Worthy v. . Barrett and Others

63 N.C. 199
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 5, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 63 N.C. 199 (Worthy v. . Barrett and Others) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Worthy v. . Barrett and Others, 63 N.C. 199 (N.C. 1869).

Opinion

Reade, J.

It is insisted for the petitioner, that the County Commissioners for Moore county have no power to enquire as to his qualifications; that their duty is to administer to him the oath prescribed by law and to receive his bond; that their duty is merely ministerial, and involves the exercise of no discretion, and that the Court will enforce its performance by mandamus, and leave the petitioner’s right to hold the office to be tested by proceedings under a quo warranto. The solemn act of administering an oath and inducting into office, may not be merely ministerial. But if it were, the Court will not compel them to do wrong, if it be clear that they did right.

Our statute provides that “ no person prohibited from holding office by section 8 of the Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, known as Article XIY, shall qualify under this act or hold office in this State.” Acts of 1868 eh. 1. sec. 8.

The Fourteenth Article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, sec. 8, is as follows :

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Con *201 .gress, or Elector of President and Yice President, or bold any ■office, civil or military, under tbe United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oatb as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial •officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United .States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against “the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of the members of each Mouse remove such disability.”

Senators and Representatives in Congress, members of the State Legislature and all executive and judicial officers, both of the States and of the United States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution. Art. 6, sec. 3. «Constitution of the United States.

The petitioner was a- sheriff before and during the rebellion, .-and the question is whether he is disqualified from holding , the office of sheriff now, by reason of section 3 of Article 14, cited above. The government of the United States is ■divided into three branches — Legislative, Executive and Judicial. These three parts make one whole. There is no •other part or parcel. It follows that there can be no office in •the government that is not in one of these Departments. There ••can be no officer unless he be the incumbent of an office. Therefore there can be no officer except he be in some office in one of these three Departments. If he is in office in the legislative department, then he is a legislative officer; if in the executive, he is an executive officer, and if in the judicial, he is a judicial officer. But note! It is not every one who is of these departments that is an officer. Every office is of these departments, but not vice versa. Members of the legislature are not officers. Theirs are places of trust and profit, but not offices of trust and profit. So in the other departments. As in the judicial, we have Judges, Sheriffs, Clerks, &c„ who are officers, and Jurors, Commissioners, &c., who are placemen. Nor is this a distinction without a difference, for our Legisla-.iure speaks distinctively of offices of trust or profit and of *202 places of trust. Rev. Code, c. 77, s. 1. And the fourth section, of the same chapter is as follows: “ Every officer and other person, who may be required to take an oath of office, or an oath for the discharge of any duty imposed on him, and also the oath appointed for such as hold any office of trust or profit in the State, shall,” &c., <fcc., which shows that every person who is called upon to perform public duties, and takes an oath to discharge the duties is not necessarily an officer.

Let us consider,

1st. Is a Sheriff an officer ? An office is a right to exercise a public or private employment, and to take the fees and emoluments; in which one has a property; and to which there-are annexed duties; and with us in public offices, oaths to support the Constitution of the State and of the United States.. I do not know how better to draw the distinction between an officer and a mere placeman, than by making his oath the test. Every officer is required to take not only an oath of office, but an oath to support the Constitution of the State and of the United States, Rev. Code, chap, on “Oaths.” Whereas every mere placeman is simply required to take an oath to perform the particular duty required of him, as in the case of jurors,, commissioners, <fcc., and takes no oath to support the Constitution of the State, or of the United States.

2d. Does the Sheriff’s office require him to take an oath to support the Constitution of the State, and of the United States ? Unquestionably it does. “Every member of the G-eneral Assembly, and every person who shall be chosen or appointed to hold any office of trust or profit in the State, shall, before taking his seat, or entering upon the discharge of the duties of the office, take and subscribe the following oath,” &c. Rev. Code ch. “ Oaths.” Then follows the oath to support the Constitution of the State, and the 5th section requires that they shall also take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

The following are the officers in North Carolina who are required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the, *203 United States : Attorney G-eneral, State and County Solicitors, Clerk and Master in Equity, Clerk of the Supreme Court, Clerk of the Superior Court, Clerk of the County Court, Comptroller, Constable, Coroner, Entry Taker, Governor, Inspectors of flour, Tobacco, &c., Judges of the Supreme Court, Judges of the Superior Court, Justice of the Peace Public Treasurer, Ranger, Register, Secretary of State, Sheriffs, Standard Keeper, Stray Valuers, Surveyor for the county, Trustee for the county. The foregoing are taken from Revised Code, chap. “ Oaths,” and to them may be addedr. Mayors of towns and cities, upon whom are cast magisterial duties.

Any person who held any of these offices before the rebellion, and. then engaged in the rebellion, is prohibited fronr holding office until relieved by Congress.

3rd. What will amount to having engaged in the rebellion ?.'

(1st.) Holding any of these offices under the Confederate' government.

(2d.) Voluntarily aiding the rebellion, by personal service, or by contributions, other than charitable, of any thing that was useful or necessary in the Confederate service.

4th. Members of the Legislature are also excluded from office, although they are not officers, by the express terms of the Fourteenth Article. But the clerks and other employees of the Legislature, are not excluded. And thence an argument is drawn against the position we have taken; for they say, as only the principal persons in the Legislative Department are excluded, it shows that only the principal persons in. the other Departments were intended.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Trump v. Anderson
601 U.S. 100 (Supreme Court, 2024)
Anderson v. Griswold
2023 CO 63 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 2023)
State Ex Rel. Brigman v. Baley
195 S.E. 617 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
State Ex Rel. Stain v. Christensen
35 P.2d 775 (Utah Supreme Court, 1934)
Bromley v. Hadley
10 Pa. D. & C. 23 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1927)
Board of Education v. Board of County Commissioners
127 S.E. 692 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1925)
State Ex Rel. Attorney-General v. Knight
85 S.E. 418 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
State ex rel. Kendall v. Cole
148 P. 551 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1915)
State Ex Rel. Spruill v. Bateman
77 S.E. 768 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1913)
Hartigan v. Board of Regents
38 S.E. 698 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1901)
Lyon v. Board of Commissioners
26 S.E. 929 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1897)
State Ex Rel. McNeill v. Somers
2 S.E. 161 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)
Hannon v. . Grizzard
2 S.E. 600 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1887)
Doyle v. Aldermen of Raleigh
89 N.C. 133 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1883)
C. C. Clark and Others v. . E. R. Stanley and Others
66 N.C. 59 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1872)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 N.C. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthy-v-barrett-and-others-nc-1869.