Court Opinion

ID: 9810130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:40:36.686296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:24.222671
License: Public Domain

Reade, J.,
(dissenting.) I do not concur in the decision of the Court. It significantly ignores the recent cases of Stanley v. Clark, People v. Bledsoe, People v. McKee, People v. Johnston, &c., which were supposed to have settled the vexed question as to what are offices in North Carolina, and who was the ap^ minting power and puts everything at sea. There is no more important business than that of printing and publishing the laws, and the reports of officers and institutions. It is expressly required by the Constitution. It is prescribed in detail by several acts of the Legislature, prior to our present Constitution, and it was also prescribed by law. The Public Printer was elected by the Legislature, with a provision for the Governor to fill vacancies. It is conceded that it was then an office, and that it continued to be an office, both under the old Constitution and under the new until 1869-NO, when the Legislature passed an act abolishing the office, and the decision is put upon the ground that the Legislature did then abolish the office, and that it had the power to do so, and that since that act, it has not been an office, but a mere ministerial business, which may be done under contract by any one with whom the Legislature may contract, and by his administration, if he die. I admit that the Legislature did abolish the office as said; and for the sake of the argument, I admit that it had the power to do so, but it is overlooked that what the Legislature abolished in February, 1870 (probably to get clear of an objectionable incumbent) it re-established in the next month, March, 1870, so that we have this case; an office exists on Monday; is abolished on Tuesday, and is set up again on Wednesday. What is it on Thursday? An undefined duty, “ mechanical,” says the decision. An office, says I. What practical effect is the abolishing act ? It was thought to be of no effect, and therefore, is not brought forward in Battle’s Revisal. It was admitted *109by the Legislature that the office was set up again by the act of March, 1870, because, in the next year, 1870-71, they passed another act abolishing it again, which would have been a vain thing if there had been nothing to abolish. But the abolishing act-of 1-870-71 is also omitted in Battle’s Revisal, and why? Because the office was re-established by several acts which are brought forth in Battle’s Revisal, tit. Public Printing, and the duties of Public Printer, as now prescribed by-law, are substantially the same as they were before the present Constitution, and as they may be found in the Revised Code, tit. Public Printing. If it was an office then, why is it not an office now ? In the cases cited above, the Legislature abolished the officers of the Board of Directors for the Institutions, and created another Board, the “ Board of Trustees,” but the powers and duties of the Board were left as before, and therefore, it was decided, that the abolition amounted to nothing, that the office continued, or if abolished, was set up again, but now the decision is that the Legislature may kill, but cannot make alive.
I have said that since the act abolishing the office, it has been created again, and exists now with almost precisely the same duties and powers, as for a great many years. Compare Battle’s Revisal, tit. Public Printer, with Revised Code, same title. The two principal alterations are that the public binding is not added to the printing, and the power to fill vacancies is not given to the Governor, so that now, if the Governor has neither the power to appoint to the office, nor to fill a vacancy, we have this case. The Public Printer is elected in January and dies in February, the office is vacant until an administrator qualifies the whole year. Then the office is vacant for the whole year, and no public printing can be done by anybody, although the Constitution requires that it shall be done, and although it is more important to print and publish the laws than to make them; certainly such ought not to be the law.