The age-herald., 1900-05-22
........----,

the eye of the constitution, the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the State are peacefully operating by the or derly and settled methods prescribed by its fundamental law, notwithstanding there may be difficulties and disturbances arising from the pendency and determina- ton of these contests This very case shows that this is so, for the parties who assert that they are aggrieved by the ac- tion of the general assembly properly sought the only appropriate remedy which under the law was within their reach.
 That is provided in effect, even though their grounds of complaint may have been in fact well founded, was the result of the constitution and laws under which they lived and by which they were bound. Any remedy besides that is to be found in the august tribunal of the people which is con tinually sitting and over whose judgment on the conduct of public functionaries the courts exercise no control
 We must decline to take Jurisdiction on the ground of deprivations of right em- braced by the fourteenth amendment with out due process of law, of the violation of the guarantee of republican form of government by reason of similar depriva- tion.'
 Chief Justice Fuller then quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Fancy, in Luther vs. Borden, that it was the courts duty not to pass beyond its appropriate sphere
 
 itself in discussion which properly be- longed to other forums, and an- nounced that the writ of error is dis missed
 After the chief justice had concluded Justices KeKenna, Brewer and Harlan read opinions dissenting from the opinion of the court, Justice Harlan entirely, and the others on certain points. Justice Har- Ian, in his dissent, quoted various authori- ties and said:
 Notwithstanding these adjudications, the decision today is that this court has no jurisdiction to inquire whether the citi- zen has been deprived without due process of law of an office held by him under the constitution and laws of his state. If the contest between the one holding the office and the person seeking to hold it is de- terminabe by the legislature in pre- scribed mode this court, it appears, can not inquire whether the mode was pursued and cannot interfere for the protection of the incumbent even if the final action of the legislature was confessedly caprlclous and arbitrary inconsistent With the reco2- nized principles that belong to due process of law and not based in any degree on the evidence taken in the contest.
 "If the Kentucky legislature had wholly dsregarded the mode prescribed by the statutes of that state, and without appoint ing board of contest composed Of its own members, had adopted a joint resolution
  especially if such action had been held by the highest court of the state to be con- elusive, this court as we are informed by the decision just rendered would be with out Jurisdiction to protect the incumbent for the reason as is now adjudged that the office in dispute is not property within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.
 ''So that while we may inquire whether the citizens land or mules have been taken from him by the legslat tive, executive or cia al anf iaS of ic stat xuifh dtIa process of law, we may not inquire whether the legislature or judicial authorities of a state have, without due process of law, busted one lawfully elected and holding the office of governor for fixed term with salary, which can not be diminished during such term, and put into his place one whom the people have said should not exercise the authority appertaining to that high posi- ton.
 When the fourteenth amendment forbade any state from depriving any person of life, liberty property without due pro- cess of law, had supposed that the pur- post was to guard citizens against being deprived of any legal right in violation of the fundamental guarantees that exist in the due process of law"
 But it seems that under our system of government the right of citizen to exer- else state office said to be officially elect ed by the people may, as far as the consti- tuition of the United States is concerned, pc taken from him by the arbitrary action of state legislature in utter disregard of the principle that Anglo-Saxon freemen have for centuries deemed to be essential to the requirements of due process of law. cannot assent to this interpretation of the i fourteenth amendment
 He then maintained that the court re- gently Gin Wilson vs North Carolina which | was constable office), had taken con | trary view, and, continuing, said:
 Tt is to be regretted that a case like this | should be the occasion of a departure from I the principles heretofore announced and | acted upon by this court. Looking into the | record of this case, I find such action to ] have been taken as was discreditable to the l body claiming to be the legislature of Ken |; lucky, and which assumed to be acting in accordance with law. It openly and defi-