their office OF their
oaths of Office or Of tho Constitute"
and laws OF North Carollna and the
denT that the said writs Of mapdamun
were unlawfully issued or that the war.
rant set out in the said article was UNI
lawfully paid by the Treasurer, or that
al p11
having been made therefor by the Gen
craI Assembly of the State. These re-
spondents further deny that the saiG
writs OF mandamus were issued with the
intent thereby TO compel the payment OF
any money cut Of the State Treasury in
violation of any provision os the Consti
tuition or laws of the State. or that the
same were caused to be issued with any
wrongful. improper or unlawful intent
Whatsoever; hut on the contrary. these
respondents solemly declare that in all
their acts and conduct relative to the
issuing Of the said writs or any matter
pertaining thereto. they were actuatcd
and governed by a purpose and desire
10 discharge the duties of their ofhcc
honestly, faithfully and conscentiously,
agreeably TO their oaths Of office and in
conformity with the Constitution and
laws of the state, and that all allegations
i'm said article, or IN any IF said articles
exhibited against them charging these
respondents with any unlawful or i'm
proper acts or motive in any way con-
nectcd with the performance Of their Off
cial duties in connection with the case
Of White against Auditor, or any other
case, are utterly untrue and are emphatl-
cally denied; and these respondents sol
emnly deny the allegation made in the
said first article that they committed OF
were guilty of high crime and msde-
meanor ~ office.
ANSWER TO ARTICLE II.
And fer answer to the said second
article, these respondents say that the?
abide by their answer to the said first
article in so far as the same is Responsive
to the allegations contained in the said
second article. and without here agaiu
repeating the Same answer pray the same
to be taken as answer to this seconc
article, as fully as if hero again set out az
length; and as to the new allegations
contained i'm the said second article. that
these respondents and William T. Fair
clcth, constituting a majority OF the
Supreme Court Of North Carolina, did
usurp legislative authority and did as,
Il,