Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1904-02-17

iegis aFiVe, the eNoeutiIc and judicial
And tie further tact that a retaen
cannot a tie same tim exercise the
duties of more than one office in either
OF these departments, neither can he
exercise the duties of an office in ,'ae
of these departmnts and at the same
time those of an office in either one
of the other INC departments. 1t fol
lows that III so far as regards the
offices e, ntemplated in these provis-
ions OF the constitution. there is a
perfect and absolute Inhibition against
holding Jwo offices at one and the
same time. WITH til exception named
in section ~. article l9
Oar inquiry then is narrowed down
to one as tc what are the offices To
be affected by these constitutional pro
visions. and are the etiees OF county
and probate Judge and OF aree4rder
of a town, such 5Hces as are con.
templated IL tic constitutional proyis-
ions.
Tie otiee ef county and probate
judge is provided for in the c-nstitu-
tion. whtfs=fls jurisdiction is=sueh a
that he is ordinarily named a. and 5
in faet county officer. yet. his Office
is clearly within the judicial dN9arl-
meEt of Ghe state government the
counties being moro. integral ana.
necessary rarts of The state govern
ment It is not necessary tc. say
anything further as 1.-THE character
and classification OF this department.
and is a state officer within the mean-
ing of the constitutional provision on
the subject.
The more difficult question is as to
the character and classification of the
ctfiAe of recorder c. a town. 1t is
contended by the attorney general.
| llldl dS Sett1OIi TO. VI lllt tOIStlt
authorizes the general assembly to in
vest corporation courts with jurisdic-
tiCn in civil and criminal matters, con-
current with justices OF the peace;
and as the general assembly has in
vested such jurisdiction in the mayor S
court, and as the recorder acts in
the place of the mayor In his absence
or inability to act therefore, in SO
far. at least the recorGsr is a judicial
officer. and is prohibited from holding
any other judicial Cffice at one and
the same time He may be a judcia
J officer while exercising the functions
Of The mayors court but this does by
no means show that he is state ju;;i
cial officer within the meaning of the
constitutional provisions We are COZ
siaer:ng
TIE great weight Of ant Gritty, if Hot
the unanimous voice of authority, is
l. the effect that municipal Officers
are not to be regarded Is otticfHa w1lo
are affected by the constitutional pr
hibition against holding two riccs
at one and the same time Attorney
General vs.. Connore. 9 S. w. Rap I:
Britton vs. State, 60 Mo $40; Abry y.
Gray. 80 Kan. 149: Waldo vs.. Wallace.
II Ind. 500: State VS. Kirk A Ind.
401: State VS.. Taylor, II La. Ann 1S3.
State VS., Wilmington, Humphreys
ODel.) 294 People vs.. provinces, "a Cal.
$40; Paign VS. Rittman. 66 Ark. 2o3;;
People VS.. Conover, I \. Y 68.
Municipalities are organized by stat
ute under constitutional authority.
and in the case of corporation courts
mayors courts for instance which are
occasionally held by the recorder a.
We have seen. the law conferred upon
them by statute, the jurisdiction ci
justices of the peace, still this officer
is appointed by the municipal author,
ties and is removable by the same tfi-
bunal. He is therefore not a state Off
Ger, in the sense Of the constitutional
provisions prohibiting one person tC.
| hold two offices at one and the SANE
| time.
Are the offices of county aad pro
bate judge and of recorder = a c.ty
| incompatible?
In state ex rel vs., Frbleman, %
Ark. 425, this charaet1r Il case VAS
presented to this coHr' unde@ tie CON
stitution of 1858, aad t vas held
I that: at common law e G incompati-