The news & observer., 1901-03-07

a general supervision and control over
lows: THE General Assembly shall have
no power TO deprive the judicial depart
ment Of any power or jurisdiction which
the proceedings of the inferior courts.
Section Il of the same article is as fol-
Iightfully pertains to is at a coordinate
| department of the government: but the
| General Assembly shall alIot and distreN'
| ute that portion of this power and juris-
| dictIon, which does not pertain TO the
| Supreme court. among the other courts
| prescribed in this Constitution or which
| may be established by law: in such mac
| ner as 1t may deem best provide also
| a proper system of appeals, and regulate
/ by law when necessary the methods OF
proceeding in the exercise of their pow
| ers. Of ali the courts below the Supreme
court so far as the same may be done
| without conflict with other provisions OF
| this Constitution"
Before entering upon their duties as
| Justices Of the Supreme Court these
respondents. in addition to their oaths OF
allegiance to the State aud Federal gov
ernment severally took the FOLLOWING
oath. as prescribed by section 1915 Of the
Code: Il, David NJ. Fnrches (or Robert
NJ Douglass, DC solemnly swear that in
my office of Justice OF the Supreme Court
of North Carolina l will administer Jus.
tice without respect To persons and do
equal right 20 the poor and the rich. To
the State and TO individuals: and that /
will honestly, faithfully and impartialIy
perform the duties Of the said office ac-
ccrding to the best of my abilities. and
agreeably to the Constitution and law.
OF the State; so help me, God" This
oath they took in good faith. and hav.
ever been mindful of It's sacred obliga. I.
tions.
AS the final determination on appeal OF
all matters Of Law or legal infcrencc''
Is committed to the Supreme Court by
express provision of the Constitution.
as members of that court these respond
ents could not refuse 10 perform that
duty honestly, faithfully and impair
tally without violating their oath
II may be that they have been mis-
taken in some of their views of the law:
but this they have sought to avoid by q
careful consideration of every case and a
steadfast adherence to settled principles
Of law. They do not claim personal
infallihility of judgment. but in all cases
and under all circumstances have done
the right as they We're given to see tho
right More they could not do: less they
have not done
These respondents further declare that
in delivering or cOncurring in the opin-
ions of the Supreme court in the So
called "office- holding cases. they were
actuated solely by a dominating sense or
duty and governed by well-settled prin-
cples of law. They utterly deny that
they were Influenced by any partisan bias
or political purpose. The first OF the
so-called "offlceho,ding cases" determ-
ined by these respondents and the late
Chief Justice William 7. Faircloth was
not Days case. which was decided in
1899, but WAS the case of Wood V. Bel
Iamy, decided at the February term
1897, and reported in 120 ~ c., on page
2t2. This case OF Wood v Bellamy.
which clearly laid down the essential
principles that have governed the deels-
ions of the court in all subsequent cases
was delivered by a unanimous court
under peculiar circumstances that atso-
lutely excluded any possible intent on the
part Of the court to show any disrespect
to the Legislature or to bring It into
public contempt or disrepute. The Cen
cre ~1bly was then, and had beeii
for the past two years under the abso-
lutte control Of q political party TO whoss
votes every member of the Supreme
court owed his seat upon the bench. This
party had long been out of power, and
consequently found practically every
place or honor or profit in the hands
of it's political opponents. Desiring the
fruits cf its victory. it sought to OBJ
tain possession Of such Offices By series
Of statutes that clearly expressed the
legislative will. Those holding sucA
Offices claimed vested right therein
during the terms for which they were
appointed. and refused 10 surrender pos.
session thereof to the appointees of the
Legislature Tho Respondent Furches
WIS elected Justice Of the Supreme
court in 1891. and qualified OF the 1st
day of January. 1895; while the Re-
srcr|o"t nrrglas was sworn in Oh the
1st day Of January. 1897, having beer
elected at the preceding election.
Under such circumstances the case OF
Wood V. Bellamy, with the Kindred
cases of Lusk VS.. Sawyer and Person IS.
Switzerland, commonly known as the
Asylum cases" came before the respon-
dents, as members of the Supreme court,
for final determination Had these r.
spondents been Influenced by any motive
either of fear or favor they woulc
have then yielded submission to the viii
OF the Legislatures but across the path
which political affllation and personal
friendship would have prompted them to
follow, lay the stern mandate of the corr
stitution and the sacred obligation OF
their judicial osths. These cases were
ably and exhaustively argued, orally and
by brief, by distinguished counsel whost
names appear on pages 2l6 and 225 of
volume 126 of the Reports. After care
ful consideration the Supreme court.
including these respondents, reaffirmed
the constitutional principles decided IN
Hoke " Henderson, Is ~ c.. 1, and de-
cided in favor CT tho official iucumben:s.
These cases involved the directors an4
officers Of the three insane asylums OF
the State. Wood V. Bcllamy being for
those of the Asylum at Raleigh; LusH
Y. Sawyer for the asylum at Morgantou,
and Person V. Switzerland for the asy-
lum at Goldsboro. These cases were
heard and decided at the same time. the
opinion of the court being delivered in
Wood V Bellamy. and the other two
disposed of by per curiam judgments,
100 y. c.. 2i2, 225 The opinion speaks
for itself as 10 the legal principles therein
held and the reasons thereafter The
~