The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-19
bench win utterly rgtute any such con-
oFFIcE-HoLDING CASES.

said
Il do not gather from the opening
speech for the managers that it will be
seriously contended that the respondents
are Improbable for concurring in the de-
cisions rendered in those cases. The
cases came before them in the regular
way, without any solicitation or procure
ment Of the judges and their decisions up
ON them were rendered in the discharge
Of their official duty and in accordance
with the settled law Of the State as they
understood it to be- Yet the whole drift
OF the honorable managers speech is in
effect, that If the respondents even I'M
consciously committed an error in any
one of their decisions, they are guilty
of high crimes and misdemeanors and
should be convicted upon the articles here
exhibited and removed in ignominy and
disgrace from their high position
THE honorable manager announced to
the court his purpose to show partisan
spirit running through all of these deci-
siens, and an attempt to prevent the peo-
pic from controlling the exercise of their
public Offices; to use his own language
and to weaken the power of the General
Assembly, We trust the honorable man
ayers will make good this assertion, for
we contend that the reverse of this is the
truth that instead of partisan spirit
being manifested in these decisions, of
all such cases coming before the court
more of them were decided in favor of
the party to which the honorable manager
belongs than were decided in favor of the
party to which the respondents belong;
and that instead of an attempt to weaken
the power of the General Assembly those
decisions disclose a purpose and de-
sire to uphold and sustain every act of
the legislature involved in those decisions
except only in that particular, in which
they clearly conflicted with the vested
rights of citizens; and even in that re-
spect the operation of the statutes was
merely postponed until such rights should
cease.
THE legislative scheme is left undis-
turLed the statutes as a whole are not
declared void; the effect of the decisions
is merely to postpone the operation of
those parts Of the statutes which under
take to deprive the incumbent of his of
fee before the expiration of his term; a~1
even those provisions are left to take
effect at the expiration of the term If
in the meantime they shall not be re-
pealcd by the General Assembly.
AN OFFICE IS PROPERTY.
Here the Day case, Abbott's case Nc
Call VS.. Webb and Green VS. owen were
read and discussed and the question was
asked, What reason and authority had
the court for holding those parts of the
statutes imperative for the time?"
Mr. President when these respondents
came upon the bench they found firmly
settled in our law the doctrine that an
office Is property; that the incumbent has
to it the same right that he has TO any
other property; that there exists between
the officers and the State a contract in
which the officer, on the one hand by his
bond and his oath is bound to tho dis
charge of the duties of his Office, and tbs
State, on the other, pledges her honor
that he shall have it's emoluments; that
when such a contract is struck it is as
complete and binding as a contract be-
tween individuals and cannot be a5ro-
gated or impaired except by the consent
of both parties; that while the Legisll-
ture may abolish an office of its own
creation or reduce the emoluments TO suit
the public convenience, it cannot abolish
the office and continue its duties by
transferring them to another nor can it
continue the office and at the same time
take from the officer his salary that
even in reducing the emoluments OF ~
office, everything must be done in good
faith and fair dealing with no view to
eyade or directly or indirectly impair the
substance of the contract.
Such they found to have rcen the set
tied law of this State for more than 60
years. They found it thus stated by
Chief Justice Ruffin and concurred in
by Judges Castor and aniel in 1888
''Twenty-seven years later they found
it again announced by Pearson, Chief
Justice and cOncurred in by Battle and
Manly in Cotton VS.. Ills, 52-545. decided in
1860. In 1871 eleven years later. they
found it declared by Judge Reade and
concurred in by Pearson, Rodman, Dick
and Settle, in King VS. Hunter 65 N. C.
603
In 1873 two years later, they found the
same principle reaffrmed by the. same
court in Bailey VS.. Caldwell, 6S, N. G. Az.
Again in 1877, four years later, the court
affirmed the same doctrine in Bunting VS.
Gales, II N. c. p. 2S3.
And in 1897, yet twenty years later, the |
law is again declared in clear and unmis-
taxable terms by Justice Montgomery and |
concurred in by the whole court consist |
ing of these respondents, Chief Justice |
f2iFclotn ana Justice Clark in Wood VS.. |
Bellamy, 120 N. G. 212; a case in which |
the Legislature in section of chastcr |
265 of the Laws of 1897, by express words |
had undertaken to abolish the offices Of |
superintendent of the Asylums of INC |
State, sought to be recovered in that ac- |
ton.
Such was the law of this State as these |
respondents found it when they came upon |
the bench; and adhering to the conserva-
tive principle of those decisions they re-
fused to over-rule these decisions to the !
Impairment of the vested rights of citi-
zens of this State
BOUND BY PRECEDENTS.
Here the Speaker read from Chancellor |
kents commentaries, Vol. l. page 52S, |
to the effect that courts are bound by
former decisions "as firmly as the pagan |
deities We're supposed to be bound by
the DEGREES of fate"
Another reason why the respondents |
decided these office holding cases as they
did is to be found in the application of |
the rules Of Interpretation which are
usually followed in the construction Of |
statutes. The statutes which they had |
under consideration being upon the same
subject and passed by the same Legis- |
lature at or near the same time were