The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1903-03-31
IS DEPUTY SHERIFF!
A PUBLIC OFFICER?
Can Separk and Croker be
Aldermen Too?
LAW ON THE SUBJECT
How the Supreme Court Decided a Similar Case
in Raleigh twenty Years Ago, in
the Case Ct Doyle and
Ellison.

Can q man be q Deputy SAtIiA ana dL
Alderman at the same time?
A News and Observer reporter heard
that question discussed pro and con sew
eral times yesterday while he was eX-
changing notes about Fridays primary.
What brought it up was the fact that
Charles A. Separk and H. H. Croker,
| both Deputy Sheriffs, were nominated BY
the primary. Some held that Deputy
Sheriff was not a public office, others
that it was.
The reporter betook himself to a law
| yer Of prominence and stated the ques-
ton. and asked which side was right,
| was a Deputy Sheriff a public officer or
not?
The lawyer, after a little consideration,
! said:
IN practically ali States it has been
! held that a Deputy Sheriff is a public
officer, where the appointment is pro-
| vided for by law which fixes the powers
| and duties of such deputies; but where
| the deputy is appointed merely at the
viii and pleasure of his principal to
| serve some purpose of the latter, he IS
| not a public officer, but a mere servant
or agent.
at does not appear that the law IN
| North Carolina provides anywhere specif-
ically for the appointment OF Deputy
! Sheriffs.'
Then Mr.. Lawyer looked up the North
| Carolina law about public officers, and
discovered that something similar to this
happened in Raleigh twenty years ago.
In 1883 James Doyle and Stewart Eli
son were elected to the Board Of Alder
men. Both held positions under the
Treasury Department Of the Un1ted
States, Doyle being a night watchman
in the postoffce building.
The Board of Aldermen, by resolution
declared they could not serve, and Doyle
and Ellison appealed to the Supreme
Court. The case was found in the 89th
! North Carolina Reports, p. '33.
Chief Justice Smith, in his decision
quotes the State Constitution as fol
lows. n person, who shall hold any
| office or place Of trust or profit under
the United States, or any department
thereof. or under this State, or under
any other State or Government, shall
hold or exercise any oIher office or
place of trust or profit under the au-
| thority of this State, or be eligible tt
a seat in either House of the Genera
Assembly: Provided, that nothing herein
contained shall extend to officers in thE
Militia, Justices Of the Peace, Commits.
I! sioners of Public Charities, OF Commits
sioners for special purposes
The Chief Justice then says:
1T is apparent from the association
that places of trust or profit are in
tended, which approximate %, but ar
rot Offices, and yet occupy the same gen
eral level and dignity and Importance
The manifest intent is to prevent doubl'
offce-holding-that offices and places 0
public trust should not accumulate II
a single person, and the super adde'
words of places of trust or profit wer'
put there to avoid evasion in givin'
! too technical a meaning to the proceed
ing word"
In Doyle's case the question involve
was whether a night Waterman of IN
postoffice building in the city or Ralelgl
was a public office or holding a plac
Of trust or profit. The court held n
was not. because he was employed Il
a specific service, having none of the at
tributes to raise it to the dignity Q
the constitutional disqualification
A prominent citizen OF Raleigh sal
last night that one office was enough 10
any man. Governor Aycock recently re
fused to appoint a man on the BOARD {
Agriculture because he was a Count
! Commissioner, and surely Deputy Sheri
is as much a public office as County Con
;. missioner. II Mr.. Croker and Mr.. Sc
park wish to be Aldermen, they mus