Page 1393 |
Previous | 1393 of 1402 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
Subset
|
igoi.] Document No. 27. 53
the said fifth article, for himself says : That as hereinbefore
stated, he qualified as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of IS'orth Oaix)liua on the firsit day of January, 1895. The
said Court was then composed of Chief Justice Faircloth
and Associate Jusitices Avery, Ci.ark, Furches and Mont-gomery,
four of whom had been elected in 1894 by the same
party that controlled the Legislature of 1895. As Associate
Justice of said Court, this respondent delivered the opinion
of a unanimoais Court in the cases of Cook v. Meares, 116
N. C, 582, and of Stanford v. Ellington, 117 E". C, 158.
The effecit of these decisions was to invalidate an eleotion by
the Legislature of 1895, and to retain in office a Judge and
State Librarian politically opposed to the Legislature as well
as to the Court. As the principles of these decisions were
acquiesced in by all parties, the direct effect thereof was to
stop other litigation of a similar character, and to oontinue
in the contrtol of an unsuccessful political party for two years
longer the State Penitentiary and Department of AgTicul-ture.
It is true these cases did not depend upon the princi-ple
of Hoke V. Henderson, but upon principles more recent
and not so well settled. This respondent cites them merely
to show that his judicial conduct has never been influenced
by personal or political bias, but has always been governed by
his opinion of the law and his sense of duty.
And further answering all and singular the said articles
of impeachment exhibited against them by the House of Rep-resentatives
of IsTorth Carolina, these respondents declare that
in all the matters and things therein charged and alleged
against them, they acted in their judicial capacity as Justices
of the Supreme Court of ISToTtth Carolina, and not otherwise,
seeking honestly and faithfully to discharge their official
duties to the best of their knowledge and ability. They con-scientiously
believed it to be their solemn and imperious duty
to affirm the said judgment of the Superior Court ordering
Object Description
Description
| Title | Page 1393 |
| Full Text | igoi.] Document No. 27. 53 the said fifth article, for himself says : That as hereinbefore stated, he qualified as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of IS'orth Oaix)liua on the firsit day of January, 1895. The said Court was then composed of Chief Justice Faircloth and Associate Jusitices Avery, Ci.ark, Furches and Mont-gomery, four of whom had been elected in 1894 by the same party that controlled the Legislature of 1895. As Associate Justice of said Court, this respondent delivered the opinion of a unanimoais Court in the cases of Cook v. Meares, 116 N. C, 582, and of Stanford v. Ellington, 117 E". C, 158. The effecit of these decisions was to invalidate an eleotion by the Legislature of 1895, and to retain in office a Judge and State Librarian politically opposed to the Legislature as well as to the Court. As the principles of these decisions were acquiesced in by all parties, the direct effect thereof was to stop other litigation of a similar character, and to oontinue in the contrtol of an unsuccessful political party for two years longer the State Penitentiary and Department of AgTicul-ture. It is true these cases did not depend upon the princi-ple of Hoke V. Henderson, but upon principles more recent and not so well settled. This respondent cites them merely to show that his judicial conduct has never been influenced by personal or political bias, but has always been governed by his opinion of the law and his sense of duty. And further answering all and singular the said articles of impeachment exhibited against them by the House of Rep-resentatives of IsTorth Carolina, these respondents declare that in all the matters and things therein charged and alleged against them, they acted in their judicial capacity as Justices of the Supreme Court of ISToTtth Carolina, and not otherwise, seeking honestly and faithfully to discharge their official duties to the best of their knowledge and ability. They con-scientiously believed it to be their solemn and imperious duty to affirm the said judgment of the Superior Court ordering |
Tags
Comments
Post a Comment for Page 1393
