The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-22
GREAT REJOICING ATFRAEKFORT
PEOPLE DELIGHTED AT THE RE
TURN TO A GOVERNMENT OF
LAW AND ORDER
TROOPS HAVE STARTED HOME
Mr.. Taylor Packing Up, Preparatory
to Leaving the Executive Man
s1On-GOv. Mounts Pc
cuIiar Action,

WASHINGTON, May H.-The United
states supreme court today decided the
hentucky governorship case in favor Of
GOV. Beckham, dismssing 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 delivered by Justice Harlan.
Justices Brewer, Brown and McKenna
also dissented from portions of the
opinion.
The opinion was handed down by Chief
Justice Fuller, and the case was dismissed
for want of Jurisdiction. He said the
court should be the last to overstep the
bounds limiting its own Jurisdiction, and
that the determination of cases of this
character, contests for state offices. must
necessarily be settled by the political
branch Of the government. That branch
mad acted in the Kentucky cases when
the general assembly took Jurisdiction.
There was no appeal from the assembly's
decision, which was favorable to GoebeI
and Beckham, except to the tribunal of
the people, which tribunal, the chief JUS
dce said, was always in session. He also
said the case was purely a state case
that Kentucky was in full possession of
Its faculties as member of the Union,
and that there was no emergency at this
time calling for interference.
The opinion in the Kentucky case was
not unanimous, some of the justices dis
senting.
Justices. Brewer, Harlan, Brown and
McKenna were the dissenting justices
THE OPINION.
After reviewing the facts in the case,
Chief Justice Fuller said:
1T is obviously essential to the inde-
pendence of the states and to their people
ana their tranquility and to their power
to preserve the qualifications of their own
oHcerS, the tenure of their offices, the
manner of their election and the grounds
on which the tribunals before which and
the mode in which such elections may be
contested should be exclusive and free
from external interference, except so far
as plainly provided by the constitution of
the United States, and when there are
controversies over the election of state
officers which have reached the state
courts In the manner provided and have
Deen determined in accordance with state
constitutions and laws, the cases must
necessarily be rare in which the inter-
terence OF this court can be properly in
VOked."
AAAC SLIC1 Justice InSn reviewed the
cases of Boyd versus Thayer Wilson
versus North Carolina, Kennard versus
Louisiana, and Foster versus Kansas, and
continued:
The grounds on which our jurisdiction
Is sought to be maintained in the present
case are set forth IN the errors assigned
to the effect in substance:
"FlrSt-That the action Of the general
assembly in the matter of these contests
depTfVes plaintiffs in error Of their offices
without due process of law.
Second-That the action of the general
assembly depriVes the people of Ken
lucky of the right to choose their own
representatives secured by the guarantee
S,o 9t the federal constitution from repub-
hcan form of government to every state
and depr1Ves them Of their political lib
erty without due process of law.
For more than 100 years the constitu-
ton OF kentucky has provided that con-
tested elections for governor and lieuten-
ant governor shall be determined by the
general assembly. In 1898, by a commit
tee to be selected from both houses of
the general assembly and framed and
regulated in such manner as shall be di-
rected by law since 1850 by both houses
OF the general assembly, according to
such regulations as may be established
by law
The highest court Of the state has
often held and in the present has again
declared that under their constitutional
provisions, the power of the general as
sembly to determine the result is ex-
elusive and that its decision is not open
to judicial review. authorities quoted
here)
The statute enacted for the purpose
OF carrying the provisions into effect has
been in existence in substance since 1893
and many of the states have similar con,
sututional provisions and similar statutes
I'VE do not understand this statute to
be objected as in any manner obnoxions
to constitutional enactment but that
plaintiff in error complains Of the action
of the general assembly under the statute
under the judgment of the state courts
declining to disturb that action
DISSENTING VIEWS.