The news & observer., 1901-03-20
THE JUDGES FINISH
THFIR TESTIMONY
(Continued from Fifth Page.

Continued from Fifth Page)
81 don't think | did, and if l had. it
would have had no influence on me-"
The witness said he thought cases had
been called to his attention in which the
courts had ordered the payment of claims
which the Legislature had forbidden. He
could not recall them, however. and Mr..
Watson asked:
do you know that the very day the
facts were agreed on the money was taken
out of the oyster fund and put in the
school fund.-"
THAT may have been construed to
mean the money left after the expenses
were paid
We'll, do you SO construe, it?"
VOLUNTEER TESTIMONY.
Here the witness hesitated, then evad-
cd the question Thereupon Mr.. F. H.
Busbee the volunteer, arose and asked
permission to present the witness some
| law on the question. The President re-
minded him that the witness was on cross
examination and counsel for the defense
would have their turn with him at the
proper time.
MIR. Watson repeated the question.
Again it was evaded.
| Mr.. Watson now read from Hoke VS..
Henderson and asked the witness if he
thought that good law.
Il don't think any section of an opinion
ought to be taken except in connection
with the rest of the opinion"
Didn't you interpret chapter 21, Laws
of 1899, to mean that part of the money
| given to the seven commissioners by the
/ Legislature should be given to White?"
This question the witness tried in all
sorts of ways to evade. But Mr.. Watson
| held him to it, and each time asked it
over until finally he got an answer. Judge
Douglas said;
| 81 will answer no.
did you hold that it was not the pur-
pose of the Legislature of 1899 to deprive
White of his office?'
1--WE held that the part attempting to
turn White out was unconstitutional and
that he was entitled to the office"
after you went on the bench did you
resort to the doctrine of in Dari materia
until after the Legislature of 1872"
I'VE used it in Wood VS.. Bellamy>''
Il ask you did you say one word about
| it in Wood VS.. Bellamy?"
Perhaps we did not. but we used the
principle
! The witness explained and Mr.. Watson
asked
"And you call that in pari materia do
you?"
Asked number of question as to some
Of the provisions of the shell-fish acts
of 1897 and the decisions thereon the
witness replied:
81 don't remember"
Couldn't the Legislature of 1899 with
draw all appropriations made by the Leg
IL.
II suppose so.'
Then no mandamus could have issued
could ito"
| Il think not
rs not mandamus an extraordinary
writ?"
'It is now regarded as an ordinary
one"
Did your court ever issue one?"
81 think he did in Cunningham VS..
Sprinkle"
wasn't it?'
Yes"
"And Caldwell VS. Wilson was a quo
warranto wasn't it,"
Yes
OTHER WRITS ISSUED.
"Do you know of any other instance
/
of North Carolina in which peremptory
writ of mandamus was issued on the Au
ditor and Treasurer to take money out of
the Treasury"
II think such was done in Gotten VS..
| Ellis and Bailey VS.. Caldwell"
Don't you know in Gotten VS.. Ellis
the court says it is not necessary to
to discuss the question of WRIT"
II think there is something of that
kind"
HAS there ever been case in which
there was writ on the Treasurer to
pay salary?"
Il do not recall case at present"
was the Constitution the same when
Gotten VS.. Ellis was decided that it is
ROW."
There were some very material
changes in it in 1853
Mr.. Watson read the Constitution
Article ", section 9-"The Supreme Court
shall have original jurisdiction to hear
claims against the State, but it's decision
shall be merely recommendation; no pro-
cess in the nature of execution shall issue
| thereon; they shall be reported to the
next session of the General Assembly for
| its action;'' and asked:
HAS this not been the uniform GUS
tom?"
'In claims against the State 1t has"
"Has e not been the custom where
salaries were claimed by offlcers:"