Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1907-08-13

-. Board " Health. etc. - Pae
Hep, z0@. the Court said
Prom the mas ~ ie4rnsnz
displayed in cases dekerusin-
ing the meaning ~ the term
office ii - almost impossible
t. deduce 4 definition of lhe
term universally applicable
one of tire requisites Is that
the Office itself must BE- eFs4asd
~ the Constitution ~ the
STATE Or il must ye Authorized
by some statute. but noE All
empI0ymeuts authorized by
Law are public offices. IN the
sense ~ tile Constitution II
seems 10 be reasonably well
settled that where the I.eizis-
iatBre creates and preseribes
the duty aud fixes the c0mpen-
sation these duties pertain -
the public and are continuing
and permanent, not oeea-
sionaI and Temporary. Sueh
compensation or employment
is m Office, and one who oceu-
pies IL - an officer.
Along the same lines the doctrius
fs laid down III Eliason VS.. Coleman.
IS y. e.. 80, a. follows:
An Office. such as to prop
erly Come within the scope
Of a quo warrant0 fnformA-
tion. may bc defined, says
a recent writer, as a public
position 10 which portion of
the sovereignty gf the e0un-
try, either legislative. exeeu-
tixe or judicial. attaches for
the time being aud which is
exercised FOR the benefit 0f
the public High on Extra
ordinary Legal Remedies,
paragraph $50. The three
tcsts 10 be applied IN deter
mining whether Al inf0rua-
: tion will lie, are in the words
OF the same author, first,
the SOURCE Of the office:
second, the TENURE, and
third, its DUTIES. The
source OF an Office should BE
from the crown or sovereign
authority, either by charter
or legislative enactment; its
tenure should nc fixed and
permanent and its duties
should be Of a public ma
tnrc. Tho true test Of a pub
lie Office seems to be that il
is parcel OF the administration
Of government. civil or mill
tary, or Is itself created direct
ly By the law making power.
I'm Mr.. Wilson's case there Is
none Of the attributes essential 10 an
office as defined By all the autfori-
ties, his position Is not crested ~
he sovereign power Of the United
States nor in any way limited "
affected By II. nor Is there any des-
Ignation Of the position Dy law the
tenure Is indefinite and uncertain and
subject To the will of the appoint
ing power, a. IS the appointment
and qualification the position carries
" ith ii 10 delegation of authority
and, furthermore, Mr.. Wilson is not
under civil service or classified ser
vice. but the letter which he re-
eeiyed.f from tire Navy Department and
" lYich nc handed t. the members ~
the city Council at their last meeting
shows that his position is not reeog
uizcd by the Department as an office,
but as an employment merely. This
letter was received by Mr.. Wilson
before the municipal election of JaIy
) last, and in 10 be is Informed, in
effect. that he would not Dc violating
any of the strict rules Of the sers fce
by running for. or holding, any mu-
Bicipai Office.
while there seems to De no Mary
land case directly on the point ii
question, and therefore the law a.
laid down in The textbooks and ~
.he courts Of other States prevails
here, there Is no difficulty whatever,
from a legal standpoint, in reaching q
decision on the question
At issue. for the authorities are unan.
Imoua, IN q state Of facts like the
above, III support Of the position
herein taken. IN conclusion, IL will
DnIy be.necessary TO cite the follow
ing case as indicative ~ the attitude
" tie courts on the point in question,
namely. the case of Doyle vs. the
gity-of Raleigh, 80 y. g., I35, which,
in al Essential particulars is similar
10 Mr.. Wilson's case. In that case
the plaintiff was an alderman ~
but was removed by tise
Board Of Aldermen on the ground q
his alleged constitutional disquaIih-
cation to hold the Office because he
occupied the position of night watch
man of the postofHce building in said
city, .fO..whicFi he bad been appointed
py tlle Secretary Of the Treasury 81
.he United States and received a.
the sum Of sixty dol
lars a month. The constitutional
provision under which the plaintiff
v as declared 10 he disqualified for
alderman - a. follows.
No 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 any other
state or government, shall
hold or exercise any other
Office or place Of trust or profit
under the authority Of this
state, or lie eligible TO a seat
in either House Of the General
Assembly.
We shall do all required in
this appeal, says the Court.
bv assigning the place held
by the plaintiff on the proper
side of the line which sepa-
rates those employments in
the public service which are.
from those which are not,
offices or places Of trust or
profit in the sense Of the con-
stitniiou. 1t is apparent from
The association that places Of
trust or profit are intended
which approximate 10 but are
not Office and yet occupy the
same general level in dignity
and importance. The manifest
intent Is to prevent double
fiice-holding--that Offices and