The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1859-12-16

Is the Public Printer an Officer, or
an Employee : &C., and If the for
mer, has the Legislature, or either
Branch Of 1T, Authority to Appoint
such Officery
The points relied on by members of the
Legislature to sustain their attempted action
in disregard of the rights of the contractor
for the public printing, binding, and adver-
Using, are, that the public printer is, in the
nature of the case, an officer of the Legis.
lature, or of either branch thereof, and that
so being Legislative officer, the tenur Of
his Office is limited to the existence of the
body comforting it, and that any attempt to
extend such Office beyond such limit is an
infringement upon the prerogatives of the
succeeding Legislature, and therefore illegal
and void.
In examining the points thus raised, we
propose to take review of the legislation
which has been had on the subject of the
public printing, from the organization of the
territorial government to the present time.
The public printer was originally elected by
the two Houses of the Legislature, in joint
convention, and his duties as specified in
chapter Is, page l19, of the Revised Stat
utes, were to do all the incidental printing,
and the printing of the laws and journals,
for one year after the date of such election"
and until the election and qualification Of
his successor. The law remained thus until
1856, when change was made by which it
was provided (see section 4, chapter 18,
LaDs of 1867 that thereafter, at the COM
mencement of the session of the Legislature
in each and every year, it should be legal for
each House of the Legislative Assembly to
elect some person to do the incidental print
ing thereof; and that the printer who should
be elected in joint convention in pursuance
of the former law, should print the PAM
phlet laws, and do such other printing as
might accrue during the recess of the Legis
lature. This law remained in force until
the passage of the contract law in 1858.
Up to that time the public printing was
disposed of by direct appointment at the
hands of the Legislature-the general printer
being elected in joint convention, and the
incidental printers being chosen by the two
Houses, respectively. From this mode of
disposing of the public printing, the idea
has grown up that the general printer was a
public officer, and that the incidental printers
were officers, respectively, Of the Houses
which appointed them. This idea has
gained currency through ignorance of the
difference which exists in law between an
Office and an employment. For, though
every Office is an employment, yet there are
many employments which do not belong to
the category of Offices; and though such
employments may be executed by virtue of
appointment, yet there may be nothing in
the nature of the duties to be performed
under such appointment to distinguish them
from ordinary contracts entered into in the
usual course of business. And so, on the
ground of this difference between an Office
and an employment, it was decided by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the
case of the Commonwealth, er. re. BAcaE D.
B1NNE, that the act of Congress authorizing
man to print the laws of the United
States, by authority. and the right con
veyed by such an act, is an appointment
but the right thus conveyed is not an Office
nor is such person exercising such right BY
virtue of appointment thereby created al