The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-03-23

The speaker defined claims agains
the State as contemplated by the Con
stitution and said there was no differ
ence between debt due by the State
for salary and that due on a contrac
for work Both are claims against the
State
He here read from the decision il
Blount VS.. Simmons, 119 N. G.
ut is well established that sui
against an officer is suit against the
State, and no suit can be tolerated
against a State officer unless it be tc
make him comply with statute of the
Legislature"
Now did these Respondents violate
the Constitution?
did they issue the mandamusE Ihey
did, they don't deny it.
Was it claim against the State? II
was and was in violation of Article q,
section 9. and Article IA, section 3, OF
the Constitution"
Balm VS.. jenkins, Sc N c., 1856, was
cited to show the evil of extending such
jurisdiction.
"Why, Senators, if the Supreme court
has such jurisdiction as it exercised in
White VS.. Auditor, the Supreme court
Court of Impeachment shall endorse this
action of these judges the decision will
rise again to plague you. Hereafter a
same dangerous work that this writ from
the higher court has done.
"Do you not realize how reaching
may be your decision here?
$50 much for the first Article The
second Article says the Supreme court
usurped legislative power end authority
THE OYSTER LAWS.
Referring to the oyster Laws" of
1897 and 1899, Mr.. Busbee said ''around
these acts the gage of battle RACES. y
He read them, and called attention to
the language of the Supreme court in
constituting them.
THE judges in their decision studious-
ly avoid saying that White was author
.ize to render the services under the pro-
visions of this act (chapter 81, 1899. And
why? Because they could not say it.
But instead they say he rendered the
services under the act. When they said
that they usurped legislative power;
they wrote in the act words that the
Legislature did net put there.
'And again, Senators, the judges
usurped legislative power when they
prescribed a different method for the GER
LITIGATION of bills
He explained the method for certifca-
tion proved 10y the Legislature-that the
bills shall be approved by the secretary
of the board and countersigned by the
chairman.
But" continued Mr. Busbee, "the
court abolished the board-had to do it
to put White in.
We'll, Of course there could then be
no secretary of the oard'-there being
no board there could be no secretary to
the beard But White appoints one of
his deputies as his secretary and he APP
proves the bills, and White countersigns
them. And how does he sign them-not
as chairman CT the beard as the law
provided, but he signs them sometimec
as C. |. S. F. |. [Chief Inspector or
the Shellfish Industry, and at other
times simply as chairman Chairman of
what? No board was left Chairman of
nothing. The title is simply left to show
that after the court had amended and re-
written the act they left it in such con-
dition that it could not be carrie out -"
Mr.. Busbee now referred to the reso-
luton of inquiry passed at the special
session of the Legislature in June, and
to Judge Clark's dissenting opinion and
protest and said
These Respondents had plain, definite,
precise information as to the intent of
the Legislature. And yet these Respon-
dents went ahead and said they would
do this thing no matter what may be
the consequences. Now Senators. it is
with tn CO xuba hop
action or not
$50 | will say and the facts bear me
cut. that these defendants did issue this
mandamus in defiance of the will of the
Legislature, and they did it knowingly"
At this noint Mr.. Busbee returned to
a discussion of proceedings for manda-
mus and contended that failure to verify
the complaint in White VS.. Auditor was
fatal. He cited Belmont VS.. Riley, II
N G., 26O, and Rogers vs. Jenkins.
i charge nothing against the attorneys
in that case, but / charge the State
Treasurer with neglect of his duty in
regard 10 the moneys in his keeping. And
these Respondents knew that this pro-
ceeding was not regularly constituted
They knew that they did not have juris-
diction even to pass upon the claim much
less :" issue this great writ to unbar
the doors of the Treasury"
Mr.. Busbee read the Judgment in White
VS.. Auditor and argued that there was
not one word in that directed that the
writ issue. He asked:
II ask you, Senators, isn't it miscon-
duct in office for judge to order the
clerk to issue writ. or advise him to
do xr-rft f1o&
the Treasury and takes out money, when
the Judgment on which it is issued does
not Justify it? They can't get their au-