Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1903-11-17
THE DECISION IN FULL
OF Iud&e Grace in the Chief of Police
Suit.

ton raised is: Did plaintiff forfeit the
Office of chief # police by accepting
an appointment and qualifying as dep
uty sheriff
This. in turn, may be resolved into
two propositions, viz:
First, are the offices of chief of police
and deputy sheriff in their nature and
functions SO incompatible that sound
public policy would forbid their being
both held by one person?
Second. Is the holding of both ex-
pressly forbidden by the constitution
cs' laws of this state?
At common law there is no limit to
held by one person, except that of
public policy.
Mr. Dillon says that "incompa liability
exists where the nature and duty of
the two Offices are such as to render it
improper frecn considerations of pub
lie policy for one incumbent to re-
tain both
Dillon on Nun. Corp. sec. 16G and
note
After a careful consideration Of
many authorities which it is unneces-
sary to quote here, | am unable to
conclude that the offices of sheriff or
deputy sheriff and chief of police are
Incompatible within the meaning OF
hn 1nx1y pnfh i,,., ;o1
offices and their duties are practically
the same. The principal duty of each
is to preserve the public peace and al
rest those who violate the law The
thing to be done and the manner of
doing it in each case is the same
regardless of the name or title If the
officer who does it. True. each has
certain special duties peculiar to his
office, but in every case they are min
I isterial and ] know Of none in which
! the duties of one could possibly con-
fict with those If the other. It seems
to me that if it be lawful in any case
for one person to hold two Offices at
the same time and if there are any two
olllNtS tIit lulleS vi WHICH lulSnI UC
we'll performed by the same
individual without being OBJ
n0X10us to sound public
policy, the Offices in Questica furnish
the best possible example TIER S'l2-
ties are practically the sane CT alike
neither has any control or power over
The other: no appeal lies from one to
the ctker. and in no case would the
discharge of his duty by one conflict
with any obligation resting upon. or
violate any trust reposed IL -"
other hold. therefore, that the offices
in question are not incompatible.
The second question is: Are they
within tie prohibition of the constitu-
tion or any law of the state?
We have no statute law on this
subject.
The provisions of che constitution
bearing on the question at issue are
8, as fellows:
ARTICLE ".
Departments.
| oetllOu L. lie pONclS VI liae gov
ernment CT tne state of Arkansas shall
be divided into three distinct depart
TentS, each of them to be confined to
: a separate body of magistracy, to-wit:
Those which are legislative to one;
! tn sc which are executive to another,
and those which are judicial to an
| other.
Section l. 10 pelso o. ccie.tion
OF persons being of one of these de-
partments, shall exercise any power
belonging TO either of the others, eX-
cept in the instances hereinafter eX
! pressly directed cT permitted.
ARTICLE NIX.
Section s. No person shall hold OF
perform the duties of more than one Of
fee in the same department of the
government at the same time, except
as expressly directed cG permitted by
! this constitution.
Section 26. Militia officers, officers
Of the public schools and notaries may
be elected to fill any executive or jul
dicial Office.
This c1dlrt will assume without cit
ing numerous authorities in this state
and others, that the once of sheriff an(
deputy sheriff are the same SO far as
AFFECTED by the questions at issue
here, and that by accepting the office
of deputy sheriff and qualifying as
such whether for special purpose OF
permanently the plaintiff abandoned
and vacated the Office of chief of po-
lice if the latter Office was incompatible
in legal sense with the former, or il
the two are within the prohibition o1
i al