Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1903-11-17

uel one vi tltSG utpdI tnltHlS Sndll eX
ercise any of the functions of an
other, except as in this constitution
expressly provided" Held that as
mayor was merely municipal officer
this would not apply TO nm.
Waldo V. Wallace L. Ind. $50
The same court held under th,
same constitutional limitations thai
the city clerk is not an office within
the constitutional limitation. for the
reason that the city clerk is not a
state Office.
Mohan Y. Jackson, D. Ind 5a9.
The constitution of Indiana also
provides that no person shall hold
more than one lucrative office at the
, same time. And the supreme court
held that Offices pureiy municipal as
that OF city councilman. although lu
cratlve in the ordinary sense of the
word. that is, having compensation
attached, regardless of the amount
were not within the meaning of the
provision
State V. Kirk, A Ind 401. S. c. Il
Am. Rep. 239
Article 159 of the constitution of
the state of Louisiana provides: NC
person shall hold or exercise at the
same time more than one office OF
N'ust OF profit, except that of justice
OF the peace and notary public" The
court held that becoming a member of
the city council did moi vacate The Ct
iice OF jury commissioner. as a member
of the city council is not a state Of
fcer.
State V. Taylor a La. 7S3, S. c. II
Southern Reporter. 1872.
The constitution ef tho state of Del
aware provides: No ordained clergy.
man or ordained preacher Of the gos-
pei of any denomination shall he ca
pa bic Of h9]ding any civil office in this
state. OF being member of any branch
Of the legislature while he continues
il the exercise of his pastoral or cler-
lcal functions. \ clergyman was
! elected city treasurer of the city ot
| Wilmington. and the mayor and cjtv
council held that he was net eligible
and would not rccos1.ze him: but the
supreme court held that he was eliei
bic, as the Office ef city treasurer is
not civil office within tho meaning
Of the constitution, being only mum
cipal office.
State V. Wilmington, Harrington
(DeL) 294
10 2 nf constitution of Cal
fOrnia provides: "The powers i tn,
; government Of the state of California
s. all de divided into tI1ree separate de
Fartmeats. the legislative, judicial ant
executive, and no person charged W Il
the exercise of powers properly be
longing to one Of these departments
shall exercise any Of the functions ap
pertaining to either of the others, eX
cept in cases hereinafter expressly di
rected or permitted" The supreme
court held that this provision does no
! prohibit the police Judge of the city
and county of San Francisco from
! holding the Office of public commits
/ sioner of said city and county as eX
officio officer, since they are municipa
, offices and nct within the meaning O
the constitution.
People " provinces, "a Cal. $40.
The same, court held in the case O.
People v Henry. 62 Cal. 557 that pc
lice Judge is not a state ofncer With,
the meaning CT the constitution.
The constitution of Kentucky pr
vi1es that no person shall at the same
time be a state officer o. g deputy state
officer and a city official: held that
master commissioner is not STATE
officer, therefore would not interfert
with one holding that and the position
OF city attorney.
Goodloe V. Fox, 9G Kentucky, 627
20 s. w. 433
Throop on Public O4nces. section 29
read; Gs follows:
commissioners Of police district
created oG stated IN the last seet.l
although appointed by the goEerao
and senate arc not state officers. Th'
EXPRESSION state officers designate
those only who are connected with thu
government of the state. ard whom i
is the duty of the attorney general t.
appear for and defend. So ar office1
elected under a municipal charter /
not a state officer
{ Getting several state decisions).
Some few authorities have held tina
a number of city Offices are state OF
fees, but in nearly every instancG
it is owing to some provisicns Of tn
constitution or acts of the legislature
there being some authorities whicl
hold that if they are created by th
:r11