The evening times., 1900-05-21
IN FAVOR OF BECKHAM
Supreme Court Decides the Ken
tueky GOvernorship Case.
The Petition of Taylor, the Republi-
can Claimant, Dismissed, Mr.. JUS
tiee Harlan Alone DiSSentIng-Jus-
tices Peckham. brewer, and Brown
Disseat From Portions of Opinion.

The Supreme Court today in an opinion.
announced by Chief Justice Fuller, decid-
ed the Kentucky Goyerno-ship case against
Taylor and Marshall the Republican
claimants, and in favor of Governor Beck
ham The court stated the questions in
volyed TO be:
l. Did the action Of the State Legislature
deprive Taylor and Marshall (Republicans)
Of their Offices without due process Of law?
.. Did it deprive the people Of Kentucky
OF their right TO choose their own officers
in violation OF the guaranty in the Consti-
tuition % give 10 each State a republican
form u government?
The facts and arguments were reviewed.
the contention OF the Democratic eontes-
tees heing that the action Of the Legisla-
ture was not subject to judicial review
The judgment Of the Kentucky State Court
Of Appeals. Justice Fuller. said. denied 70
Taylor and Marshall no right gu2ranteed
by the Fourteenth Amendment IL had long
been settled that the Federal courts had
no power to review the action OF State
courts relating TO the constitution and laws
Of those States. The State of Kentucky
was in full possession OF It's faculties and
no question had arisen TO warrant Federal
interference. The Supreme Court there
fore. 1S-,ined 20 take jurisdiction, and dis
missed the Taylor appeal
justice Peekham dissenteG from that part
II the decision which said that Office is not
properly not being ready, he said, 70 con-
sent 10 il. A decision on that point. he
said was uOt essential to the disposal OF
ne case Justice Brewer also dissented on
the point that office is not property. Il had
been so decided. and properly. by the Su-
preme Court a number OF times. he said
II the coS=t could take jurisdiction Of the
contest between Thayer and Boyd, decided
by the Supreme Co Irt Of Nebraska, Justice
Brewer said he saw no reason Why the
court could not review the judgment Of the
Court Of Appeals Of Kentucky. Therefore.
while not cOncuTring in the order Of dis
misssl. he believed the judgment Of TIE
Kentucky court should be affirmed. Jus
tice Brown cOncuEred with Justice Brewer
Justice Harlan Dissenss-
Justice Harlan, for Eany years resi-
dent Of Kentucky. dissea-ed utterly from
the judgment OF the court. holding that
the Judgment OF the Court OF Appeals Of
Kentucky shoulc be reversed
The facts were he said, that Taylor had
been legally and regularly elected Govern
CT Of Kentucky at the election. and G0etel
and Beclzharn Instituted contests. which The
Legislature approved. and which the Court
OF Appeals refused 10 disturb In court.
he said. has refused 10 consider the at o.
OF the Kentucky court. because Office vas
rot property. The question turned upon
the construction Of the Fourteenth Amend
rent. Justice Harlan said, and by this con-
nectiOn he reviewed the several Ce-is Ous
referred TO by Justice Brewer. four in the
past twenty five years. in al o; which the
court took jurisdiction on the ground that
Office was property within the meaning o.
the Fourteenth Amendment
In conclusion. Justice Harlan said:
'-Nctwithsta landing these adjudications.
the decision today is that this court has
no jurisdiction 10 enquire whether the cit
iZen has been deprived without due process
OF law OF an Office held by him under the
constitution and the laws OF the State
The contest between the one holding The
office and the person seeking 10 hold il is
determinable by the Legislature in a pre-
scribed mode. this court, IL appears, can
not enquire whether that mode was pur-
sued. and cannot interfere for the pTOJeC-
tion OF the incumbent, even If the final ac-
ticn Of the Legislature was confsssedly
capriciOus and arbitrary, inconsistent With
the recognized principles that belong 70 due
process OF law and Iot based. IN any de-
gree, on the evidence taken in the con-
test.
If the Kentucky Legislature had wholly
disregarded the mode prescribed by the
statutes OF that State and without ap-
pointing board OF contest composed OF its
own members. had by joint resolution
simply. declared GOebeI to be Governor
and especially If such action had been held
by the highest court Of the State to be
conclusive, this Court as We are informed
by the decision just rendered. would be
without Jurisdiction 10 protect the in
cumbent for the reason. as is now ad-
property within the meaning Of the Four
teenth Amendment
so that while We may enquire whether
the citizens land OF has mules have been
taken from him by the legislative, exeeU-
tive. or judicial authorities Of his State.
without due process Of law, We may not
enquire whether the legislative or judicial
authorities OF a state have. without due
process OF law. Custed one lawfully elected
and holding the Office of Governor for q
fixed term. with a salary which cannot be
diminished during such term, and put into
his place one whom the people have said
should not exercise the authority apper-
tanning to that high position.
When the Fourteenth Amendment for
bade any State from depriving any p=rson
Of life. liberty. or property without due
process OF law, I had supposed that the
purpose was 10 guard citizens against bs-
ing deprived Of any legal right in viola
tiOn of the fundamental guarantees that
inhere in due process Of Law"