The state herald., 1900-05-25


the writ of error from the Kentucky
Court of Appeals. The opinion was
handed down by Chief Justice Fuller.
and vigorous dissenting opinion was
denvered by Justice Harlan. Justices
nrewer, Brown and McKenna also dis
sented from portions of the opinion.
After reviewing the facts In the case,
Chief Justice Fuller said: at Is obvi-
ously essential to the independence of
the states and to their peace and tran
guilty. and their power to prescribe
the qualifications of their own officers,
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 he excluded and
free from external interference except
so far as plainly provided by the con-
stitution of the United States and
where controversies over the election of
state officers have reached the state
courts In the manner provided and
have been determined in accordance
with state constitutions and laws, the
cases must necessarily be rare in which
the interference of this court can be
properly invoked"
"The grounds on which our juris-
diction is sought to be maintained in
the present case are set forth in the er-
rors assigned to the effect in substance:
''First-1hat the action of the Gen.
eral Assembly in the matter of these
contests deprivcs plaintiffs in error of
their offices without due process of law.
''Second-That the action of the Gen
eral Assembly deprives the people of
Kentucky of the right to choose their
own representatives.. secured by the
guarantee of the federal constitution of
Il Republican form of government to
every state. and deprives them Of their
pontical liberty without due process of
law.
For more than 100 years the consti
tuition of Kentucky has provided that
contested elections for governor and
lieutenant governor shall be determin-
I'd by the General Assembly. In 1879,
by II committee to he selected from
both hoiises of the General Assembly,
aud framed and regulated in such Il
manner as shall be directed by law
since 1880. by both houses of the Gen
eral Assembly according to such regu-
lations rs may be established by law
THE highest court of the state has
often held. and in the present case has
again declared that under their consti-
tutional provisions, the power of the
General Assembly to determine the re-
suit Is exclusive and that its decision is
not open 10 judicial review.
The statute enacted for the purpose
of carrying the provision of the consti-
tuition into effect has been in existence
in substance since 1899. and many
states have similar constitutional pro-
visions and similar statutes.
We do not understand this statute
10 be objected 10 In any manner oh
noNious TO constitutional objection. but
that plaintiffs In error complain OF the
action OF the General Assembly under
the statute under the judgment OF the
state courts declining to disturb that
action.
at must be admitted that the view
that public office Is not property has
been generally entertained In this coun-
try"
Quoting Butler VS.. The L. s. and
Crenshaw VS.. The L. s.. the chief jus
ice continued:
''The decisions are numerous to the
effect that public offices are mere
agencies or trusts and not property. ns
such. nor are the salary and emolument
property. secured by contract but COM
pcnsation for services actually rem
dered. Nor does the fact that consti-
tuition may forbid the Legislature from
abollshing n public office or diminish
Ing the salary thereof during the term
OF the incumbent, change It's character.
or make 1t property. True. restrlc-
tions limit the power OF the Legislature
TO deal with the office. hut even such
restrictions may be removed by consti.
tutional amendment.
''ln short the nature of the relation
of n public officer 10 the public l.. gen
orally speaking. Inconsistent with eth
err property or n contract right"
There We're three dissenting opinions.
hut on only one of these was the opin-
Ion expressed that the decision Of the
Kentucky Court OF Appeals should Ice
reversed. This was delivered by Jus
tice Harlan. Justice McKenna was the
first OF the dlssenters To be heard. He
stated that. while he concurred In the
result. he was not prepared TO say that
n public office was not property.
Justice Brewer also expressed views
antagonlstic TO those of the court on
the point OF office ms property. lie also
hcld the view that the United iSates
courts Were not without Jurisdiction,
but conionded that the decision Of the
Kentucky courts should bc affirmed In.
stead Of dlsmlssing the writ OF error.
He agreed with the Court of Appeals
Of Kentucky. that upon the award OF
the assembly no other Judgment can bc
entered than that which sustnlns II.
Governor Taylor Give. Up.
Louisville. May Ex-Governor Taylor
late this afternoon issued the follow.
Ing order:
"'ro General u. Il. Collier. Frankfort,
Kentucky: The supreme Court OF the
United States having decided In favor
OF Mr.. Bcckhnm. nothing remains now
Ia bc done except To dismiss the militia
and surrender your office 10 your sue.
ccssor. appointed by Mr.. Bockbnm. You
nre therefore directed TO mt once dis
miss the militia and surrender your of.
fee to your successor ns soon ns the
nandnt. Of the supreme Court Is filed.
or sooner II you wish. Tender the mi.
li'in my kindcst regards nnd sincere
thanks for their brave. manly aud pat.
rloilc service. w. \. T'YLOR."
The decision OF the supreme Court IN
favor OF Governor Beckhnm mems that
there will bc the hottest election IN
Kentucky for governor next November
tint wns ever known In the common.
wealth. l,cckhnm ~ lieutenant gov.
crnor became the chief executive on tho
d"nih Of Governor Gocbcl February
:rd. and under the Inv cnn serve only
until III" election of his successor nj the
next election. II II thought that i,cck
hmm VIII h" the next Democratic nom.
lunl. mud lIuALluu IlIn It..i.Il.lI..... .......I