The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1897-04-28

gated or impaired except by the consent
of both parties"
And in Bailey VS.. Caldwell, the opinion
was in these words: THE case of Gotten
VS.. Ellis, Z Jones, $40, is directly in point.
Gotten had been appointed Adjutant Gen
eral for three years, with a salary of
5000. The Legislature passed an act
repeating the law under which Gotten
had been appointed, both as to his APP
pointment and salary. Gotten served out
his term and demanded pay which the
Governor GIlhs) refused. And this court
decided that he was entitled to it. The
principles of that case are the same as
in this, and it is unnecessary to repeat
them"
SO that whatever the law may be in
other States, it is settled beyond ques-
ton in North Carolina that public office
is property, is Il vested right, exists by
contract between the State and holder,
and that as long as the office is continued
the holder cannot be deprived of his
term against his consent, unless he has
omitted some act which was a forfeiture.
We have mo desire to disturb the decis-
ions Of our court on this subject. They
are founded on the principles of justice
and of safe public policy.
But the plaintiffs further contend that
the offices which the defendants hold
were abolished by the Act of 1897 and
that they themselves are now the persons
entitled to the same. 1t is undoubtedly
the law in North Carolina that an office
can be abolished and that as a result the
officer loses his office and his property
in it. This is no breach of the contract
on the part of the State. The holder
accepted the office subject to this cont-n-
gency. No one could contend that be-
cause an office was in the estimation of
the Legislature useful and necessary at
the time of its creation that such an office
would continue to be forever public nee
essity. If an office once useful should
become useless and an unnecessary
charge upon the people it is not only
right of the Legislature to abolish it, but
it is its duty to do SO. And as we have
said every man elected or appointed to
an office created by the Legislature takes
it with the implied understanding that
the continuance of the office is a matter
of legislative discretion, the office de-
pending upon the public necessity for It.
In Hoke VS.. Mcpherson, supra, it is said,
that 1T may be quite competent to abol-
ish an office; and true that the property
of the office is thereby of necessity lost
Yet it is quite Il different proposition
that, although the office be continued, the
officer may be discharged at pleasure and
his office given to another. The office
may be abolished because the Legisla-
ture esteems it unnecessary"
OF course an office created by the Con-
stitution cannot be abolished by the Leg.
islature.
We are now brought to the consider
alton of the contention of the plaintiffs
that the Offices which the defendants
have been, and are now, in possession of,
have been abolished by the Act of 1897.
The first section of the Act provides
That section 2240 of The Code be a.
mended by striking out the following
words. :, Eastern North Carolina Hos
pital located near Goldsboro' :. and the
State Insane Asylum near Raleigh"
The Insane Asylums near GOldsboro and
Raleigh are not known by the names of
eastern North Carolina Hospital and
Estate Insane Asylum" in section 2240 of
The Code. The craftsman of the bill
seemed to be ignorant of the corporate
names of the different insane asylums on
this State. Ordinarily the failure of an
Act to give the complete and full name
of a corporation where there could be no
reasonable doubt as to which institution
was meant, would be of no significance;
but where it is undertaken by legislative
enactment to change the names of such
Institutions and to confer new
names upon them it does seem that pains
would be taken to at least find out the
true corporation names of those dis
carded. And when such is not done the
presumption of fact arises that the
change was of no material consequence
or Importance in the mind of the leg.sla-
ture. Such carelesSness would not have
happened if the legislators themselves
had thought the matter of any impor-
lance. Throughout this Act and also the
one passed at the same session provid-
ing for the support of these institutions,
the Old and new names of incorporation
. are frequently used( interchangea bly,.
But suppose the true corporate names had
been called in section / of the Act and
the new names properly conferred, could
any reasonable man imagine that the
change in the names of these asylums
could possibly have altered the founda-
tons of them or affected the duties and
rights of any person officially connected
with them? Surely no one would answer
in the affirmative.
But the plaintiffs further contend that,
because the Act declares that the office
of Superintendent of the old corpora
tons are abolished and the office of pr:n-
cipal and resident physicians substituted
therefor, the latter, elected for four years
instead Of six, as was the superinten-
dent, and that because the government Of
the new corporation shall be under the
management of nine trustees called the
Board of Trustees elected for term Of
four years instead of in classes of three
for six years, the terms expiring at df-
ferent times as under The Code and call
ed the Board of Directors, the offices I'M
der the old corporation are abolished, and
the new ones take their places This con-
tention cannot he sustained.
The Legislature of 1S70-'71 upon the
return to power of one of the political
parties undertook to remove the officers