The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-12-03
Will No Longer Walk the
Earth.
Continued from Page one.)


1orA. Sanlords reports $40: ''Ne lnink
1t must be assumed mat there is no con-
tract, expressed or lmphed, Letween puo
tic ohicer and the government, whose
agent ne Is. The Liter en,ers in,o io
*. cement that he shall receive any par
tcular compensation Ior the time ne snail
ho4d once; nor n the case of statutory
once, that the onice nself shall con-
ilnue any dennite PERIOD Where the
Constitution limits the compensation, IT
Is D.yoI.d legislative control; but that
makes no contract. The people hive ,ne
coluol, in tneir sovereign capacity, as
the legislature has in statutory onices.
1t is not the question whether tees or
sa-ary may be Invested. The right 20
receive such ices may be conceded as
perfect, Without affecting the present in
curry.
layIor v. Beckham, LIS U. S. 81.
tn..Si, y. ~, .A.e tI>..,
al-u enAorceu - tn..I .ou... lAe ueeIa-
It's l..e eiIcct li.,>t Lu.>-
hc h.eie ageA..es or tus.s,
;4A-u I-vG riore..y as sasn. 40. are .-Ae
sai>.iy AID eIIo4un4eh.s Liokeily, sS~ui'u
by c~4..a~t, LuI coAasenoa.ioA Aor sei'A-
eeS ;.Gsu@iy leiiue-ea. MOI ooSs iHe ia@'
tnaL a LOnSLlluIlvn may Iuruiu IIIe Iests-
l-.u.e IrUlu .pol4sn4Ag pasI.c oni~e, o.
diminishing the saIal y tie. 60. auclns ine
team o. ,ne eI11ioSIiI cuaAge AVS ,nlr-
acLsr Oh nis.Ae II pruse.ty. Arue, the ies-
trIcllons unit the power OIL lnc iegisia-
tu. 20 de.I Win Tue Once, Dut even
SuSn iesLIIc.lohs may De removed py
cona,ilutional anenunlent. In snolt, get
eiany skeaniLg, the mature OIL tne ieAa-
ton OF ii puDic oAlcer 10 the Luphc is
inconsistent WIN e.tner properly or "a
cont. act right.
We have thus presented the two views
upon tnls most important ques.lon ana
We ale conIiuhted WIN the hecesS4ly Ca
el.her oyeIIu-iLg ana reJeoiing tie tneo.y
VI on WnIen none V. henaerson IS Uaseu
or that when is Slaleu IN the cases CI.eu
ia what I4s.y pe c.Iiea tne American dos
trine In respect 10 the ieIaliUn WHICH lie
puonc onlcer bears to the STATE. /. WIZ
wave any POSSIBLE confusion OF misunder-
s,aLalng 20 say that nolnlag SAID oy us IN
regard 10 the lower OF LIE leglslsltuIe
aLk4les to onlces provided Tor by the Con-
stitution. These are beyond the powoI
Ga LIE 4eglsIatule 10 anett eltaer in re-
spect to The term or, except within the
hmltat ons fixed, the sa-~ry. 1hls. Lot
because there Is any property right In
the once but because the people IN their
Constitution have made provision Tor and
regulated their terms and salaries.
The D. oposltlon involved in this appeal
on behalf or the piaintln is that neither
an Office, or the duties lnereoI, cIea,ed
by an :-ct of the legislature, liking me
tenn ana compensation, can be trans
ferred to some other peison or anectea
dulIng the term Tor winch the incumbent
has been elected; that such Once
p4 operIy w4lnIn Inc projection OF the con-
slitutIonal provision that no person snail
be deprived of his proerty excet by que
Process OF law and that no State shall
pass any law impalfing the Obligation of
3 contract, which of course, excludes the
power OIL The legislature to take property
from one man and give 1t to another.
We recognize the gravity Of the propo-
sition that we shall reve Sc declsiec
OF tnIs court, dehvered by Chief Justice
Ruffin with The approval of Justices Dan
lei ind CASTOR, which we concede has re-
ee4ved the unanimous APPROVAL OF this
court in a number of cases, and a ma
lofty thereof in many Others II this
were a question involving tho title to
property, upon the decision CT which
property rights have been acquired, set
tements have been made, and the security
and Ieace of families was dependent, we
should feel it our duty to bring the law
into HI rmony with sound principle and
the best thought and experience of the
age in which We live. Beng, however,
question of public constitutional law in
volving the sovereignty of the State, II
it is made to apear that the principle
upon which Hoke V. Henderson IS foun-
ded, stands without support IN reason and
is opposed to the uniform, unbroken cur
rent of au. hority, in both State and Fed
elal Courts, it becomes our duty TO over
ru it and place our jurisprudence IN
line with tn, t of the other States and
the Federal government.
1t is said by Douglas. J. in Caldwell
V. Wilson, 1a1 N. C. 467 that, with the
exception CT this State. it is the well
settled doctrine in the United States that
an office IS not rega ded as held under
a grant or contract, within the general
constitutional provision protecting cor
tracts; but I'm ess the Constitution othe
wise expressly provides, the legislature
has power to increase or vary the duties,
or diminish the salary or other compen-
sation prurtenant to the office, or abol-
ish any of its rights or privileges before
the md of the term, or to alter or abrldse
the term, or 10 aDOl1SH Tie OnlSe
except in North Carolina, it Is well set
tied that there Is no contract, either
expressed or implied, between public OF
ficer and the government, whose agent
he IS; nor can public Office be reg. .ded
as the property of the incumbent
We deem it proper, in view OF the con-
c,usion to which we have arrived, to
review at some length the elementary
pl4cIpIes nvolved and the authorities In
the United States.
tits stated by Mr.. Freeman, in his note
to hoke v. He nde son, % Am. Dec. 7O4,
that, with all Difference to the North
Carolina courts, the conclusion may yel
be drawn, with MIR. Pomeroy. that IT
may, therefore be considered as set
tied point OF cons. .u,.vnai law, settle /
both by the national and State courts,
that a public Office bears no resem-
biance to a contract and that the legis-
latures have full power over the puonc
onices of commonwealth, except so t;r
as they may be restrained by the local
constitutions. The clause OF the United
States Constitution which prohibits State