The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-05-22
The Case is Purely a State
Case.
THE WRIT OF ERROR DISMISSED
Both in the Quo Warranto and the
Equity Proceedings For Want OF
Jurisdiction. Justice Harlan
Writes a Vigorous Dis
senting Opinion.
(By the Associated Press.)

Washington. May 21.-The United
States Supreme Court today decide1
the Kentucky Governorshlp case III
favor of Democratic Governor Beck
ham. in both quo warranto and the
equity proceedings for want of Juris-
diction, the court dismissed the writ
of error from the Kentucky Court OF
Appeals. The opinion was handed
down by Chief justice Fuller. and a
vigorous dissenting opinion was deiN-
cred by Justice Harlan, he only one
TO advocate reversal of the kentucky
court decision. Justice Brewer. Brown
and NIcKenna also dissented from
portions of the opinion.
In dismissing the writ of error the
Chief Justice said the court should
he the last to overstep the bounds
limiting its own jurisdiction and
that II the determination of cases
of this character, contests for state
offices must necessarily be settled
by the political branch OF the Govern
lnent. That branch had acted in the
Kentucky case when the General AS
sembly took jurisdiction. There was
no appe.d from the Assembly $ de
cision which was favorable to Goebel
and Becllham. except to the tribunal
of the people. which tribunal the
Chief Justice said. was always in ses-
sion. He also said the case was pure
ly a State case-that Kentucky was
in the full possession of its faculties
ms n member of the Union and that
there was no emergency at this time
ealing for Interference of the general
Government 10 enforce constitutional
guarantees or to put down domestic
violence.
For more than one hundred years
the Constitution of Kentucky has pro-
yided that contested elections for
Governor and Lieutenant Governor
shall be determined by the General
Assembly.
..The highest court of the State has
often held and in the present case
has again declared that under their
constitutional provisions the power
of the General Assembly to determine
the result is exclusive and that ita de
cision is not open to judicial review.
MANY Of the States have similar
constitutional provisions and similar
statutes.
I'VE do not understand this stat
ute to be objected to as in any man
ner obnoxious to constitutional objec-
ton but that plaintiff in error com
plains of the action of the General
Assembly under the statute under
the Judgment of the State courts de
clining to disturb that action.
The Chief Justice quoted numer-
f.
fees are mere agencies or trusts ana
not property as such. nor are the sal
arv and emoluments property. secured
by contract, but compensation for
services actually rendered.
in short he said. the nature Of
the relation of public officer TO the
public is. generally speaking. inconsis-
tent with either property or con-
tract right.
''The Court of Appeals not only
held that the office of Governor or
of Lieutenant Governor was not prop
erty under the Constitution of Ken
tucky, but moreover that court was
OF The opinion that the decision of
these contested elections did not de-
prive plaintiffs in error of any pre-
existing right. Our system of elec-
tions was unknown to the common
law. and the whole subject is regu-
lated by the Constitution and statutes
passed Hereunder.
1T is clear that the Judgment OF
the Court of Appeals in declining to
go behind the tribunal vested by the
State Constitution and laws with the
ultimate determination of the right
TO these offices. denied no right Sc
cured by the Fourteenth amend
ments'
After quoting section four. article
four of the Constitution. in which
the United States guarantees to every
State Republican form of govern
ments. etc. the court says it was
long since settled that the enforce
ment of this guarantee belonged to
the political department.
I'VE must decline to take jurisdic-
t.ion of deprivation of
right the Fourteenth
ament due process of
law Oh on of the guaran-