The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-05-30
HOLDING Two OFFICES.
Opinion Of the Attorney General Re-
garding q Subject Of Interest
to Offceholders.
In response t, questions submitted by Gov.
ernor Gray, the Attorney General yesterday
rendered the following opinion:

Hon. Isaac p. Gray, Governor OF Indiana:
sIR-You submit TO me the question, "Can the
Postmsser Of the fourth class IN this State to
which office salary is attached exceeding $50 per
l. When the statute and Constitution are silent
rpon the subisc of enc person holding two ohi-
ces, the question. whether the two offices can be
so held, depends upon their compatibility, and
the appointment of a person TO second ofics
der the same authority or under authorities OF
Incompatible with the first is not absolutely void
but on lis subsequent acceptance OF the appoint
ment and 9ualiiyips the first Office is ipso facto
People We. Greene. So New York. 495; state Bank
VS.. Currsn. 10 Ark, li2; siubbs VS.. Lea, 81 Me-,
81. Commonwealth w. Burris, II S and r.. POI:
State vs. Clark, New, $50; State vs. Feibleman IS
Holman vs. Harcourt. B. Moa. 22i am not
aware of any incompatipili.y In the two offices.
2. Can the two offices be held under the Consti-
tuition of the State of Indiana?
The Constitution provides, mo person holding
lucrative Office or appointment under the United
States, or under this state. shall be eligible to
seat in the General Assembly, shall any per-
son hold more than one lucrative Office at the
ocsrs IN the
which there is attached DO annual salary, and the
office OF Deputy Postmaster. where the compensa.
be deemed lucrative, and provided also that
counties. containing. less than Loo polls
itor, any two OF said offices, upon the same par
son. Art. 2, Sec. OF Const ; &. 5. 1881, Sec. 80.
for ihs Of
duties Is lucrative office. The state VS.. kirk "A
Ind 4o1 SGeishtop VS. Piper u Ind lS2 and 1Ss
The lucrativeness OF sn office does not depend
upon the amount OF compensation affixed TO 1t.
Daily vs. the State Blaekf., 329. $50
Ire statute prescribes fees for services rendered
ny Notary Public IRIS. 1851. Sec. 969l. and the
offiee is lucrative within the meaning OF the Con-
sttution The Office of Postmaster is an Office OF
Trust and profit, and Is lucrative. McGregor vs.
Bsleh. 80 Amer. Dee. 2si Rodman VS.. Haroourt
Hf0r1 "A. prdn IS rf Mon
s99, SOL. The Office is lucrative If any conpensa-
ficp IS provided by law.
No person can under the Constitution OF Indi-
ana, hold more than one lucrative Office at the
same time except Gs provided therein; and the &C.
vscates former Office held by the ssme tenure
DAILY VS.. State Blsckf, 3le; Creighton Us. Piper,
Ia Ind, 1872; Howard vs. Shoemaker. So Ind. I'LL
Pooler vs. Reed, % Me-, l2s; State vs. Delwood. IS
L. An. 1.229: State VS.. West, SO La An. 1,2i.
The acceptance OF lucrative Office under the
FeseIal Government operates as a relinq uishment
and resignation of Office held under the STATE.
lie Two Offices can not be held by the same per-
son at the same time Kerr vs. Jones. 10 Iud.. $751;
Mehringer VS. state. - Ind, 103: State Alleu.
~ mo-. ol6; Rodmau VS.. Harcourt. b. Mon. pa;
kodmsn vs. Hsrcourt. B. Mop. 4s9. SOL; People
Cal sc; State ". neigress. So Tex. ss7; Davenport
vs.. Mayor. o. New YorE. 456; PEOPLE vs.. BROOKLYN.
state vs. Nourse New sds u'1 The sccepsance Of
the ofce OF Postmaster vscates the Office OF Notary
The right TO hold and exercise the Office OF Post
master does not depend upon tue Constifu ton
tDu lkWs OF lnulshs, OUT upon the Constitution
and laws OF the United States This state could
rot say in her Constitution that no person VINO
accepts commission rs an officer under our laws
aud acts as suca shall bod or exercise tho n m % nj
Postmaster under the United states because the
state O. Indiana has no right 10 say what ANAL be
the qualifications for the latter Office Or nv
whom. or on what terms IL shall be held or
exercised. but Il can say that no person
holding or exercising the Office of Postm astsr nm
der the United states shalt hold lucrative aica
under the State because II has perfect right to
dsterrine the qualifications for the Office and the
terms and conditions on which IL shall be held
and exercised. and orr Constitution Il operative
on the Office over which the State has control and
not on that over which II has no power.
The Constitution OF Indiana has pre-
fciibfd q disqualification for holding aud
exercising the Offices created by our
laws end II person holds the office of Postmaster
he can not. during such time. lawfully qualify
and hold q lucrative office under the State. fRod.
vs. Hsrcourt b. Mon.. 22f; Rodman va Har-
court 3, Mon., 49,; the State Degrees, So Tex.
aes: Crawford w. Dunbar, 50 Cal. IS: state w.
Monroe. New, sec: Kerr Vs. Jones' 10 Ind.. ISL:
AshaAnseS We. ssr.s, - 49,. 1sS sac "a. Ai.sa,