The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-22
Tenure of Office Not a Contract.

ton. 1t will be sufficient to cite the
Il few cases:
Tenure of Office Not Contract.
In Butler VS.. Railroad, 10 Howard
(51 U. 81 402. the court says: THE
contracts designed to be protected by the
10th section of the LIST article of that
instrument are contracts by which
PERFECT RIGHTS, CERTAIN,
DEFINITE, PRIVATE rights, italics
in original of property are vested.
There are clearly distinguishable from
measures or engagements adopted or
undertaken by the body polite or State
government for the benefit of all, and
from the necessity of the case, and ac-
cording to universal understanding, to be
varied or discontinued as the public good
shall require 1t follows then upon prin-
ciple that in every perfect and competent
government there must exist general
power to enact and to repeal laws, and
to create and change or discontinue the
agents designated for the execution OF
those laws. Such power is lndispensa-
bic for the preservation of the body
polite and for the safety of the lndlvld-
uals of the community. 1t IS true that
this power or the extent of its exercise
may be controlled by the organic law or
the constitution of the State, as is the
case in some instances in the State con-
situations. but, where no such restriction
is imposed, the power must rest in the
discretion of the government alone. The
constitution of Pennsylvania contains
no limit upon the discretion of the Legis-
lature either in the augmenting or DIM
mutton of salaries with the exception of
those of governor. judges of the SUI
preme court and the presidents of the
several courts of common pleas. The
salaries of those officers can not under
that constitution be diminished during
their continuance in office. Those of all
other officers are dependent upon the
legislative discretion We have already
shown that the appointment to and
tenure of an office created for the pub
lie use and the regulation of a salary
affixed to such office do not fall within
the meaning of the section of the con
stitution relied on by plaintiffs in error;
do not come within the import
of the CONTRACTS italics in
originan or in other words the
vested, private, personal rights thereby
intended to be protected. They are
powers and obligations, by which gov
efmmentS are enabled and are called
upon to foster and promote the general
good functions therefore which govern
ments cannot be presumed to have sur
rendered. if indeed they can under any
circumstances surrender them" Then
the court goes on after saying this doc
trine is in strict accordance with the
rulings of this court in many instances
Getting casesl and expressing surprise"
that it should be again presented, to
quote with approval the following from
Commonwealth V. Bacon, 6 $. x r.,
3d." The services rendered by public
officers do not in this particular partake
of the nature of contracts, nor have
they the remotest affinity thereto" and
also quotes with approval the following
extract from Commonwealth V. Manor.
: W, q S.. AS: IF the salaries OF
Judges and their title TO office could be
put on the ground of contract, then
a most grievous wrong has been done
them by the people, by the reduction
from tenure during good behavior to
tenure for term of years. The point
that it issa contract or partakes of the
nature of a contract will not bear the
test of examinations" and further points
ont that the constitutional provision,
protecting terms and salaries of Cover
nor. Judges and other constitutional
officers, is a sure indication that they
were not protected by being contracts
and that officers not SO protected by the
constitution are left to be changed at
legislative will