The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-05-22
which did not include any matter not with


process of law and the General Assem-
bly, in administering the statute denied It;
and that the Court OF Appeals in holding
10 the rules that where n mode OF con-
testing elections is specifically provi1ed by
the Constitution or laws OF a State. that
mode is exclusive, and fin holding that as
the power to determine was vested in the
General Assembly of Kentucky the deci-
sion OF that body was not subject TO ju-
dicial revision denied right claimed un-
der the federal Constitution. The Court
OF Appeals did indeed adjudge that the
case did not come within the fourteenth
amendment because the right to hold the
Office of Governor and lieutenant governor,
being created by the State Constitution,
was confined and held solely in accordance
with the terms of that instrument and laws
passed pursuant thereto. so that in respect
or an elective officer, determination for
the result of an election in the manner
provided, adverse to a claimant, could
not be regarded as a deprivation forbidden
by that amendment. And it must be ad-
mitted that the view of that public Office
is not property has been generally enter
tained in this country"
Quoting Butler VS.. The United States,
and Crenshaw VS.. The United States, the
chief justice continued: 1.-The decisions are
numerous to the effect that public offices
are mere agencies or trusts and not prop
erty as such, nor the salary and emol-
uments property, secured by contract, but
compensation for service actually rendered.
Nor does the fact that Constitution may
forbid the Legislature from abolishing a
public Office diminishing the salary
thereof during the term Of the incumbent,
change it's character or make it property.
True the restrictions limit the power of
the Legislature to deal with the Office,
but even such restrictions may be
moved by constitutional amendment. In
short, the nature of the relation of a pub
lie officer to the public is, generally speak
ing, inconsistent with either a property
or a contract right.
NOT PROPERTY.
''The Court of Appeals not only held that
the office of Governor or Lieutenant Gov
ernor was not property under the constitu-
tion of Kentucky. but moreover, that court
was of the opinion that the decision of
these contested elections did not deprive
plaintiffs in error of any pre-existing
rights. Our system of elections was un-
known to the common law and the whole
subject is regulated by constitution and
statutes passed Hereunder. In the view of
the Court Of Appeals the mode of contest
ing elections was part Of the machinery
and hence the rights Of the officer who
held the certificate of the State Board of
Canvassers were provisional or temporary
until the determination of the result of the
election, as provided in the Constitution,
and upon that determination, If adverse to
him, they ceased altogether. In fact, the
statute provided that when the incumbent
was adjudged not to be entitled his powers
shall Immediately cease, and under the
Constitution the holder of the certificate
manifestly held office for the time being
subject to the issue of a contest If ini-
tiated.
1T Is clear that the judgment of the
Court Of Appeals in declining to go behind
the tribunal vested by the State Constitution
7ana-laws- with the ultimate determination
of the right to the office denied no right
secured by the fourteenth amendment"
After quoting Section 4, Article II, of the
Constitution in which the United States
guarantees to every State a Republican
form of government, etc, the court saws:
1T was long since settled that the enforce
ment OF this guarantee belonged to the po-
nticai department. In Luther VS.. Borden,
q Howard 1, it was held that the question
which of two opposing governments of
Rhode Island was the legitimate one. was
a question for the determination of the
political department, and when that depart
ment had decided the courts were bound
TO take the notice of that decision and fol-
low 1t and also that as the Supreme Court
of Rhode Island had decided the point, the
well settled rule applied that the courts of
the United States adopt and follow the
decisions of the State courts on questions
which concern merely the constitution and
laws of the States"
NO JURISDICTION.
After quoting with approval from the de-
eision in the Rhode Island case the cour.
says: 1.-THE Commonwealth of Kentucky is
In full possession of its faculties as mem
Der of the Union, and no exigency has
| arisen requiring the interference of the
general government to enforce the guaran.
tees of the Constitution or to repel inva.
sion. or to put down domestic violence. In
the eye of the Constitution the legislative
executive and judicial departments of the
OlalS are pSStcSIuity operating Dy the order
ly and settled methods prescribed by its
| fundamental law. notwithstanding there
may be difficulties and disturbances arisins
| from the tendency and a determination OF
these contents. This very case shows tha,
| this is so. for the parties who assert tina,
| they are aggrieved by the action OF the
General Assembly properly sought the onl,
| appropriate remedy. which. under the law
was within their reach. That this proved
| Intellectual. even though their grounds OF
| complaint may have been In fact vel
founded, was the result of the Constitution
and laws under which they lived and b,
which they were bound. Any remedy be-
! side that is to be found In the august trib
unaI of the people. which is continually sit
| ting. and over whose judgment on the con
| duct OF public functionaries the courts ex
| ercise no control. We must decline to TAX.
jurisdiction on the ground of deprivation
OF rights embraced by the fourteenth
amendment without due process of Law
or of the violation of the guarantee of re
| publican form of government by reason O.
similar deprivation
Chief Justice Fuller then again quoted
the opinion Of Chief Justice Taney IL
l Il rfh x-S hat a