The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1899-11-24
GATTIS v. GRIFFIN.

| tiit tOultS. Asdtib
stay within it's own LIMITS. Sum ouique.
GATTIS v. GRIFFIN.
In the Chatham county school board
case also Judge Clark dissents for
reasons given in the dissenting opinions
in Green VS. Owen and Abbott VS.. Bed
dingtield. at Ibis term.
The County Board of Education Of
Chatham county was a quasi corporation,
or municipal corporation, and the mat
| ter of its management and control was
a matter fully within the powers of the
| Legislature, by virtue of the necessities
| arising form the exercise of sovereignty,
by long line of decisions in this State,
and lastly by the express provisions of
the Constitution. Article VII, section II
and Article VIII, section l.
Faircloth, G. ]. in Barnhill V. Thomp-
son, 122 n G. 493, in describing what is
public office and applying his descrip-
ton to the Board of Education of Bla-
den county, said that it was a delega-
ton of the sovereign power to am indi-
vidual for the public good, which there
by distinguished it from mere employ
ment or contract
In Harris V. Wright, 121 n. G. 10,
| the Chief Justice in enumerating the
powers which the General Assembly
possessed over municipalities under
the Constitution, Article VII, section IA,
said: THUS was placed at the will and
| discretion of the Assembly the political
branch of the State government. the
election of county officers, the duty of
county commissioners, the division of
counties into districts, the corporate pow
ers of districts and townships. the cleo
| ton of township officers. the assessment
of taxable property, the drawing of
money from the county or township
| treasury. the entry of officers on duty.
| the appointment of justices of the peace,
and all charters, ordinances and proviS-
| ions relating to municipal corporations"
| So that the matter of the election and
entry ON duty of all county and township
officers is within the legislative will and
discretion. This was the case when the
REALTORS assumed their duties. and if
there is a contract they took with Notice
OF this and it was a part Of their CON
| tract. Caldwell v Wilson, III n c.,
169, and particularly the case of Head
| V. University, 80 Wallace, 526 therein
cited with approval.
| The Constitution gives the Legislature
full power; the court has declared this
includes the election and entry into Office,
| and that the power of removal is inci-
dent to the power of appointment, unless
| the Constitution prescribes some other
| tribunal for removal.
| This can be sustained without reversing
| Hoke vs.. Henderson. That case has
no more application to the case at bar
| than it did to the case of Caldwell VS..
Wilson. 1t was part Of plaintiffs
| contract that they held at the legisla-
| tive will and discretion" Mr.. Justice
| Douglas said in Caldwell VS.. Wilson.
| 121 n. G.. 467, that the power Of re-
mOval was incident TO the power of APP
| pointment, which was an American rec
| ignition Of the common law doctrine that
| the sovereign could suspend an officer at
| any time, though such officer held by
| life tenure: a power which was exer-
| cised IN this State in 1863 and recOg-
nized as valid by all the judges, for they
took Office under and by virtue of the
| vacation of the life offices of their pre-
| decessors
In Crenshaw vs.. II. S. 1874 u. s. 90.
Mr.. Justice Lamar likens these identical
| powers over municipal corporations to
| the legislative control of officers, and
| cites with approval and liberal quota
TONS the case of Newton VS.. Commits
| sioners, 100 II. s. 54S. as am authority
| that because the Legislature can divide
| counties, etc, in its discretion, hence,
| the officers Hereunder possess no con-
| tractual or vested rights, and he says:
| Whatever the form of the statute, the
| officer under it does not hold by con-
| tract. He enjoys a privilege revocable
| by the sovereignty at will; and one Leg
stature can not deprive its successor of
| he power of revocation"
| If public office is a contract it is
strange that the court should have held
in London VS.. Headen, 76 N, c. -,
from this same county of Chatham, that
| If one elected constable did not accept
ind qualify he was liable to penalty. Is
| It possible a man can be punished for
| declining to make a contract with the
| State?
MCCALL v. WEBB.
Tn this case Judge Clark dis
,enting. says: In addition to the
reasons given in the dissenting opin-
ION in Abbott VS.. Beddingfield Mt this
term, there is precedent in respect to
his new court In 1So5 tba IgapislafIlrp