The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-03

luDnc onlce.s in tnelr ou,clal capacity,
| IN al. cases wnen tue Constitution OF Inc
states leseecuveiy 90 not LronIp. tnem;
| and TINS among others, Ior the very
good reason, that there Is no Expressed
or lmpileu contract that they snaIi al
ways, during their continuance in ONCE,
| eA~. ~4se s..~n au,no.itles. 1hey are to
exercise them only during the good pleas
ure Of the legislature
1.elulI.Ang ~ .ne STATE courts, we find
! in GoAnOr V. CITY ca New ork, supra,
after discussing the opinion in Hoke v.
| iAenae. SOL, Tue le>.rne1 justice says: 1t
appears 20 us, WIN muel tesIeIt aor the
| ieaA ned tr.Lunal Waicn pronounced TINS
/ Judgment, that it was unduly inhuerc d
| ~ one Common .aW rue dep.lYed from
prescriptire Offices, and operating in a
government whose genius md sllrlt are
pc. haps IN no more respect unlIhe ours
than In this very subject, the SOU e
and nature of the rights and lnteI ests
aoQun ed by pubic o1ncers. In enumera
| ling the quaIlIles OF an olilce, consluered
as lroLerty the court admitted tnGt It
was inalAenable, and n many instances
incal Fable OF beng man. ged by sub
stitute: and in the only point giving il
the sembiance of value, subject entirely
10 legislative control. Ii to these be
added the consideration that it is po-
litical agency, and not like p. ivate con-
tract or hiring tor definite period, we
think there Will rem: In no incident of
PROF. erty in its correct signifcation. :"
This cause being before the Court OF APP
pc; Is IN Selden sol. RuggIes C. j., con.
cludes the opinion OF the court as fol-
, lows: MIR. Justice Sanford has lcfer. cd
! to so fully. and reviewed so judicious.y
the authorities on the proposition under
consideration, that AC aLears unnecessary
to re-eXaamine them. Ny Judgment ac-
colds W.T.. his conclusion, viz; that these
au horities, with the nature of the duties
and the employment OF public office
seem conc. usyyely to show that such an
officer hi no property in the prospective
compensation attached TO his office,
whether it be in the shape of salary
or fees -
In 1884 Nichol, j., il the case of State
v. Dews, r. NJ. Charlton's Reports (Ga)
397, in discussing the same question, uses
the following language: THAT a public
office is the property of him to whom
the execution Of it's duties is entrusted
is repugnant TO the institutions of our
country, and is at issue with that AMI
versal underst; nding OF the community,
which is the result of these Institutions.
| Public officers are, in this country, but
| the agents Of the body polite, constituted
! to discharge services for the benefit of
| the people, under laws which the people
have prescribed. So far from holding q
proprietary interest in their Offices, they
are but naked agents without al interest
AS public agents they are intrusted with
| the exercise OF a portion of the sover-
eighty of the reople-the jus pub ,icun
which Is not the subject of grant ar
! can be neither alenatod or ;nnihilated,
and it would be q repugnant absurdity
1 as ipcomprehenslblc as IL would be re-
voting, that they can have a privato
| property III that sovereignty Unlike
! those officers in England, whose offices
are treated as property they do not hold
under grant. but their authority or 5unct-
| ion to discht rye the duties of their Of
! fees is delegated to them b. commission
In those instances in which, in Eng
| land, the right to Offices has been re-
| gardede as property, the instrument Of
| conveyance has been technically D graut
/ conveyance by which on estate is passed
| or purchased, and employing the technical
| terms of a grant, Ged ct concessi. But
| from the org nizat ton of the first re-
| PUB lean government of this State, Of
| ficers have been appointed by commission,
a te m which, whether regarded according
| to its ordinary meaning, or It's legal
sense, imports q delegation of authority.
And our earliest books draw distnc-
! ton between @ grant of IN Office ana
a commission, and inform US that the
former. as its name implies, is not re
! vocable, but that the latter. which is
only the delegation OF an authority, u.
The title exhibited by the defendant hin,-
self, in his return. and by which only
he can vindicate his possession, IS chat
he has been duly elected sheriff, and has
been du Y commissioned nd qualified. He
claims, therefore not by grant, but under
commission. and that commission com
mits to MIN only an authority without
an interest The title Of the defendant
is not by a grant which passes an ee-
tie, but by q commission, which is q
delega ton warrant OF authority, and
which, SO far from p ssing al estate, is
founded upon, and Is an affirmance OF
the fact, that the estate is not in him,
but in those from whom the power pro-
cecds. 1t confers urcn him title TO ex
ercise the authority, but the subject Of
that authority is II the principal, and
under MS control, and the very sutho ity
| Of the agent is evidence Of it. Every
! authority invites q perfect right ir tho
J grantor to the extent Of that authority,
It least as between him ana the agent,
| and it is perfectly nsensible that, be-
cause OF such agency, the agent becomes
| armed with control over the exercises
of that light.
This question came before the Supreme
Court of South Carolina in Alexa nder
V. Mckenzie, 2 S. c. 81, when VIII ard, j.,
delivered an exhaustive orinion. He SAYS:
"Hoke V. Henderson Dew. n. c. r. l,
holds the contrary doctrine, but is with
out the support of reason OR authority
Misanprehension OF the English doctrine
on this subject has frequently given rise
! erroneous views of the powers Of politi-
CT bodies" The court adorted the v'e>v
Of The New York court in Conner V. City
/, OF New York, supra.
In Standeford V. Wingate, 63 KY. 44n
the Surreme Court of Kentucky thus
states the conclusion reached upon the
question: ''An Office established and held
| for the public good Is not contract
| {- ifs <e;,,,ra caoyraJ NV, ON, hi,dioo