The news & observer., 1901-03-27

order that they might stand guard over
the peoples rights. Had that ever been
done in the State before? Why was it
done? 1t was done because the people be-
lieved, and the General Assembly believed
that if it adjourned sine die the Supreme
court, including the Respondents, would
annihilate its work The Supreme court
remained in session last spring to a
later date than had ever been
known before, and it did not adjourn un-
til after the Legislature met and decided
that it would not adjourn sine die until
after the 10th of July. Then the Supreme
court adjourned. What its purpose was
in having so prolonged its session | do
not know, but the fact is that, having
studied the decisions of the court for
twelve months, the representatives of the
people believed that that court had sin
ister purpose in view. Now, Mr.. President
and Senator's the Respondents and their
friends will laugh at the General Assem-
bly, of 1899. They may count the number
of its laws which the Respondents have
annulled; they may hold it up to ridicule
as much as they please. They are well
come to such merriment as they may
derive from such course. The work of
be adjudged by time and posterity and
/ do not hesitate to make the
prediction that future generations will
look to it as the Englishman looks to the
long Parliament. 1t is the one General
Assembly in this generation which has
stood between the people of this State
and a hostile Executive and a hostile
Judiciary. A grateful people will not al
lou l1n nrif nj of ;tc
ridicule to sully the fair name of that
General Assembly, nor to sessen the
love, respect the admiration in which it
best people of this State 1t has done
its work. Esto perpetua
Let me say further, Senators, that if
you acquit these judges, you sanction the
acts wherewith they are charged. We
have alleged that these judges have prac-
tically rewritten our constitution and
made it speak a different language from
what the written words of that instrument
have heretofore spoken. We say they
have changed the bill of rights. They
have made Article l SPEAK as fellows:
The Legislative, Executive and Supreme
Judicial powers of the government ought
to be forever separate and distinct from
each other, but the judiciary shall be
paramount Section 8 of that Article
they have practically stricken out, be-
cause they have exercised the power of
suspending laws, whereas this Article
provides that laws shall never be sus
pended. Section %, 20, 80 and 81 they
have made useless, because elections need
not be frequent, nor recurrence frequently
had to fundamental principles nor hered-
itary emoluments or perpetuities forbid
den when officers may be appointed to
almost all the important offices of the
State for a term of fifty years and be
safe from Legislative removal Article
4, section 3, they have made to read as
follows The Supreme court shall have
original jurisdiction to hear claims against
the State. but its decisions shall be
merely recommendatory. No process in
the nature Of execution shall issue there
on. They shall be reported to the next
session of the General Assembly for its
action, but the Supreme court may issue
process in the nature of execution for the
salary of public officers Article IA,
section s. they have made to read in
effect as follows: No money shall be
drawn from the Treasury but in conse
quence of appropriations made by law,
unless ordered by the Supreme court, and
an accurate account of the receipts and
expenditures of the public money shall be
annually published. 1t is with you to
say, Senators, whether the interpreta
tion put upon our Constitution by these
Respondents shall remain the law of the
land, or whether we will restore the in
strument as it was formed by the fathers.
IF you fail to convict the Respondents,
you cannot be heard hereafter to say that
their construction of the Constitution was
wrong but from the that they walk
out of this court eXonerated and again
take their place upon the Supreme court
bench the Interpretation which they have
given TO the Constitution becomes fast
and permanent. Therefore you shall de-
eide whether these great safeguards that
have been written into the Constitution
by the wisdom of the founders of our
commonwealth shall remain, or whether
they shall be destroyed by these modern
absurdities, the doctrine of Hoke against
Henderson and the doctrine of in pari
matera. For your verdict yau are an
swerable to your conscience, and from a
true verdict, as brave and true men, you
will not allow sympathy or friendship or
anything else to swerve YOU