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

appointment to office S not a contract
in ITS broadcast sense, it does so far par
take of the attributes OF contract as
to entitle the incumbent to reccveA u
salary accruing his incurnbcncy; but the. g
Ia no demand here for sa airy earned and
IN Srrear. The action sounds wholly in
damages, and proceeds upon the idea of
4 vested right TO hold for the full term
for which the plaintiff had been elected.
Nothing Is better settled than the legis-
lative power to terminate at pleasure the
incumbency of a statutory Office, eithel'
by an abolition of the office Itself or by
4 change in the tenure or the mode of
appointment
Cole, j. in State V. DouglSs, 26 Wis.
1923, says: 1T was not claimed that the
p aintiff had any vested right in his office
which tho legislature could not abrogate
or destroy. Such a position would be
clea4 y untenable upon the authorities,
and as principle utterly inadmissibie
under our form Of government"
In State ex rel V. d. Wis, Al Mo-, 129
the court, speaking of the plaintiffs case
says: 1T proceeds upon the theory that
a person in the possession Of 4 public
office created by the legislature has a
vested interest, a p. ivate right of prop
erty, in it. This IS not true of offices
of this description in this country; they
are held neither by grant nor by contract
A mere legislative office is alWi VS. subject
to be controlled, modified or repea ed
by the body creating it, In England Of
fees are considered incorporeal heredl-
taments. grantabe by the crown, and
subject of vested OF private interests
Not SO In the Anne. lean States; they ara
not held by grant or contract, nor has
i ny person private property or vested
interest IN them, and they are therefore
liable to such notifications and changes
as the law making power may deem adj
visable 10 enact"
In Robinson V. White, 26 Ark. 139 the
Supreme Court of that State has decided
that The Office of assessor is a stLtu-
tory office, and the legislature has abso-
lutte control over all Offices and may
abolish them at pleasure, and in so doing,
no vested right is invaded"
In People ex rel y. Van Gaskin, Mont
352. the conclusion to which the court
arrived is stated to be thtt, I'm the
absence OF constitutional restrictions,
legislature, having power TO create par
ticular office, and TO regulate the manner
in which it should be filed, and the term
and duties of the Incumbent has the
power to engthen or abb idge such term,
or to declare the office V. cant, a2o
point another TO fill the vacancy. The
exercise of such power by the legislature
would not be in violation of Section 10
Article /, of the United States Constitu-
ton, prohibiting State from passing
any law impairing the obligations of CON
trao ar IF ha Ale1n
of, providing that no one shall be de-
prived OF property without due process
OF law
The Supreme Court Of Nevada, in Den
yer v. Hobart, 10 New Is, says: THE
legislature having by the act of March
4, 1865, vested certain duties upon the
Lieutenant Governor, and lowed him
a salary for his services. it was within
the power of the legislature to take
those duties and the saii ry away from
him before the expiration of his term o.
Office, and confer them upon another
shaw, C. j., in Taft V. Adams, Gray
tMas5) l26, 1870. says: When an office
ii created by the law solely for the
public benefit, it may be regulated linz
lied, enlarged or terminated by law as
public exigency or policy may require"
)
478. Cooley, j. says: This is a position
that has frequently been taken and a
nest as often overruled Nothing neen
better settled than that an appointment
or election to public Office does not Ell
tablish contract relations between tire
person appointed or elected end the State
Offices are created for the public good at
the will of the legisli tive power, with
o,,1 II,
attached as we believed TO be necessarv
Or important to make them accomplish
the purrose designed. But. eXcept as it
rnay be restrained by the constitution.
the legislature has the same inherent
authority to modify O" abolish that T.
has to create ard if will exercise it witt
the Ike considerations in view"
In Attorney Genera V. Jochlm, 80 Mich.
35S, the count Uses the following Ie.D-
guage: : he legislature may remove OIL
hcers not only by aLoiishlLg ,ne onice.
but by declaring it vacant "** And ii
may lodge the lower 70 remove iron
statutory omces IN boa. ds or o.ner olll-
GERS subject to statutory regu atons. Ana,
while II cannot remove the incumbent OF
constitutional oiIces, it is not because
OF an inherent difference IN the qualities
OF the OHlCe, Dul because Inc pSHLI ~
remove IS limited to the power tina,
C. eates. The institution, oI1iGcr is 3n
agent of the government. There is "a
same lack OF the ing edlents OF contract
and the same power to abolish the o..
fee or remove the officer by am Andment
OF the Constitution In this case Ire
Fourteenth Amendment was invoked an
expressly held not applicable. "a public
office cannot be called property within
the meaning of these constitutional pro.
visions. II II could be, il wou d follow
that every public officer. no matter how
Insignificant, would h, We a vested right
to hold his office until the expiration Of
the tie. m. Public offices are created for
the purpose OF government" Ibid.
Andrew. j., in Nichols v. Mclean, 1Oi
n. Y. 526. says: ct is true that in tbs
country Offices are not Embellishments, 70
are they held by grant. The right IT,
bold an office and to receive the emo.u
ments thereof belonging to it does not
grow out Of any cont act with the State.
lor is an office. in the same sense that
cattle or |; nd are the property of the
owner" Krutz V. Behrensmeyer, 149, III.
400; Jones V. Shaw, Is Texas 57Y.
An &c