The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-09-16
Trustees of Deaf, Dumb,
and Blind Exempt.
TITLE is MISLEADING
Under an Act for Better Government Of
Institution, the Law Against Con-
tracing With State Was Re-
peaIed. History of Persis-
tent Acts.

I6ltk HClSs
Some time ago the News and Obser-
ser had occasion to refer the freedom
enjoyed by this State from the graft
which has in the last few years
brought scandal upon SO many of the
wisdom of the old fathers who as
long ago as 1926 saw the danger Turk
ing in public office and passed q
statute preventing any trustee or di-
rector of a public institution from
dealing or contracting with the State.
That law, framed out of abundance
of caution in a time when the sim
plicity of life gave small opportunity
for corrupt dealing, found expression
later in the Code, Section 1011. which
says:
mo person appointed or elected a
commissioner or director to discharge
any trust wherein the State or any
county, city, or town may be in any
manner interested, shall become an
undertake, or make O. contract for
his own benefit, under such authority,
or be in any manner concerned or IN
tereSted in making such contract or
in the profits thereof, either private
ly or openly, singly or Jointly with
another; and any person so offending
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Settled as principle of public
safety for more than three-quarters
of a century and unchanged through
the years except to make it more
stringent, it now appears that that
wise law has been twice repealed by
the Legislature insofar as to give TO
one of the most important of the
State institutions an exemption and
privilege not enjoyed by any other in
the State.
The institution referred to is the
Institution for the Deaf, Dumb and
Blind, at Raleigh, and the persstency
with which it has been excepted from
the operation of the statute and the
vague captions under which the bills
accomplishing that result were passed
indicate a desire to attain an end
through the Legislature and yet
against it's policy. -
Whatever the intent of the repeal,
whomSoeVer it is intended to benefit
or however little danger there may
be of the privilege bestowed being
mis-used. the history of the exception
as CLEANED from the statute books
shows that whoever procured the
passage of the measure to accomplish
il, did not care for the purpose to be
expressed in that frank verbiage which
is the "open countenance" of legis-
latiVe action.
JeSuitical the measure may be; but
it is not for individuals to defeat in
any instance the will of whole peo-
pie written through generations in
their laws. That is what this strange
exception in the case of the Deaf,
Dumb and Blind Institution seems to
do
A Strange History.
Here is the six year history of how
it was brought about and how lit has
been maintained.
BY chapter SAB, Laws of 1897, the
then Fusion Legislature passed one
of the good laws which may be credit
ed to that body, doubtless with the
intent of hindering Democratic office
holders whom they could not remove,
but still in it's text a wise and pru-
dent measure. That act was simply
an extension of the Code section 1011
by which a heavy penalty was fixed
for violation of it's provisions and Il
number of other officials included in
its inhibitiOns 1t was entitled "An
act for the protection of educational
end other institutions" and by its pro-
visions it was made unlawful for ANY
member of any board of directors,
board of managers or board of trus-
tees of any educational, charitable,
eleemosynary or penal institutions of
the State. or any county or district
superintendent of schools. or examiner
of teachers, or any school trustee of
any school, or other institution sup
ported in whole or in part from any
any officer agent, manager teacher
or employee Of any said boards, to
have any pecuniary interest, either
directly or indirectly. proXimateiy OF
remotely, in supplying any goods,
wares or merchandise of any nature
or kind whatsoever to any of said
Institutions orr schools.
The penalty for violation in any
particular of the statute above quoted
was that the person SD offending
should be guilty of a misdemeanor and
should be fined not less than $50 nor
more than $500, and imprisoned in
the discretion of the court.
Strongly as it was drawn and COM
prehensive as were its provisions the
fact that after eight years the general
law remains unchanged is a clear in
dicauon of the fact that it met with
the approval of the State in it's terms
whatever may have been the motives
which prompted its passage.
Two years after the passage of the
act, however, there was passed by the