The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1905-02-25

the lines, first, that notice was not es-
sential to the passage of the bill, sec
ond that the bill was not such Il pri-
vate act as is contemplated by Section
IL, Article of the Constitution, there
being no application of that section
where bill had been introduced as
in the present instance as matter
of public policy and, third, that if II
is such an act as is contemplated by
the constitution, the thirty days no
tice' had been practically complied
with.
In arguing these points Mr.. Munroe
referred to Broadnax VS. Groom,
where the court did not stop to con-
slider whether formalities had been
complied with or not, the Legislature
having passed the act, TO Calling US.
Tarboro, where it was held that an
act Of the Legislature could not be
impeached by the argument that there
had been a failure of the formalitieS
required but that if it appeared from
the Journal that there had been no
notice the act was void, to ScarbOr-
ough VS.. Robinson, which he said con-
tanned only a dictum on the question
which was contrary to the principal
announced in BroadnaX VS.. Groom.
He rested upon the argument that
if the constitution required a formal
courts would look behind the ratifica-
ton, but not unless this was actually
specified, citing Car VS.. Coke and 9TH
err cases. In BroadnaX VS.. Groom. he
declared the expression "a mere pri-
vate act" showed that the construc-
ton of the constitutional provision
was not broad enough to include a
quasi public corporation such as the
Atlantic and North Carolina railroad
AT,rYa -
which had been recommended to the
Legislature by the Governor could
not be logically construed as private
act. when the corporation concerned
was one which held the interest and
was shared in by all the people.
If it is a private act, said he, there
has been ample application and no.
tice in the message of the Governor
to the Legislature, which being a pub
lie document, was notice to all the
world that the bill was to be asked
of the Legislature.
The other side had given notice
sufficient, said he, by newspaper pub
locations of the intent 10 ask the ex-
tension of the charter and Ey meet
ings held in protest TO the lease and
the proposed extension, the proceed
ings of which had ben published in
the papers. when the reason
CcetSSS lie tuoteu, the IdN ceases.
The purpose of notice is to give an
to all people interested
TO appear before the act shall be made
into law. To that extent, and he
thought sufficiently, the law as to the
notice had been complied with. As to
the fact that there were certain par
ticular formalitieS required by the
Code, Mr.. Munroe said that this Legis-
lature had the same powers as other
n .,Is,<,
1t was q law TO itself as TO what was
or what was not sufficient notice IN
der the constitution. reading cases
in which it was held that a Doarq OF
directors having power to enact by
laws may do acts forbidden by the
bylaws which Will be legal, as
TO n repeal Of the rules
Of the corporation by the power hay
ing the authority to prescribe them.
The distinction between what is q
private and what n public corporation
had been variable one, said Mr.
Munroe. At first the test had been
the liability of the stockholders for
the debts, then there had been the
question of contract, the latest utter
ance of the courts being that a rail-
road company is quasi public cor
poration and as such does not come
under the provisions of the Constitu-
ton requiring the formal notice of
the intention TO ask an act.
Having been asked as to who pro-
posed the bill Mr. Munroe stated that
it met the approval of all the direc-
tors of the road with the exception
of Mr.. Foy. who had been dead against
it and generally opposed to every
thing from the beginning.
Mr.. Clark on Necessity OF Notice.
Mr.. w. w Clark then replied to
Mr.. Munroe, making q most clear
and convincing statement of the law
on the subject which greatly and evil
IDENTIFY impressed the committee. He
stated that the proposition that the
Legislature could abrogate and nullify
a mandatory provision of the consti-
tuition at it's pleasure was TO him
proposition of law. The
was compact with the
people and when it spoke in direct
and unambiguous terms. he had not
thought il could be lightly disregard
ed.
He admitted said Mr. Clark, that
the act proposed if passed by the
Legislature would be valid and bind
ton would be conclusive as to the
of the formalities having
been complied with and the courts
would close the door. This question
was not being fought in a court of
of legislators. who were faced with
law. however. but before a committee
Of Legislators who Were faced with
the question as to whether in enacting
laws they would or would not follow
the provisions of the constitution as
plainly declared He read the con-
provision as to notice pro-
hibiting the passage of any private
law unless il shall be made TO appear
that notice has been given for thirty
days OF the intended application ana
also referred TO the method of notice
prescribed by the Code. The section.
said he. was mandatory, specific and
ambiguous. Il enjoined a duty on
the Legislature to refrain from pass
ing any such act until the conditions
prescribed had been fully and COM
pletely fulfilled.
private corporation. said he.
might have quasi public duties and
thereby become and be known as a
quasi public corporation. But he had
never heard that the act Incorporating
such a corporation was other than
private one. Citing Durham VS.. r.
r. Mr.. Clark declared that, while a
private statute may create a corpora
ton having quasi public powers, there
was no such mixture known, as the