The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-04-12

In Clark VS.. Stanly 66 n. c., 50, the
court said that "a public office is an
agency from the State. and the per-
son whose duty it is to perform this
agency is public officer. The oath,
the salary or fees are mere incidents
and they constitute no part of the
Office With that idea then of what
an office is, has the office of superin-
tendent been taken from the defendant
and given to others by the act of As
sembly? If the duties of the office
were necessary and useful to the pub
lie, and they have been transferred to
others who are exercising them as still
necessary and useful to the public, and
the States prison, in behalf of which
those duties are performed, is sub
stantially the same institution as it
was before the act of the Assembly of
January, 1899. was ratified then, under
all the decisions cited in this case
bearing upon the point, the office of
superintendent defendants property
has been taken from the defendant
contrary to the law of the land-con-
trary to the provisions of the Constitu-
ton of North Carolina, article /, section
II. If Thea institution, the States
Prison, is the same substantially that
it was before the passage of the act if
the purposes for which it was estab-
lished are the same now as then, and
if the subject matters over which the
management and conduct extend be the
same, then there is existing a contract
between the State and the defendant
rs to his office, and it cannot be vio-
lated during his term. The State,
through the General Assembly, might
be satisfied that this management under
the Executive Board created by the
directors under the act is the better
plan, and the safer one for the public,
yet that is only a matter of method of
management, choice between two
modes THAT is whether it is better for
three to control than for one) and such
a choice cannot be made until the de
PENDANTS term has expired. A new
method of distributing the powers and
duties of the government and conduct
of the States Prison may be desira-
Die, and the method undertaken to be
adopted by the act of 1899. may be the
best and yet such changes cannot be
made until the expiration of the CON
tract with the incumbent. 1t has been
suggested that if the State has not
the power when it sees fit to abolish
an office and transfer its duties to
others. that IN incumbent might get
into an office for a very long term of
years "a term not amounting to a per-
petuity, however. which would be
Illegal, and indifferently execute the
duties of the office, but not so poorly
as might amount to incapacity, and
thereby infict great injury on the in
terest of the public The answer to
that is that if such should be the case
it would he the fault of the legislative
branch of the government in fixing an
unusual term of office, and not mat
ter renewable by this court.
The conclusion of the case turns upon
whether the States prison is substan-
tally the same institution that it was
before the act of 1899: whether the pur-
poses for which it was established are
the same now as then, and whether
the duties performed by the defendant
were the same duties substantially
which We're transferred to the Board
Of Directors, and now being performed
by the Executive Board under the act
Of 1899.
1t is ordained in the Constitution that
the State Prison is to be used for the
purposes of reformation and punish
ment, and that is the object of the in
stitution now The incorporation of
the institution, if it be conceded that
it was incorporated by the act of 1899
can in no sense affect the defendants
office if it has not otherwise abolished
it. The bare incorporation of the in
s.+,4 Nffn nlf in
any way the duties of the superintend-
ent, or any other of the officers or
placemen or employees, with the excep-
tion of the power given in the act of
1899 to the directors to sell or lease
the lands or other property of the State
prison, the duties and the powers in
all respects of the Board of Directors.
acting through the Executive Board
as their head, are in all respects the
same as the duties required of, and the
powers conferred upon the superlnten-
dent under the act of 1897, as the fol-
lowing analysis and comparison will
show. Under the various subsections Of
section of the laws of 1897, the duties
of the superintendent are specified IN
detail as follows: ID Under this sub
section he is to receive and to have the
custody of the conyicts. That respon-
sibility and duty are put upon the neN
Board of Directors and their agencies
under section of the act of 1889.
CD Under this subsection it was made
the duty of the superintendent to keep
employed the convicts in the prisons and
on the farms, and to hire them to others.
Under section of the act of 1899 that
duty was devolyed on the board and
their agents, (3, 4 and -. Under these
subsections the superintendent was au-
thorized and required to purchase
necessary articles Of food and clothing
for the convicts and to employ and take
care of them to sell the products and
manufactured articles, to receive and
account for the process of the sale of
articles produced and manufactured
and to make deposit of the same and
to check it out Those duties are trans
ferred to the Board of Directors and
their agents by section 6 of the act of
1899. 90 This subsection makes it the
duty of the superintendent to take Gus
tody of the property Of the State Prison
and to protect the same. This duty is
transferred to the Board of Directors
and their agents by sections 6 and 3 of
| ,Io aot nf 1000 f7t THE c,1narntpnd-