Court Opinion

ID: 9810129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:40:36.684358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:24.218610
License: Public Domain

Settle, J.
(Dissenting.) I do'not propose to discuss the questions presented for decision ; but I merely wish to state that I do not concur in the opinion of the majority of the Court, believing, as I do, that Clark v. Stanley, 66 N. C. 59; People v. McKee, 68 N. C. 429; People v. Johnston, Id. 471; People v. Bledsoe, Id. 459; People v. McGowan, Id. 520, and Howerton v. Tate, Id. 546. were well decided, and applying the principles upon which those cases are made, to stand to the case before us, I am forced to the conclusion that the Public Printer is an officer of the State, and that consequently the Legislature cannot either directly or indirectly appoint a person to discharge the duties of that office.
It is true that the Legislature have professed to abolish the office of Public Printer, just as they professed to abolish the offices of the Boards of Directors for the Asylum, &c., but they have left all the important duties heretofore performed by the Public Printer, an officer, to be performed by the Public Printer, a contractor.
Can it be, that such a play upon a word, can change the essence, the substance of a thing % It may be found that this Court has gone too far, in the cases referred to. I do not think *108so; but certainly the opinion of the majority of the Court, in this case, cuts us loose from our moorings and puts ns at sea again.