Court Opinion

ID: 9808507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:40:06.430213+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:14:07.674702
License: Public Domain

EaiRCloth, O. J.
( dissenting): I agree that in England the subject of penalties is controlled by the legislative branch of the Government because there is no constitutional restriction. I agree that in North Carolina, prior to 1868, the subject was entirely under the control of the legislature and that the early statutes on the subject have been allowed to continue on our statute books, by inadvertence I think, as now appears in The Code, Section 3842, and others. After the late war however, when the State was confronted with new conditions, when the subject of general education and a general system of public instruction became an important question of State policy, the Convention of 1868 — 9 adopted a Constitution with a provision ( Art. IN, Sec. 4) which declared that “ The net proceeds that may accrue to the State from sales of estrays or from fines, penalties and forfeitures shall be sacredly preserved as a school fund and for no other purposes whatsoever.” Again, the Constitutional Convention of 1875, amending the State Constitution in several respects, after providing for a general and uniform system of public schools, and set-, ting apart the sources of means for maintaining the same, declared in Art. IN, Sec. 5, “ That all monies, also the net proceeds from the sales of estrays, also the clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures, and of all fines collected in the several Counties for any breach of the penal or military laws of the State, shall belong to and remain in the several Counties, and shall be faithfully appropriated for establishing and maintaining free public schools in the several Counties of the State. Provided that the amount collected in each County shall be annually reported to the Superintendent of Public Instruction.”
Again, the legislature, 1881, Ch. 200, Sec. 16, enacted in *512the identical words of the Constitution of 1815, that the “ Net proceeds from sales of estrays, also the clear proceeds of all penalties and forfeitures, and of all fines &c ” shall belong to and remain in the several counties and shall be faithfully appropriated for establishing and maintaining free public schools in the several Counties as established in pursuance of the Constitution: Provided the amount collected in each County shall be reported annually to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction,” which statute was re-enacted into The Code in 1883. Code, Section 2544.
Thus we have, on the one hand, the Constitutional provisions of 1868 and 1875 and the Act of Assembly, 1881, Ch. 200, Sec. 14, Oode, Sec. 2544, declaring in plain terms that the clear and net (synonymous terms) proceeds of fines, forfeitures, penalties, &c., shall be faithfully applied to maintain public schools, and, on the other hand, the Act of 1741, Secs. 4, 5, Code, Sec. 3842, giving the entire penalty to any person suing therefor, and so for other penalties, and the question is, which shall control. The Constitution does not impose penalties but only directs the application of the net proceeds thereof when collected. It leaves with the legislature the power to impose penalties, to provide the machinery for collecting them, the designation of suitable persons to collect them and the right to make reasonable compensation to the collectors for services and expenses. The State has made the County Board of Education a corporate body, with power to sue and be sued, to recover school property, real and personal, and to see that the school law is enforced. I should regret to know that the State is compelled to appeal to the selfish motives of common informers to have its laws enforced, .and would prefer that it, the State, would select its own suitable agents to perform this labor with reasonable compensation, and I see no reason why the County Board of Education in *513a case like tbe present, may not make the collection and place the net proceeds to the school fund, and so on with other penalties, &c. For illustration — The Act of 1889, Ch. 199, Sec. 36, requires the solicitors of the several judicial districts to prosecute all penalties and forfeited recognizances entered in their respective courts and collect by execution if necessary, and allows them to receive as compensation for their services, a sum to be fixed by the court not less than five per cent, on the amount collected, and this Act is amendatory of The Code, Sec. 2544, requiring the net collection to be applied to the school fund as above stated. Will it be suggested that the solicitors, County Boards of Education and such others as the legislature has or may designate as collectors of all penalties, are not patriotic enough to perform their sworn duties in this behalf with reasonable compensation % By this method the school fund is increased, but if any person who may choose to sue is allowed to recover the whole penalty to his own use as is attempted in this case, then the school fund suffers and the Constitution, Art. IX, Sec. 5, is a “ dead letter.” It is seldom that we find an express and positive restraint upon Legislative power in the Constitution, but when we see a positive direction therein, it carries with it a necessary implication against every thing contrary to it, which would frustrate or disappoint the purpose of that provision.
I must assume that these constitutional provisions and the Act of 1881, Ch. 200, were enacted after due deliberation and not incidentally or by mere accident.
In two cases this question has been discussed by this Court, First Katzenstein v. Railroad, 84, N. C., 688. In that case the Court took a middle ground, by distinguishing between those penalties with an express provision that any person could sue and recover to his own use and those without any such provision, holding that the latter only *514belonged to tbe school fund. I respectfully submit that this was apetitio principii, as the Constitution says “All penalties ” &c, which must include all or none, subject to the deduction which the Legislature may deem a reasonable allowance for services and expenses of collection.
Second, Hodge v. Railroad, 108 N. C., 24: In this case the same question Avas discussed by a divided Court but it was left as an open question as it was not necessary to decide it in that case.
With the highest regard for the decisions of the Court as constituted when Katzenstein’s case, svgpra, was decided, and knowing that it is important that the law should be fixed and steady, still I feel that the organic law must be preserved according to its true intent and that the law should be “reasonable and right” — that it can not be settled until it is settled right and that if an error is committed by this Court it should be corrected, and the sooner the better, before it is followed by a list of decided cases, spreading in so many ways that to eradicate the error would do more harm than good.
I am of opinion that the judgment below should be reversed and the action as now constituted dismissed.
Avery, J., also dissents.