The semi-weekly messenger., 1900-05-25
TAYLOR LOSES HIS CASE
G0vERN0RSHIP CONTEST DECIDED
AGAINST HIM.
DECIDED
THE WRITS OF ERROR DISMISSED
Bysthe Federal Supreme Court-Chief
Justice Fuller Deliverina the Opin-
ion-Fourteenth Amendment L. Not
Involved-An ONCE Not Property.
Justice Harlan Dissenrs From the
Judgement, Justices Brewer and Nc
Kenna Form some OF the Reasoning.

Washington, May 21-The United
States supreme court today decided
the Kentucky governorship case in
favor of Democratic Governor Beck
ham, In both the quo warranto and
the equity proceedings. for want OF
jurisdiction, the court dismissed the
writ Of error from the Kentucky court
of appeals. The opinion was handed
odwn by Chief Justice Fuller, and a
vigorous dissenting opinion was deliv-
cred by Justice Harlan, the only one
TO advocate reversal OF the Kentucky
court decision Justices Brewer,
Brown and McKenna, also dissented
from portions of the opinion.
In dismissing the writ of error the
chief justice said the court should be
the last to overstep the bounds limit
ing its own Jurisdiction and that in the
determination of cases of this charac-
ter. contests for state office must nee
essarily be settled by the political
branch of the government That
branch had acted in Kentucky when
the general assembly took Jurisdiction.
There was no appeal from the assem-
bly's decision, which was favorable to
Goebel and Beckham, except to the
tribunal of the people, which tribunal.
the chief justice said. was always in
session. He said also the case was
purely a state caSe-that Kentucky
was in the full possession of it's facul-
ties as member Of the union, and
that there was no emergency at this
time, calling for interference of the
general government to enforce consti-
tutional guarantees or to put down do
meStic violence. He said:
For more than one hundred years
the constitution of Kentucky has pro-
vided that contested elections for gov
ernor and lieutenant governor shall
be determined by the general assembly.
The highest court of the state has
often held and in the present case has
again declared that under their consti-
tutional provisions the power of the
general assembly to determine the re-
suit is exclusive and that its decision
is not open to judicial review. Many
of the states have similar conStitu-
tional provisions and similar statutes.
We do not understand this statute to
be objected to as in any manner OBJ
noxiouS to constitutional objection, but
that the plaintiff in error complains Of
the action of the general assembly un-
der the statute and under the judg-
ment of the state courts declining to
disturb that action"
PUBLIC OFFICE NOT PROPERTY
The chief Justice quoted numerous
decisions holding that public offices
are mere agencies or trusts and not
property as such, nor are the salaries
and emoluments property, secured by
contract, but compensation for services
actually rendered. I'm short" he said.
''the nature of the relation of public
officer to the public is generally speak
ing inconsistent with either a property
| or a contract right. The court of ap-
| peals not only held that the office of
governor or of lieutenant governor was
| not property under the constitution OF
| Kentucky, but, moreover, that court
was Of the opinion that the decision
| of these contested elections did not de-
prive plaintiffs in error of any pre-
| existing right. Our system of cleo
| tions was unknown to the common
law and the whole subject is regulated
| by constitution and statutes passed
| hereunder.
cit is clear that the judgment of the
| court of appeals in declining to go be-
| hind the tribunal vested by the state
constitution and laws with the ulti-
mate determination of the right tc
| these offices, denied no right secured
! by the fourteenth amendment.
1--WE must decline to take jurisdiction
on the ground of deprivation Of right:
embraced by the fourteenth amend
ment, without due process Of law OF
of the violation of the guarantee o.
republican form of government by rea
son of similar deprivation The writ o
error is dismissed"
A similar order was entered in tn
81 injunction case between the same par
ties.
! THE DISSENTING OPINIONS.
s There were three dissenting opinions
Justice McKenna was the first OF tn
! dissenters to be heard. He stated tina
while he concurred in the result, h
was not prepared to say that a publ
office was not property.
Justice Brewer also based his dissen
on the point of office as property. III
also held the view that the Unite'
{ States courts were not without juris
diction, but contended that the decisio
d. of the Kentucky courts should be al
: firmed instead of dismissing the wrl
of error. He says the prescribed pro
: cedure was followed in awarding tn
contestants the offices and that he
> not ignore the many allegations 9
i wrong, such as that the selection @
the committee was not by lot but wa
: a trick on the part of the clerk of tn
assembly.
. Justice Brewer said no question coul
y be raised in the courts as to honesty
or integrity Of the members Of the leg
stature in the discharge Of their dutie:
That lies between them and their con
sittuents.
Il In conclusion Justice Brewer agree
with the court of appeals of Kentuck
& that upon the award of the assembl
rl no other judgment can be entered thai
that which sustains ii.
i Justice Harlan in his dissenting opin
ion, quotes various authorities an'
j says that Notwithstanding them Tn
decision today is that this court ma
not Jurisdiction to inquire whether IN
citizen has been deprived, without ou'
process of law, Of an ONCE heio y,
him under the constitution and law
of his state He says:
IF the contest between the one mold
ing the office and the person seekins
to hold it is determinable by the leg
islature, in a prescribed mode, tni
court. it appears cannot inquir'
whether that mode was pursued, ant
1 1orraf irfarfara for the protection q