The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-22
BECKBAN'S Blight UPHELD
The Appeal of Taylor Dismissed by
the Supreme Court.
Decision of the Kentucky Tribunal
Allowed to Stnnd-aIr. Justice Har-
Ian Observation-Disclosures Pccl.ham,
Brewer, and FrOwn Dissent to
Portions of the Opinion Only.

The Supreme Court yesterday annoincc,
its decision in the Kentucky governorshi,
case. refusing by vote of to TO ;at,
jurisdiction. leaving the judgment of tn,
Court Of Appeals in favor OF Beckham t
stand. There was a large delegation O
Kentuckians in Washington to hear tn,
decision, and they went away well p.esseC
with the result.
The order of the court was to dismis!
the writ of error for want of jurisdict- on
In this MIR. Justice Peckham concurred
differing only from tie court on the point
| that an office was not property. MI
| Justice Brewer and Mr.. Justice b own dis
scented. holding that the court had iuris-
diction and that the judgment should be
| affirmed. Mr.. Justice Harlan dssente
totally, holding that the judgment of the
Court of Appeals in favor of B ckha n
should be reversed. Chief Justice Fuller
announced the decision of the court in a
| lengthy opinion, much OF which was de-
voted TO recital of the facts in tle CO Sc
and statement of the litigation in the
| State. The opinion said:
1t is obviously essential to the inde-
| pendence of the States, and to their peace
and tranquility. that their power to IRE
| scribe the qualifications of their own off,
ers, 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 exclusive and free from external
influence, except SO far as plainly provided
IN the Constitution of the United States
and where controversies over the election
OF State officers have reached the State
courts in a manner provided by and have
been then determined in accordance with
the State constitution and laws. the cases
must necessarily be rare in which the in
reference of this court can be invoked"
Earlier decisions of the court in cases
OF contest over State Offices were quoted,
and show that no question was expressly
considered as to whether the right to a
public Office of State was or was rot
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment
In the case of Wilson VS.. North Carolina,
when the complainant had been removed
from his office as Railroad Commissioner
by the Governor. it was decided that the
removal deprived him of no rights guar
anteed by the Constitution, and that it
was due process of law.
Grounds for the Appeal.
THE grounds on which our jurisdiction
is sought in the first case" continued the
Chief Justice, ARE to the effect in sub
stance:
Il That action OF the General Assembly
in the matter Of these contests deprived
plaintiffs in error of their offices without
due process of law.
go The action of the General Assembly
deprived the people of Kentucky OF the
right to choose their own representatives
secured by the guarantee of the Federal
Constitution Of a republican form of gov
eminent TO every State and deprived them
of their political liberty without the pro-
cess of law. For more than 100 years the
constitution of Kentucky has provided that
contested elections for Governor and Lieu
tenant 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 these
constitutional provisions the power OF the
General Assembly to determine the result
is exclusive. and that its decision is 70.
cpen to judicial review
The stntute enacted for the purpose of
carrying the provision of the constitution
into effect has been in existence in Ken
lucky since 1893. We do not understand
this statute to be objected to as in ans
hammer obnoxious to constitutional objee-
ton. but that the plaintiff complains of the
action OF the General Assembly under the
statute and of the judgment of the State
courts declining to disturb that action.
THE determination OF the boards and
of the General Assembly was that con-
testants had reiNived the highest number |
of legal votes dust for any candidate for |
said office at said election, and were duly |
and legally elected Governor and Lieuten-
ant Governor, determination which ad- |
judged their notices to be sufficient, and |
which did not include any matter not |
within the Jurisdiction of the tribunal.
The Court of Appeals adjudged that the
case did not come within the fourteenth |
amendment because the right to have the
ofhce of Governor or Lieutenant Governor
If Kentucky was not property in ITSELF
Regulated by Constitutions.
Discussing then the question of elections
md contests the Chief Justice sa.d they were
entirely regulated'by constitutions and laws
passed Hereunder. In Kentucky the right
If the candidate who held the certificate
II the board Of canvassers was provisional
Or temporary until the determination of
he result of the election, as provided in
he constitution, and upon that determina-
ion, If adverse to him. they ceased alto
sether. 1T was clear" the constitution
aid. that the judgment of the Court of
APPEALS in declining to go behind the de-
'ision of the tribunal vested by the State
constitution and laws with the ultimate
determination of the right to these offices.
enied no right secured by the fourteenth
But it had been said that the fourteenth :
amendment must be read with that sec ,
lon of the Constitution guaranteeing TO
he States republican form of govern.
nent. Enforcement Of that guarantee, {
aid Chief Justice Fuller, belongs to the ,
olitical department of government In ,
luther VS.. Borden q How. D. it was held ,
hat the question which of two opposing :
overnments In Rhode Island was the le- :
Ultimate one, was a question for the de- .
of the political department
'hen that department had decided. the
,urts were bound to take notice of the de- .
sion and follow it, and also that as the
upreme Court of Rhode Island holding
authority not in dispute had r
acided the point the well settled rule ap- Il
lied that the courts of the United States q
fopt and follow the decisions of the r
tate courts on questions which concern I
ereiy the constitution and laws of the b
ate. 4
In concluding the court adopted the a
nguage used in regard to Duncan's petit il
on. and said 1.-The Commonwealth of Ken d
ieh3 ID III iuil possession OF It's faculties e
member of the Union, and no emer- cl
'ncy has arisen requiring the interference r.
the General Government to enforce the h
iarantees of the Constitution In the eve II
the Constitution all the departments of r
e State are peacefully operating by the I,
derry and well settled methods pre- h
ribed by its fundamental law, notwith- 7,
anding there may be difficulties and dis =,
rbances arising from the pending of these H.
ntests. This very case shows that it is =,
. for the parties who assert that they ~
r1I kI.t Len. 4