Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-03-17

are ulutftutf the iTlhclplt lnNoiNtu ~
exactly the same In both. "a public
office" IA distinclly defined, and ~ the
commissioners In the Worlds Fair
bill were not appointed to ga perma.
nent trust" but only to "meet n special
exieency" and to perform n
"transient" duty, they are not Officers
In the meaning Of the law.
In an appeal from . Chancefy
Court to the Court Of Appeals Of Ken.
lucky, the question was whether CON.
missioners to superintendent the build.
Ing Of court house were officers under
the Constitution. which forbade the
creation Of an Office tho term Of which
was TO be more than four year,.
The Court held they were "not
officers within the meaning Of
the Constitution but were the mere
agents for the district, required TO dis
charge certain duties with reference to
the courthouse, aud when those duties
end their employment terminates" -
Kentucky Reports, XXI pp. 67.Ta.
This I. precisely the status NJ the
commissioner to expend the money
for the Worlds Fair. So In the fol-
lowing oaso-"WAlkef ". CITY Of Gin
cinnati, before the Supreme Court Of
Ohio, In which the Legislature had
authorized certain judges 70 appoint
trustees OF n contemplated railway.
II was claimed that the Legislature
iii not have power under the State
Constitution 10 appoint. hut the
Court held that these trustee. were not
public officers In the constitutional
sense" and said:
"Thcse trustees have no connection
with the government VI the state or of
any Of IT. subdivisions They have moth.
ing to do with tho general protection and
security Of person. and property. Their
dniy {. TO procure aud supcrinlond tho
construction Of par ocular road aud to
lease II when constructed. i-American
Reports, viii, =. 50.
la the case OF jacob Bum ct nj. vs..
the People Of the State Of Illinois, he.
fore the supreme Coutt u that State,
appealed from the Superior Court Of
Chicago, the same constitutional ques-
ton was at issue. The Legislature
had passed an Act for the building Of
a state house and appointed commits
sionets to expend the appropriation for
that purpose. The State Constitute
provides that
"Tha Governor shall nominate and by
and with tho advice of tho senate or
majority OF all tho senators concurrngl.
appoint all officers whose offices ARE o..
tabllshcd by this Constitution or which
may be created by law, and whose ap.
poinimoni, are no, otherwise provided
for aud no such officer shall be appointed
or elected by the Gonoml Assembly"
II was claimed under this and
another provision OF the Constitution
that the Legislature had NO power to
appoint these commissioners. But the
court ruled that
"Tho commissioners appointed under
this act are not officers within the mean
Ing Of the Constitution. but weru agents
or employees for single and special pur-
pose whose functions arc at an end o. tho
completion Of tho work"
"a person employed for a special and
single object, In whose employment
there /, no enduring olomont, nor de-
signcl to be, aud whose duties, when
completed, although years may be- ro.
quirod for their performance, ips1 focio
terminate the employment, il not an
oiiioor In the sense In which that term Is
used In the Consultation"
The Court also considered the al.
tlons given to the term Office, by lexi.
cographers, legal aud otherwise, but
considered, as admitted by counsel IN
the case, that they were faulty, and
that the term "ofilcor" had reference
alone 10 "such officers as had some por.
ton Of the functions Of government
committed 10 their charge. '--Illinois
reports, XIV, p. 397.
THIS case Il exactly parallel to the
Utah case now under discussion. II
the Illinois commissioners were not
officers, neither were tho Worli's Fair
commissioners for Utah, officers. And
II the Illinois Legislature had author.
ity TO appoint such comm issioHers
under their Consultation, 80 had the
Utah Legislature under our Organic
Act. And II the Governor Of Illinois
had nothing to do with the appoint.
ment OF the former, neither had the
Governor OF Utah In the appointment
Of the latter.
In Hall vs. Wisconsin, before the
Supreme Court OF the United states, a
similar question was involved. The
Wisconsin Legislature passed an act
TO provide for a survey Of the State
and appointed commissioners TO
make the survey, defined their duties
and provided for their compensation
In suit for the recovery Of somt
money under contract, II WAS de-
INJURED that the appointment Of the
plaintiff was an office and therefore the
Legislature could abolish itat pleasure
The cast came up on appeal from the
Wisconsin supreme Couit ani the
court u last resort ruled on this point
A. Ia u former case before it--Uni,,d