The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1900-05-26

laws. the cases must necessarily be rare
in which the interference Of this court
can be properly invoked.
The chief justice then reviewed the
cases of Boyd VS.. Thayer, Wilson vs..
North Carolina, Kerrard vs.. Louisiana,
and Foster VS.. Kansas, and continued:
The grounds on which our Jurisdic-
tion Is SoGght to be maintained in this
present case are set forth in the errors
THAT the action of the general as
eembly in the matter of these contests
deprives plaintiff in error of their offices
without due process of aw.
2-That the action of the general as
sembly deprives the people of Kentucky
OF the right to choose their own repre-
the federal constitution Of a republican
form Of government to every state. and
| deprives them of their political liberty
without due process of law.
| For more than one hundre years the
constitution of Kentucky has provided
that contested elections for governor and
ifeutenant-soyernor shall be determined
by the general assembly: In 1879. by a
committee to be selected from both houses
Of the general assembly and framed and
regulated in such manner as shall be d.
rected by law: since 1850, by both houses
| Of the general assembly according to such
regulations as may be established by
law.
The statute enacted for the purpose of
often held. and in the present case has
again declared. that under their consti-
tutional provisions the power of the gen.
eral assembly to determine the result Is
exclusive, and that its decision is not open
herel.
1.-The statute enacted for the purpose of
carrying the provision of the conStitu-
ton into effect has been in existence in
substance since 1893, and many of the
states have similar constitutional provi-
sions and similar statutes.
The Dissenting Justices.
"After the chief justice had con-
cluded Justices McKenna, Brewer ami
Harlan read opinions dissenting from
the opinion of the court, Justice Har-
Ian entirely, and the others on certain
points. Justice Harlan in his dissent
quoted various authorities and then
said:
the decision to-day is that this court has
no jurisdiction to inquire whether the cit
izen has been deprived, without due pro-
cess of law, of an office held by him I'M
der the constitution and laws of this
state. If the contest between the one
holding the Office and the person seeking
TO hold it Is determinable by the Iegisla-
ture, in a prescribed mode, this court, II
appears, can not inquire whether that
mode was pursued, and can not interfere
for the protection of the even
IL JIG ND dCtioh il ne lcSiSidluic "do
confessedly capricious and arbitrary in
consistent with the recognized 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 disre2arded the
mode prescribed by the statutes of that
state and without appointing Il board of
contest ompoSe OF its own members,
had by joint resolution simply declared
GOebel to be governor, and especially II
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 jurisdic-
tiOn, to protect the incumbent. for the
reason, dS is now adjudged, that the Of
flee in dispute is not property within tho
meaning of the fourteenth amendment
so thai while We may inquire whether
the citizens land. or his mules lave been
taken from him by the legislative, eXeCu-
tive or J%u'iicial authorities OF his stats
without due process of law, We may not
inquire whether the legislature or judi
cial authorizes of a state have, without
elected and holding the office of governor
for 4 fixed term, with a salary which
can not be diminished during such term, |
and put into his place one whom the peo-
pie nave said should not exercise the au- |
thorlty ~appertaining to that high posi- |
ton. When the fourteenth amendment
forbade any state from depriving any per- |
son of life, liberty or property without
due process of law, l had supposed that
the purpose was to guard citizens against
being deprived Of any legal right in vio-
lation of the fundamental guarantees that
inhere in due process of law"