The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1900-05-28
BECKHAM'S TITLE
IS BEYOND DISPUTE
The United States Supreme
Court Decides the Ken
lucky Case
TAYLOR MUST GET, OUT
The Laws of Kentucky, the Opinion
Asserts, Cover the Case Fully
and Only the Legislature
Has Full Power in
Such Cases.

treY-v rrve-no-shfp case in favor Of
Democratic Governor Beckham IN both
the quo warranto and the equity pro-
ceilings For want OF jurisdiction the
court dismissed The writ os error from
the Kentucky court OF appeals. The
opsnIau WIS handed down by CHIEF Justice
Fuller AMI i vigorous dissenting opinion
was dalIvs-ed By Justice Harlan. the only
one 70 advocate reversal OF the Kentucky
courts decision. Justices Brewer. Brown
and sTckeunl also dlssented from pOr-
tons or the opinion
81 dismiss rs, the writ OK error the chief
fus lee said the court should be the last
10 overstsD the bounds limiting its own
1u-z .-.e-8u and that IN the determination
o. eases of TINS character. contests fO-
state ,,flIces mus necessarily be settled
bv -he political branch OF the govern
meat TuaI branch had acted il the
KENTUCKY ease when the general assem-
b. SOCK Jurisdiction There WAS no APP
peal lruzl -he asscIuDly's decision. which
vas favorable TO Goebel and Beckhan.
except - -he tribunal OF the people.
which tribunal. me chief justice said.
w. L says IA session Hc also said the
cas- was purely q sss--c case-Shslt Ken
lucky AIS IA the fu.l possession OF Its
faculties as 4 member OF tho union and
INA there WAS TO emergency at this time
caas.E- Tor Interference OF the general
government 10 enforce constitutional
ssll.Al.s-s OF - put down domestic VIZ
lrlct.
"a ~ u.1rc .han 100 years the cOnstitu-
tiul ~ EAvEtuczy has provided that con-
I1-arsl s--l1-4yll- l1g ss5N cI nor and Ieulvn-
s-lg Esse.-luI sll-a4. uv OctetIii4lieti % the
AtI...al .s---lsIA -. --silG tuN Cl.-L tustl- -
Ass uI54esJ e"art VL The state mas often
Les1 aLu ID t.-l prC-el4I Csc has asaiu
glcl-E--l t.I.st 4auer IueiE constitutional
y SIS uus Ile power u tne general as
zsll4-E 20 l-GCrli-lI-c the Result - cAc.u-
alXe. auu taaL its uy-lBOn - nct open 10
Iu4.-.4l ress. - llaI-y UI the states nave
s4sf4.-.r t1l.zlllltlllltl IEoN4s.t H. and siin-
H. --atlte-. Mu Lu NOT uutiCls tau1 TINS
Is-. OBNOXIOUS tv CLllsLlt4tl1ll1l OBJECTION.
La- tls4l p-sl-s4t.lt iu error lll.lsirs VI the
action ~ tic s-ai a. aeliir4y under the
statute ULuer tu- Judgment OF the state
Su--ss 1tc--.4lls 90 disturb that action
Office Is Not Property.
The chief Justice quoted numerous de-
els rs holding sn.-g public offices are mere
aesl-.ss OF trusts aEd NOT property. as
su~4. Ggr are the salary G.id emJ4uusnts
Ir0. i1sSy secured by ocltta,t. oGt COM
I-vE.=-lgi..l Tor services actually rendered.
-. -nJrg. H. sats. "1ue nature II Tie
sls-l4--s7 inconsistent with either a prop
erty ~ j contract -i=hL
The court ~ appeals not only held the
cfisee II governor or OF iieutenant
thr constitution u Kentucky. but.
ul4rsHEc-. tl.It court was - the
opinion that ia. decision az these con-
tt-rel elections ott not deprive plaintiffs
~ slr1E az any ure-exis.inEg right. our
system e.. elr1tivls nAs unknown TO the
common law. AID -lc whole subject Is
Pas hereunder IL Is clear that the
11l--us * the court OF aupca-s IN q =
C.iu-.S o. so behind thu tribunal vested
y ts.- sale constitution Eui laws with
the ult Innate determination ~ the right 10
the Officers. denied no ri-ht secured by
tn lulrtt eEth amendment
After quoting section Z. article Il OF the
Cnls-stuts1u. .u which the United States
Euar4.sees 10 every state . republican
form - = verEmeur. etc. the cour. says
Il mas 4au- since setti-d that rights of
tE-= guarantee belonged 70 the political
der .r-ssl.r- j. adds.
'Ne must decline 20 take jurisdiction
a r.a Era.Gd ot dep-ivatilns OF rights
em ee- ag tee ls-h amendment. witnlCt
au- process ~ law. or uf the violation ~
III s-aa-.sa-ee ~ representative form OF
s-sTe-l.zs-z. sr reason u similar deqrlval-
t-u-- Hl@ sr-- ~ error Is dism.ssed.'
Same Order N Injunction Case.
= similar order was entered In the in-
turct-ll case between the same parties
Tls-- ue-e -Lre- dissenting opinions
Jus AIekeuu1 was the first OF the dis
selts-- 20 20 beard lie stated that while
Ia CONQUERED 90 he result. he was not
preTarei sr say that a public Office was
81 g-r-.rtr-
Jl-.le- Brewer also based his dissent on
the Er- 10 Office as property He also
he.s. ce view -llt the Gustc1 States
cou-ts rere ust without jurisdiction. but
cont t-sI t-a- rae decision = the Ken
tucA- eea-t sleu.d be affirmed instead OF
clsl=-.a- -ie writ of error He says the
PR r.H-t r-as.tllrr was followed IN
aWa---a-s taa .lutes-auts the offices and
tn BE s.d a.t ignore the many a.lcga-
uuGs " wrong. such as that the selection
Of -Ee comm. -ee was not by lot. 5ut was
a trick on tae part ~ the clerk Of the as
seu1a.E- To- raE-lUsiln Justice Brewer
aBEe= with tle cuur- of appeals Of Ken
tuclF tlL- upon iLe award OF the as
seml4y 40 other Judgment can be entered
thai ;--a- which slsJains IL
Justice Harlan. ia mis- dissenting opin-
Ion. 441--s Various authorities and say
that lutHltl-t. lliuC them the decision
tuca} Is l--t this court mas M Iurisdic-
tion i1 inquire whether the citizen has
been e spr4s--.. without due process OF law.
- al u-ilce -e-l o. h-m under the cOnsJi-
tulioa and laws ~ Els state II the CON
test between tle one holding the Oiiice
anu ti.s' person --Eius 10 hold IL - de-
teTmil-a.- 10 ths legislature. in a pre-
SCRIBE mode tLis c0Irt. il appears. can
not INQUIRE whether that mo,se was pur-
S1eA .-l-4 cannot interfere fer the prOtec-
ton u ts2l Incumbent. even II the nnGl
action ~ tu- legislature was confessed
- e~sEaeia-s s-l-l arbitrary. Inconsistent
with the recognized principals that be
IuiiE q 1A= process uf law and nOI based.
III al4S ar7tre. upon the evidence taken
IN tie contest
Ii the kentucky legislature had wholly
0Asiez.-E-sd liie mode prescribed Dy the
statutes OF tlat state and without ap-
Bo-AtAi-s q up--r1 II contest composed "
- eWA members. had - Joint resolution
-.nipiS declared Guepel 10 he governor,
anu ess-clalls lI slCn action had been
head - u-- highest court " the STATE
10 1e c1t4el-s4te. luIs court. As We arc
fII0I fne4 - tle decision Just rendered,
Nolid o. Without Jurisdiction To protect
TIE lstc lilt'cnl. Tor tne reason ~ a. now
adJu4seG- that the uiiice ia dispute l. not
properly within tine meaning oE the -FOUR
teentn amendment But IL seems that
Under our system Uf government the risnt
OF citizen - exercise u state Office TO
which he has been officially elected b.
the people may 50 Tar as the constitution
OF the United states is concerned. De
taken from aim uy the arbitrary action
of a STATE legislature in utter disregard
uf the principle that Aug.o-Saxon free
men have Tor centuries deemed 10 be es-
seutlaG 10 the requirement. OF due process
of law u cannot assent 10 this inter
probation Of tine fourteenth amendment"