Albuquerque weekly citizen. (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1891-19??, 1903-08-08
d by constitutional amendment.

OF the relation Ga q public officer to the
public Is inconsistent with either a
property or a contract right.
In Long VS.. The Mayor, 81 N. Y,
426. the court says:
ut is claimed that the act in ques-
ton shortens the duration OF plain.
tff's term Of office, so that the term
/ declared by statute. in force when he
was elected, TO be for two years is
made by the act of 1870, a term of FIVE
months. We see the legal objection
/ thereto. The office was not created
by or regulated in any manner by the
constitution. The Legislature had en-
tire control over the matter. The Of
fee was created. its term was fixed by
| that body, and 1t could be changed by
| II. The law could be amended or re.
pealed, and this was the effect OF the
| provision OF the act OF 1870. A term
ending at a time stated was substitute.
ed for term limited to two years. The
original term was thus shortened. The
Legislation was aimed at the office. not
the incumbent. But, however viewed,
the act complained of was within the
lawful exercise of power by the legisla-
ture, and within the principle fire.
quently reiterated by the courts of this
state. that a public Office is not
grant, and that the right to II does not
depend upon, or partake of the nature
of a contract Conner VS.. Mayor, 2
Sandf, 1855. 369; affirmed, N. Y. 1855;
Smith VS.. Mayor, 81 Id SIS"
In ~ Missouri, 1873. the court says:
I'm England, Offices are considered
| incorporal hereditaments. granted by
the crown. and a subject of vested or
private interests; not so In the Ameri.
can states. They are not held by
grant or contract. nor has any person
private property or vested interest in
them" citing long list of cases.
The proposition that public Office
created by legislative enactment is not
vested right Is well settled.
Taylor VS.. Beckham, supra.
Wilson VS.. North Carolina. su.
pra.
Butler VS.. Pennsylvania, 10 How.
ard, 4OL.
State vs. Davis, supra
Note In Hoke VS.. Henderson, %
Am. Dec. 701.
People VS. Squires, IA Calf. ~.
This last citation is5 strikingly in
point. 1t In fleet removes one offc-
er and puts another person in his
place. to continue In that Office and to
receive its emoluments, without a
hearing and without being permitted
( to offer and defense
State vs.. Douglas. I Am. Dec.
81 and note.
Denver VS.. Hobart, 10 New, 80
People VS.. Haskell, Calf, 3S7.
People VS.. Hurlbut, "a Mich. A.
o Am Dec. 1913.
Conner VS.. The Mayor, s n. Y,
APP, 2S5.
| In the last case the court said:
Where an office is created by a leg
| islature, II is wholly within the con-
troll OF the legislature. The term, the
mode OF appointment and the compen.
sation may De altered at pleasure, and
the latter may even be taken away
without abolishing the Office. Such
extreme legislation is not to be deem.
ed probable in any case. But we are
now discussing the Legislative power,
not its expediency or propriety Hav.
ing the power the legislature will ex.
ercise 1t for the public good aud Il is
the sole Judge of the exigency watch
demands its interference
! In Territory VS.. Van Gaskin, 6 Pa
ciic Rep, 80, the legislature OF the
territory OF Montana enacted the fol.
lowing law:
That the office of county commits.
sioner of the county o. Custer be. and
the said Offices are, hereby declared to
be vacant. and no official duty shall be
performed by the persons constituting
the present board OF county commits
sioners, except to make reports.
and that william Van Gas.
kin. George NJ. Miles and Thomas j.
Ryan are hereby appointed commits.
sioners OF Custer county"
The court in this case said
by the enactment OF the law APP
pointing the respondents to the Office
thereby declared vacant. until the
| thtltdittI W ne eltCtcu
assumed the uties OF their office, the
governor and the legislative assembly
acted within the limits OF the act OF
congress which required that the coun.
ty officers should be appointed or elect.
ed In such n manner as they nigh;
provide. The governor and iegisla.
tive assembly nave the power to pro.
vide the manner Of the appointment (;
therefore they had the power to ap.
point directly"
The foregoing citations and quota.
lions settle the proposition that pub.
lie Office Is neither property. nor In
the nature OF property. nor a private
vested right that is protected by the
fourteenth amendment OF the consti
tuition OF the United States. There are
a number of authorities that hold diff
ferently. The states OF Florida. Geor
gia and North Carolina very pointedly
and conclusively are in conflict with
the line IF authorities herein cited