The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-05-22
BECKHAN WINS
G0YERNORSHIP
Writ of Error in Kentucky Contest
Dismissed BY Supreme Court for
Want of Jurisdiction.

WASHINGTON, May 21.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day decided the
kentucky Governorship case in favor OF
Democratic Governor Beckham in both
the quo warranto and the equity proceed
ings for want of jurisdiction. The court
dismissed the writ of error from the
kentucky Court of Appeals
The opinion was handed down by Chet
Justice Fuller, and a vigorous dissenting
opinion was delivered by Justice Harlan.
the only one to advocate reversal of the
Kentucky court decision Justices
Brewer, Brown and Mckenna also dis
sented 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 limiting its
own jurisdiction, and that in the deter
mination OF cases of this character, con-
tests for State offices must necessarily
be settled by the political branch of the
government. That branch had acted in
the Kentucky case when the General AS
cra.l took Jurisdiction. There was
no appeal from the Assembly decis-
ion, which was favorable to Goebel and
Beckhan, except to the tribunal of the
people, which tribunal, the Chief Justice
said, was always in session.
PURELY A STATE CASE.
He also said the case was purely
State case; that Kentucky was in the fui!
possession of its faculties as a member
of the Union, and that there was no
emergency at this time calling for inter
ference of the general government to en-
force constitutional guarantees or TO put
down domestic violence.
For more than one hundred years the
Constitution of Kentucky has provided
that contested elections for Governor and
Lieutenant-Governor shall be determined
by the General Assembly.
The highest court Of the State has Of
ten held and in the present cases mas
again declared that under their constitu-
t:onal privileges the power of the Cen
eral Assembly is exclusive, and that its de-
cision is not open to judicial review. Many
of the States have similar constitutional
provisions and similar statutes.
I'VE do not understand this statute to De
objected to, or in any way obnoxious.
The Chief Justice quotes numerous de-
cisions that public offices are merely agen-
cies or trusts, and not property as such,
nor are the salary or emoluments proper
~. but compensation for services actually
rendered.
.In short" he said, 'the nature of the
relation of d public office to the public
is, generally speaking, inconsistent with
either property or contract risht
1.-The Court of Appeals not only held
that the office of Governor or Leuter-
ant-Governor was not property under the
Constitution, but. moreover, that court
was of opinion that the contested cleo
tions did not prove plaintiffs prior or
existing right. Our systemS of cleo
tons was unknown to the common law.
and the whole subject is regulated by
legislation in the statutes passed there
under.
..It 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 ultimate
determination of the right To these offices,
denied no right secured by the fourteenth
amendment
After quoting section four, article four.
of the Constitution, in which the United
States guarantees to every State a reDub-
lican form of government, etc, the court
saws it was long since settled that the
enforcement of this guarantee belonged
to the political department.
1--WE must decline to take jurisdiction
on the ground of deprivation Of rights
embraced. by the fourteenth amendment,
WITHOUT due process OF law, or#;of the
uiolation of the guarantee of Republican
form of government, by reason OF similar
deprivation.
----I