The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-23
CALENDAR FOR TUESDAY.
Nos III 10, $50, 1S2, 1S3, 1S5, 1877 ana 49,
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
DECISIONS.


WASHINGTON, May %, 1915
Tho following opinions have been rendered by the
United States Supreme Court
Duo process OF law. IL docs not consist In the form
Of trial by jury but in due course oil legal pro-
cscdines:-John H. kcnnard VS. The State OF Louisiana
ex rel Philip Hickey Morgan In error TO the Supreme
Court OF the State of Louisiana Tho sole question
presented tor consideration this case stated
by the counsel for the plaintiff in error whether the
State OF louisiana acting under the statute OF January
Is 1873 through her Judiciary, has deprived Konnard
OF his Office without due process OF law. 1t is sub
stantiay admitted by counsel IN tho argument that
such is not tho case II 1t has been DONE sn the due
course OF lega, proceedings according to those rules
aud forms which have been established FOR the pro-
lection OF private rights. We accept this sunl-
cient definition OK the '.due process OF aw'' for
the purposes Of the present The question before
us whether tho courts below having Jurisdiction
of the and tho parties have followed the law but
whether the law, II followed. would have furnished
Kennard tho protection guaranteed by the constitution.
Irregularities and errors In the proceedings
only be corrected in the State Our authority
does not extend beyond an examination OF the power
OF below to proceed at all This makes II
necessary Tor us TO examine The law under which the
proceedings had and determine It's eff IL
entitled IAN act to regulate proceedings IN conesta-
lions between persons claiming judicial oicc"' Sec
tion provided that I'm any in which person
may appointed 10 the Office OF Judge or any
court this State and shall have been confirmed by
| the senate and commissioned thereto, such
commission shall be prma tacie proof OF tho right Of
such person 70 Immediately hold and exercise such
| othce"
il viii thus be seen that the act relates specially to
tho Judges OF the Of the tate and the internal
regulations Of State in respect to its own ollcera
The second section thon provides ''hat II any per-
son. being incumbent OF such Office shall reiuseEto
vacate The and turn the over the person
so commissioned, such person commissioned shall
have the right proceed by rule before the
competent jurisdiction TO havo himself declared TO DO
entitled 70 such office and TO be nducted therein Such
hall I'm rnu trudtt Ori Vifh
bent and shall be made returnablc within twcntylour
hours and shall DO tried Immediately without jury and
such court, and the Judgment thereon shall
be sigued the same day OF rendition"
There here provisions for technical ''cita-
tom so called but there is in effect provision for a
rule upon the incumbent to show cause why he
fuses 70 surrender his o'hcc and Tor tho ser.
was, therefore, to DO formally called upon by a
court OF competent jurisdiction to give Information
,ho authority by which he assumed 70 perform the
duties OF Of the important Offices Of the State He
was 10 DO told whom aud where nc make his an
swcr The law made the duty OF the Court require
this return 10 be made within twenty four hours and
II placed The burden Of proof upon hun But !. re-
CURED that he should DO called upon present his
before the Court could proceed 10 Judgment
had opportunity 10 be heard before he could DO
demned THIS was process and when served IL
sufficient 10 bring tho incumbent into and place
HIM within its Jurisdiction In this It evident
from the record that the rule made and that
In form brought 10 the attention OF Kcnnard, for
on the return day he appeared Az trst, instead Of
showing cause why no refused 70 vucate his 0Hcc,
he objected that he had not been properly
cited u appear; but tho Court adudged otherwise.
He then showed that he refused because no
had been commissioned to hold olce until the end OF
the next session OF tho senate, and that time had not
arrived. Upon this he asked jury tr l. This tho
Court held properly refused, because the law pro-
vided against such trial. Tue timo for appeal liked
day aftcr tho rendition Of judgment and rcurnabo
within two days, held to give anpc time; speedy, Il
true, but sucicnt time Ia this case the party did
appeal and heard. The Judgment conclusive.
The Chief Justice delivered the opinion.
Allowances forfeited by The assertion OF soldiers
An honorable discharpc from the docs
store thcm:--Tho United States John LENDERS
Appeal from the Court Of Caims-ThIs action
the Court OF Claims by the petitioner Tor pay and
bounty soldier In the army OF the United states.
appears from hdIngs oil the Court that petit
TONER enlisted In the Tor three years and
rolled the LIST OF January, 1864; That he
tered INTO service the 10th OF the month"; hs
10 take effect from the enrolment; that he deserted
the 18th Of November following, and on
"a oil June, 1865, and duty
loss oil all pay and allowances due 10 become due
during the term Of his enlistment, and that he was
hOnorably discharged the 6th oil August, 1868 HIS
claim was for pay for the whole period from his enlist
lncnt To his discharge. including tho time OF his alb
scnce by deserton, and Tor the bounty allowed TO
soldier upon his honorable discharge at the expiration
OF his service.
The Court Of Claims held that no was entitled both
pay ard bounty, aud judgment for tile whole
amount cnimed, being Of opinion that his offence OF
dcscrtion purged by his honorable discharge within
the decision Of this court United States w. Kelly,
reported IN the 10th Of Wallace and that his
not covered ny the joint resolution Of Congress Of
March i, 1870 We have looked into the record In
case Kelly had served from February 1864, until Oc
tobcr, 1862 during the active operations OF the
aud then deserted visit his parents reported 10 be
seriously VI at Their home Alter absence Of some
weeks no voluntarily returned and subsequently made
up Tor the time lost by hts absence. The TACT that
the war had virtually closed at Tho time, the motives