State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 31 December 1835
• Citation: 18 N.C. 372
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. NICHOLAS L. WILLIAMS.

18 N.C. 372

STATE

v.NICHOLAS L. WILLIAMS.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1835.

1. The Act of Congress of 1825, ch. 275, sec. 35, exempting postmasters from serving on juries, is constitutional; and those officers cannot be compelled to serve as jurors on the original panel in the State courts. Though it seems that they would not be so exempted when called as tales-jurors.

2. An appeal lies from a judgment of the Superior Court, ordering a postmaster to be fined for not serving as a juror.

THE defendant was summoned as a juror on the original panel to the last term of the Superior Court of Law for Surry County; when he appeared in open court before his Honor, Judge Martin, alleged that he was a postmaster under the authority of the United States, andclaimed an exemption from serving on the jury under an act of Congress. His Honor deemed the cause shown insufficient, and upon the defendant's refusing to serve, ordered him to be fined twenty dollars; and he thereupon prayed and obtained an appeal to the Supreme Court.

GASTON, J. Upon this appeal the only question presented is, whether a postmaster is exempt from serving as a juror on the original panel. The Act of Congress, 1825, ch. 275, sec. 35, declares this exemption in explicit terms. If the postmaster has it not, it must be because this provision of the act is not warranted by the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore null. The Attorney-General has declined to take that ground here, and we must therefore consider it as virtually abandoned. We think that it has been properly abandoned. Under the authority "to establish post-offices," Congress can rightfully require of the postmasters to devote their time and attention to the execution of their appropriate duties, and by such an exemption to secure them against compulsory interruptions in the performance of these duties. Were the exemption given as a personal privilege, it would present a different inquiry. But we do not so regard it. Respect for the constituted authorities of the general government, and a due sense of the necessity of harmony between the institutions of the United States and the municipal regulations of the individual States, forbid such an interpretation, except it were unavoidable.

It may not be improper to remark that our decision does not apply to the case of a postmaster who shall be called on as a by-stander to make up a jury. Should he have official engagements demanding his attention, upon making...