Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-21
IN BECKHAM'S FAVOR
Kentucky Case Decided by the su-
preme Court.
WANT OF JURISDICTION URGED
Opinion Handed Down by the
Chief Justice.
FOUR ASSOCIATES DISSENT

day decided by the United States supreme
Court in the interest of Beckham (dem.),
affirming the decision of the Kentucky court
of appeals. The opinion was handed down
by Chief Justice Fuller. and the case was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The
opinion in the case was not unanimous.
Justices Brewer. Harlan, Brown and NC
Kenna were dissenting justices.
Chief Justice Fuller said that the court
should be the last to overstep the bouhos
limiting its own jurisdiction, and tnat the
determination of cases of this character
contests for state Office, must necessarily
be settled by the political branch OF 'he
government. That branch had acted III 'he
Kentucky case when the general assemoiy
took Jurisdiction. There was no appear
from the assembly's desicion. when was
favorable to Goebel and Beckham, except 10
the tribunal of the people. Whlch tfipulai'
the chief justice said. was always IN Sc
sion He also said the case was pute's a
state case-that Kentucky was III tne i'.
nossession of it's faculties as Heihpei Va
the Union and that there was no e'iiei
geucy at this time calling for interference.
Independence OF States.
After reviewing the facts in the case
Chief Justice Fuller said: 1T Is obviously
essential to the independence of the states
their power to prescribe the qualifications
of their own officers, the tenure of their
offices. the manner of their election anu
the grounds on which the tribunals oe-
fore which and the mode in when such
elections may be contested Shoulu ne eA
elusive and free from external interiei G .i,
EXCEPT so far as plainly provided by the
Constitution of the United states, anu
where controversies over the eiec'ion oi
state officers have reached the state coui ts
in the manner provided ana nave oeei.
termined in accordance with state constr
tutions and laws the cases must heces.
sariIy be rare in which the interference OF
this court can be properly invoked;
The chief Justice then reviewed the cases
Of Bovd VS. Thayer Wilson VS.. North Car
olina kinnard VS.. Louisiana and roster
VS. Kansas. and continued: lhe Srouhas
on which our jurisdiction is sought 10 De
maintained in the present case are sci
forth in the errors assigned to the erect
in substance:
Il. That the action of the general as
sembly In the matter of these contests de-
prives plaintiff in error of their offices
without due process of law.
-. That the action of the general as
sembly deprives the people OF hentucNF
of the right to choose their own represen-
tatives secured by the guarantee OF the
federal Constitution of a republican form
of government to every state and deprlEes
them of their political liberty without due
process of law.
General Assembly's Powers.
For more than one hundred years the
constitution of Kentucky has provided that
contested elections for governor ana lieu
tenant governor shall be determined by the
general assembly. In 1899 by committee
to be selected from both houses or the
general assembly and framed and regulated
in such manner shall be directed by
law since 1850 by both houses of the gen
eral assembly according to SUCH regula-
tions as may be established by law
THE highest court Of the state has often
held and in the present case has again de-
clared, that under their constitutional pro
visions the power of the general assembly
to determine the result is exclusive, and
that its decision is not open to 1udlclai re-
view (AuthoritieS quoted here)
.''The statute enacted for the purpose OF
carving the provision Of the constitution
into effect has been in existence in sub
stance since 1899 and many Of the states
have similar constitutional provisions ana
similar statutes.
I'VE do not understand this statute to be
objected to as In any manner obnoxious to
constitutional objection but that plaintiff
in error complain of the action OF the gen
eral assembly under the statute under the
Judgment of the state courts declining to
dist urb that action.
Dissenting Opinions Read.
After the chief justice had concluded,
Justices McKenna, Brewer and Harlan
read opinions dissenting from the opinion
of the court Justice Harlan entirely and
the others certain points. Justice Har-
Ian in his dissent quoted various authori-
ties and then said:
notwithstanding these adjudications.
the decision today Is that this court has
no jurisdiction to inquire whether the citi-
zen has been deprived, without due pro-
cess of law, Of an office held by him un-
der the constitution and laws of his state.
If the contest between the holding the
Office and the person seeking to hold 1t is
determinabie by the legislature In pre-
scribed mode, this court. 1t appears, can
not inquire whether that mode was pur-
sued, and cannot interfere for the pro-
lection of the incumbent, even If the final
action of the legislature was confeSSedly
capricious and arbitrary inconsistent with
the recognized principles that belong to
due process of law and not based in any
degree on the evidence taken in the con-
test
IF the Kentucky legislature had wholly
disregarded the mode prescribed by the
statutes of that state, and without appoint
ing board of contest composed of its own
members had. by joint resolution simply de-
clared Goebel to be governor, and especial
ly If such action should be held by the
highest court of the state to be conclusive,
this court, as are informed by the de-
cision just rendered, would be without
jurisdiction to protect the incumbent for
the reason. as is now adjudged. that the
office in dispute Is not properly within the
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
so that while we may inquire whether
the citizens land his mules have been
taken from him by the legislative, execu-
tive or judicial authorities of his state
without due process Of law, We may not
inquire whether the legislative. executive
or judicial authorities of a state have.
without due process of law, ousted
lawfully elected and holding the Office of
governor for a fixed term, with a salary
which cannot be diminished for such term,
and put into his place one whom the peo-
pie have said should not exercise the au-
thority appertaining to that high position.
When the Fourteenth Amendment forbade
any state from depriving any person of
life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law, 1 had supposed that the pur-
pose was to guard citizens against being
deprived of any legal right in violation of
the fundamental guarantees that inhere in
due process of law.
No Redress for the Citizen.
But 1t seems that under our system of
government the right of the citizen to ex-
ercse state office to which he has been
lawfully elected by the people may. so far
as the Constitution of the United States is
concerned, be taken from him by the ar
bitrary action of a state legislature in utter
Continued on Second Paga)