At  common  law  there  was  no  limit  on  the  right  of  a
citizen  to  hold  several  offices,  except  the  incompatibility
of  the  duties  of  the  several  offices,  and  much  learning
was  invoked  in  England  and  in  this  countiy  on  the
question  of  ^^incompatibility.''  We  are  reheved  how-
ever, from  nmch  lal)or  o\\  that  subject  by  our  constitu-
tion. Article  XIV,  Section  7:  *'No  pei-son,  who  shall
hold  any  office  or  i)lace  of  trust  or  profit  under  the
United  States,  or  any  department  thereof,  (»r  under  this
State,  or  under  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  be  eligible  to
a  seat  in  either  House  of  the  General  Assembly:  pro-
vided that  nothing  herein  contained  shall  extend  to
officers  in  the  militia,  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Conmiis-
sioners  of  Public  Charities,  or  conjmis&ioners  for  special
purposes."

This  provision  is  plain  and  leaves  no  room  for  con-
struction, whenever  the  two  places  under  consideration
are  found  to  he  public  offices.
Another  position  of  the  defendant  is  that  his  accep-
tance of  the  second  office  d<  'es  not  forfeit  or  vacate  the
first  office.     That  is  true  in  one  class  of  cases,  that  is,


N.  C]  FEBRUARY  TERM,  1898.  497


Bahnhill  V,  Thompson.
ft

whei-e  the  officer  holds  a  Federal  office  and  accepts  a
State  office,  and  the  reason  is  that  the  State  court  has
no  authority  to  declare  the  Federal  office  vacant.  The
general  rule  however,  is  otherwise  in  the  States.  It  is
the  acceptance  of  the  second  that  vacates  the  first.
Throop  on  Public  Officers,  Section  39,  31.
