586 



NORTH CAROLINA. 



Governor of North Carolina for the rendition 

 of a fugitive from that State. 



The ground is taken in the opinion rendered 

 by Chief-Justice Carter that the Executive can 

 go no further than inquire whether a crime 

 has been substantially charged. Extracts from 

 the opinion are given below : 



These jurisdictions stand upon equal plane. That 

 being the status of the power appealing, and of the 

 power appealed to. what becomes the duty of the Ex- 

 ecutive in requisition and in response to requisitions ? 

 That. duty is verly clearly and simply manifested in 

 the Constitution of the United States, and in the law 

 giving effect to it. Where a crime has been commit- 

 ted, treason, felony, or other crime, and the party has 

 been duly accused under the law of the jurisdiction, 

 it becomes the privilege, and is made the duty of the 

 Executive against whose laws the offense is perpe- 

 trated, where the party has fled from justice, to de- 

 mand of the authority of the coordinate jurisdiction, 

 in which he has taken refuge, his person to answer for 

 the offense. 



The Constitution further provides that where a 

 party is charged with crime, and has fled before the 

 process of justice from the jurisdiction in ^which the 

 crime was committed, and taken refuge in another 

 jurisdiction, the jurisdiction where refuge is sought 

 shall render him up. 



It is said, on one side, that this is a discretionary 

 duty, and the meaning of that is, according to the Ex- 

 ecutive will so should he act. Now, that is so if the 

 proposition means the exercise of a discretion within 

 authority within right as well as within power ; for I 

 am aware I have^the physical power to discharge this 

 man or to hold him, and I am aware the public would 

 be remediless by the act, temporarily, not ultimately, 

 I hope, in the exercise of such a judgment or deter- 

 mination as that. But the power to do a thing when 

 enlightened by constitutional and legal duty signifies 

 the power to do it within the limitations of that duty, 

 and no higher power, no capricious, no arbitrary 

 power, the exercise of no mere physical power. It is a 

 discretion revolving within the enlightenment of law. 

 a discretion which considers the constitutional and 

 legal proprieties of the subject that is being acted 

 upon ; that is, power under the Constitution and the 

 law, as it is before the Executive charged with the duty 

 of rendition or with the duty of requisition. How is 

 the Executive to know whether a party is charged 

 with a crime ? He can not learn it by looking at the 

 great seal of the State. He is to be informed by the 

 indictment or the affidavit which is to be part and 

 parcel of the record and transmitted under due au- 

 thentication to the jurisdiction of which the party is 

 demanded. The question is, when advised of the 

 crime, how far you may go into details in pronouncing 

 whether a crime is charged or not. Does it predicate 

 in the Executive the right to inspect the technical re- 

 quisites of the pleadings or to inquire into matters of 

 defense under it ? I think not ; and at this point you 

 do come to the grave proposition in the discharge of 

 Executive duty of entering into a coordinate jurisdic- 

 tion in one sense, a forum in the details of administra- 

 tive justice. The Constitution never contemplated 

 this. The Constitution never contemplated the trans- 

 fer of the trial from the venue laid in the indictment. 



The case was that of one Perry, who was 

 accused of the forgery of a school order in 

 the county of Lenoir. Of the proceedings in 

 the lower court the Governor says, in his mes- 

 sage, that "the trial assumed the aspect of a 

 political inquisition against the State of North 

 Carolina. Instead of trying the case upon the 

 papers before him, the Judge proceeded to try 

 the State upon the testimony of the defendant, 

 his wife, and mother, as to whether the man 



could get a fair trial if he should deliver him 

 up to the State's agent." 



Two propositions for the amendment of the 

 Constitution, which were passed by the As- 

 sembly of 1879, were submitted to the people 

 at the general election. One of these removes 

 the constitutional obligation to provide for in- 

 digent mutes, blind, and insane, at the expense 

 of the State, and makes it optional with the 

 Legislature whether the State shall care for 

 these classes or not. The other amendment 

 forbids the Legislature to make any appropria- 

 tion or authorize the collection of any tax to 

 pay any debt or bond authorized by the Con- 

 vention of 1868, or issued by the Legislatures 

 of 1868-'69 and 1869-'70, except the bonds is- 

 sued for funding the interest on the old State 

 debt, unless in accordance with a proposition 

 for such payment, which shall have been rati- 

 fied by a vote of the people at a special elec- 

 tion. The design of this measure is to forbid 

 the State through its officers to make any pro- 

 vision for the payment of the special tax bonds 

 and other bonds, which are held to be uncon- 

 stitutional, unless it shall be ordered by the 

 people, and to render fruitless the suits which 

 have been brought against the State for bonds 

 and coupons of this class, aggregating, as above 

 stated, altogether $18,000,000. 



The Democratic State Convention met at 

 Raleigh, June 17th. An exciting canvass had 

 preceded the Convention, owing to the rival 

 efforts of the friends of Governor Jar vis and 

 those of Judge Daniel G. Fowle to secure the 

 gubernatorial nomination. The former can- 

 didate receiving the largest number of votes 

 on the first ballot, he was nominated, with- 

 out a second formal ballot, by acclamation. 

 The State ticket was composed as follows: 

 For Governor, Thomas J. Jarvis; Lieuten- 

 ant-Governor, James L. Robinson ; Secretary 

 of State, William L. Saunders ; Treasurer, J. M. 

 "Worth ; Attorney-General, Thomas S. Kenan; 

 Auditor, W. P. Roberts; Superintendent of 

 Public Instruction, John 0. Scarborough. The 

 Convention adopted the following resolution : 



That the Democratic party of North Carolina are in 

 favor of an honest and economical administration of 

 the Government, national and State, under the Con- 

 stitution and laws of the United States and of the 

 State of North Carolina, and rely for their success 

 upon the exercise of a free ballot, untrammeled by 

 military interference. 



The Republican Convention assembled at 

 Raleigh in July. The nominations were as fol- 

 lows: For Governor, R. P. Buxton; Lieuten- 

 ant-Governor, Rufus Barringer ; Secretary of 

 State, R. M. Norment ; Treasurer, A. D. Jen- 

 kins ; Auditor, R. H. Cannon ; Attorney-Gen- 

 eral, Augustus M. Moore; Superintendent of 

 Public Instruction, A. R. Black. Portions of 

 the platform are given below : 



That they have seen, with great apprehension and 

 alarm, the rapid consolidation and engrossment of 

 our railroad systems by and under the control and 

 ownership of foreign monopolists. 



That they view with anxiety the condition of the 



