The news & observer., 1901-03-21

And the witness. glared deiantly at
court and counsel. Then he added, III
no degree cooled down:
II considered it disgraceful scramble
for office-disgraceful."
Il think so too" pleasantly remarked
Mr.. Watson.
Yes" retorted the Judge, but l got
to that conclusion before you did,
Maybe not" drawled Mr.. Watson dis
interestedly, Maybe l got there first"
We'll you said 1 did and l thought
you were an open man."
TO LET HIM COOL DOWN.
Mr. Watson now got up and walked
things to cool down. There seemed to be
danger of an explosion. He came back
and asked:
Hadn't it about got to the place
when you used those words to Judge
Clark-that the conferences OF the court
were political brawl?"
II decline to answer such question
unless am compelled to do Sc"
well never mind, smiled Mr. Watson,
''you were engaged in passing on political
cases for three or four terms, and there
was q hot feeling among the judges?''
sometimes the discussions were purely
legal But (here he paused for moment
as if unable to do the subject justice ,
But when Judge Clark filed his political
| opinions they riled every member of the
court"
Didn't he file dissenting opinion that
you characterized as an opinion of great
power and force?"
In asking this question, Mr.. Wat
son threw his head back and gazed stead
lily at the witness. In answering it Judge
Montgomery paid Judge Clark the high
est compliment a judge can bestow on
an associate on the bench. He said
"I'd like to explain that. / can do so
satisfactorily, too, even to you. When
Wood VS.. Bellamy came before us went
with Judge Clark in it's decision. His
reasoning convinced me. When these polit-
ical cases came, the power and strength
of his dissenting opinions were such that
he would have converted me had l not
started out with the doctrine of Hoke VS..
Henderson. He can write strong and
powerfully on any question. But his COW
ert attacks on the doctrine Offset the
strength of his opinions. | told Judge
Clark as much"
QUARRELING ALONG THE ROAD.
wouldn't you call that sort of fall
| ing out?''
I'VE were half way from my house to
| his
But you were quarreling along the
road"
1--WE kept up our relations"
"Oh you didn't fight. And you call Judge
Clark's dissenting opinions covert at
n min Ahnr1 in a
| books %
Eyes, but in them he attacks the doc
| trine that office is property. He got
| the court committed to the doctrine of
Hoke VS.. Henderson in the asylum cases
| and then took the other side Though
in the case of Ward VS.. Elizabeth City
he spoke more strongly in favor of Hoke
VS. Henderson than | ever did"
Didn't he say in that opinion: If Hoke
VS.. Henderson is law'?"
Il don't remember, but ! think he
wrote very strongly in support of the
doctrine"
.Did not Judge Douglas in Ward VS..
Elizabeth City attack the doctrine of
Hoke VS.. Henderson, saying it had been
repudiated and was being carried too
| far?"
Didn't even Chief Justice Pearson, who
| extended?"
81 think so"
"Did the court not extend it in these
office holding cases?"
81 think not
Didn't you do it in the White case?''
81 don't think we did"
4 IN hol haf ho 7 cI OF ga
revise the supervision of the shell-flsh
| industry?"
| Not if in doing so it takes away the
vested rights of man in his office"
Suppose the Legislature had put White
in for forty years, couldn't it turn him
| out?"
There is nothing in the constitution
or law, as 1 read it, to prevent his be-
| ing put in for that length of time. 1t
| can limit the term of office to five, ten
| or forty years and no man can prevent
l it"
| mo matter how great may become the
| shell-fish Industry"
1T is the fault of the law and not the
| judges
Haven't some of the most eminent
| judges on the Supreme court bench held
| that the Legislature can withdraw money
| appropriated to a special fund or an Off
Ger, even if the act withdrawing it is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
| Il should say that where a specified
fund has been appropriated to an officer
| and he has performed the duties no sue
ceeding Legislature can withdraw that
| appropriation.
| NOT AN EMINENT JUDGE.
| Here the witness explained that he was
| not IAN eminent judge
| "Well,' replied Mr.. Watson, I'm not
/ going to undertake to say you are" Then
/ he asked:
| Suppose the Legislature had 2ppropria-
| ted money for public work ard had au-
thcrized a man, at a salary of say $4,000
year, to have the work done, and he
had done it, do you say the Legislature
could not stop the payment of the
| money!"
1T could"
"And yet it can't withdraw the APP
preparation from $40O man to measure
oysters down here in the sounds?"
"No"
Here the witness explained" that he
didn't consider the two cases analogous
1t was ''unthinkable" to him that the Leg
islature would contract with a poor me-