The Grit-advocate., 1900-05-25

Washington, May 21.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day decided
the Kentucky governorship case in IA
vOr of Governor Beckham, dismissing
the writ of error from the Kentucky
Court of Appeals. The opinion was
handed down by Chief Justice Fuller,
and a vigorous dissenting opinion was
denyered by Justice Harlan. Justices
nrewer, Brown and McKenna also dis
sented from portions of the opinion.
After reviewing the facts in the case.
Chief Justice Fuller said: ut is obvi-
ously essential to the independence of
the states and to their peace and tran
guilty. and their power to prescribe
tile qualifications of their own officers.
the tenure of their offices, the manner
of their election and the grounds on
which the tribunals before which and
the mode in which such elections may
be contested should be excluded and
free from external interference except
so far as plainly provided by the CON
Stitution of the United States and
where controversies over the election of
state officers have reached the state
courts in the manner provided and
have been determined in accordance
with state constitutions and laws. the
cases must necessarily be rare i'll which
1he interference of this court can be
properly invoked"
The grounds on which our juris-
diction is sought to be maintained in
the present case are set forth in the er-
rors assigned to the effect in substance:
''First-That the action of the Cen
eral Assembly in the matter of these
contests deprives plaintiffs in error of
nft1rnS no
'Second-That the action of the Gen
ernl Assembly deprives the people of
Kentucky Of the right to choose their
own representatives. secured by the
guarantee of the federal constitution of
Republican form of government to
! every state. and deprives them of their
pontical liberty without due process of
law.
For more than 100 years the consti-
tuition of Kentucky has provided that
contested elections for governor and
lieutenant governor shall be determin-
ed by the General Assembly. In 1893,
by a committee to be selected from
! both houses of the General Assembly.
and framed and regulated in such il
manner as shall be directed by law
since 1850. by both houses of the Gen
eral Assembly according to such regu-
lations as may be established by law
1.-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.
1.-The statute enacted for the purpose
of carrying the provision of the consti-
tuition into effect has been in existence
in substance since 1893. and many
states have similar constitutional pro-
visions and similar statutes.
We do not understand this statute
to be objected to in any manner OBJ
noNious to constitutional objection. but
that plaintiffs in error complain of the
action of the General Assembly under
the statute under the Judgment of the
state courts declining to disturb that
action.
1T must be admitted that the view
that public office is not property has
been generally entertained in this coun-
try"
Quoting Butler VS.. The L. s. and
CrenShaw VS.. The L. s., the chief JUS
ace continued:
"The decisions are numerous to the
effect that public offices are mere
agencies or trusts and not property. as
such. nor are the salary and emolument
property. secured by contract but COM
penSation for services actually rcn-
dered. Nor does the fact that a consti-
tuition may forbid the Legislature from
| abolishing a public office or diminish
ing the salary thereof during the term
of the incumbent. change its character
| or make it property True reStric-