The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-12-23
Attorney Generals Opinion
Will not Exempt the Judges.
The Maxim NO One Can Be Judge in His
Own Gauss" IsEffec:uraiiy Quoted By Hon.
FrarkIn McNeiII, Chairman of The
State CORPORATION Commission

day. 1T was the best editorial JndI ever
appeared in the News and Observer said
leading business man last night" The
business and profession men have TO
pay their income tax, and they never
see the color of their money. There is no
justice in exempting judges who get
larger salaries and are more able TO
pay it that many others who are forced
to pay it.
While talking with Chairman Franklin
Mcneil. of the Corporation Commission,
yesterday News and Observer reporter
asked him; What do you think of
the decision of Supreme Court in regard
to liability of its members for tax on
their incomes from salaries?"
He answered: "They have made no
decision as at court. How could they
render a decision? There was no case
before them In order for the Supreme
Court to, render a decision in any matter,
they must acquire jurisdiction by appeal,
or by petition in cases in which they
have original jurisdiction.
This opinion filed by them is nothing
but their opinion individually and col
lectively We were aware before they
filed 1t that this was their opinion. by
comes. Fortunately or unfortunately the
liability of these gentlemen to the income
or any other tax must be passed on by
other officers-taX listers, County Com
missions and the Tax Commission. in the
order named. Suppose that these high
officers were to conclude that their prop
erty could not be taxed and therefore
that they would refuse to list it for taxa
Z ton, and the List-taXer County Commits
sioners or Tax Commission would take
4 different view and insist that their
property could be taxed just as any other
, peTsons-could they by writing a letter
/ to an amiable Attorney General and OBJ
tanning reply from him that they were
not liable. pass upon and settle the mat
ter that they would not pay the tax?
We have great respect for the Supreme
Court and will always endeavor to be
guided by their decisions. but, where
there has been no decision upon a queS-
ton and we are called upon to decide it,
we will decide il as we think right. and
our orders must be Observed until they
have been reversed in some legal way
as long as the General Assembly re-
quires us to discharge the duty. Any
other course would be base surrender
Of our oaths and consciences. We were
surprised. therefore. that the Supreme
Court would attempt to pass on a ques
ton of which they had no jurisdiction;
but we were more surprised that they at
tempted to pass on their own case
There is a legal maxim, as follows:
Memo debit esse judeX propria sum
causa. No one can be a judge in his own
cause"
us this maxim in force in North Caro-
lima now? Our Supreme Court has said
SO. Hear the words of the court as
spoken by MIR. Justice Clark in the case
of White VS.. Connolly, 105 \. c. 20
THE common law forbade a man be-
ing the judge of his own cause. as If
an act of Parliament give man power
to try all causes that arise within his
manor of dale; yet. if a cause should
arise in which he himself is a party
the act is construed not to extend TO that
because it is unreasonable that any man
should determine his own quarrel
Blackstone. 81.
There is also maxim of law regard
ing judicial action which may have an
important bearing upon the constitutional
validity of judgments II some cases No
one ought to be a judge in his own
cause; and so infexible, and so manifest
ly Just is this rule. that Lord Coke has
laid it down, that even an act of Par
lament made against natural equity,
as to make a man n judge in his own
case, is void in itself; for jura naturae
stunt immutabilia and they are legos
legum.'
This maxim applies in all cases where
judicial functions are to be exercised,
and excludes all who are interested,
however remote. from taking part in
their exercise"
ct is not left to the discretion of
Judge, or to his sense OF decency, to
decide whether he shall act or not;
all his powers arc subject to this abso
Lutte limitation; and when his own rights
are in question, he has no authority to
determine the cause. Accordingly, where
the Lord Chancellor. who was share
holder in u company in whose favor
the Chancellor had rendered de-
cree. affirmed this decree, the House of
Lords reversed the decree on this ground,
Lord Campbell observing. 1t is of the
last Importance. that the maxim that no
man is to be a judge in his own cause.
should be held sacred. And that is not
to be confined to q cause in which he is
a party. but applies to a cause in which
has an interest We have again and
again set aside proceedings in inferior
tribunals, because an individual who had
an interest took part in the decision
And it will have a most salutary effect
on those tribunals when it is known that
this high court of last resort in case
in which the Lord Chancellor of England
had an .Aterest. considered that his de-
cree, on this account, a decree not ac-
cording to law. and should be set aside.
This will be lesson to all inferior
tribunals. to take care not only that in
their DEGREES they are not influenced by
the personal interest but to avoid tho
appearance of labortng under such an
influence. Dives VS.. Grand Junction Ca
nal. House of Lords Cases, 759; Cooley
Cons. Lin. TOLL; Coke Lit, Section
o12''
But suppose inquired the reporter,
''tbc court die not have jurisdiction and
could not he judge in their own cause,
lid not the Attorney General have jurG-
dclion and could he not act rs their
deputy and decide the matter, especially
Il, NI,..t ft.,,