The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-07-15

Under Attorney General Dole's OPT
Mon as to who are government officials
and who are employees there may be
! trouble for some ofiicehOlders in the
territory The last appropriation act
declared that no government officer
should hold two offices if the salary or
salaries amounted to over 81, 200 a year
| There has been a good deal of question
as to who were government officials
since the act was passed. and the SUI
preme court was appealed to in one
instance
The attorney generals opinion on the
matter contains the following:
One of the difficulties in answering
your question arises from the fact that
the meaning of the words office and
| officer necessarily varies with their use
IN Inherent statutes, and to determine
correctly in a particular instance re-
gard must be had to the intention Of
the act and the subject matter in re-
spect to which the terms are used
Ryan V. Mayor, so How Pr, 81. Ger
tain persons, for example, the COVER
nor, the heads of departments, the
members of the judiciary. are clearly
othcials; certain other persons in the
employ of the government, for exam
pie, lawyer retained to assist in the
| trial Of cause, or an architect en-
gagged to design a public building, their
duties and emoluments being tempo
rary, special occasional, defined by
contract and not by law, are as clear
~ not officials. Between these two
classes of persons in government en-
lloyment, in regard to which there can
be no mistake and no difference Of
opinion, is a considerable class of per-
sons who may be public officials with
in the letter and spirit of one statute,
and not of anOther-publiC officials for
certain purposes, and simply employees
Tor other purposes; and whether or not
any one Of this class is to be regard
ed as an official, or simply an employe,
may depend upon the facts and circum-
stances applying to his particular
case. 1t is easy to say that it is day
time at noon, and night time at mid
night; but it is impossible to fix the
precise moment when day ends and
night begins 1t is almost equally diff
ficult to fix the boundary line which
distinguishes a public official from
mere government employee. There APP
pears TO be no one test which can be
taken in all cases as decisive.
In Cooper V. Austin, decided about
month ago, our supreme court says:
There is no definition that can be APP
piled to all cases as to what consti-
tutes one an officer The court, in
holding that clerk of an election
precinct is not public official says:
In our opinion one is not an officer
where as in this instance, the law does
not recognize him by providing for his
appointment, or his pay, or his duties,
in any way; but he is engaged by 9TH
er officers to temporarily assist them,
and is paid according to his contract
with them out of an appropriation for
general expenses. He was mere en-
ploye.'
The line of demarcat ton between a
public office and a mere public en-
ployment is deliberately discussed in
Patton V. The Board of Health, 127
Cal. $685. Patton was a health inspec-
tor, appointed as such pursuant to law
by the Board of Health of the City and
County of San Francisco. He held no
commission. He took no official oath.
His salary was fixed by law. The
Board of Health discharged him with
out preferring charges, and without a
hearing. This was in violation of a
statute which was in conflict with the
Constitution of California in so far
as public officials were concerned. In
other words, the discharge was legal
if Patton was a public officer and il
legal If he was a mere employee 1t
was held that he was a public officer.
In United States V. Maurice. 2
Brock. SO, Chief Justice Marshall, in
determining that the agents of forti-
iications' is an officer of the United
States, said An officer is defined to
be a public charge or employment"
and he who performs the duties of the
officer is an officer. Although an
office is IAN employment" il does not
follow that every employment is an
office. \ man may certainly be EN- |
ployed under a contract, express or |
implied to do an act or perform SER
vice without becoming an officer. But |
if the duty be a continuing one, which |
is defined by rules prescribed by the |
government, and not by contract, |
which an individual is appointed by |
government to perform, who enters on
the duties appertaining to the station
without any contract defining them, If
those duties continue, though the per-
son be changed-it seems very diff
cult TO distinguish such a charge or
employment from an office, or the per-
son who performs the duties from an
officer"