New-York tribune., 1900-05-22

and announced that the writ OF error is oiS-
missed.
A similar order entered in the injunction
case between the same parties
THE DISSENTING OPINIONS.
There were three dissenting opinions. but in
only Of them was the opinion expressed
that the decision of the Kentucky Court of APP
peals should be reversed. This was delivered
by Justice Harlan. Justice McKenna was the
first Of the dissenters to be heard He said
that, while he concurred In the result. he was
not prepared to say that public office was not
property.
Justice Brewer also expressed views antago-
nistc to those of the Court on the point OF office
property. He also held the view that the
United States courts were not without jurisdic-
tion but contended that the decision Of the
Kentucky Court should be affirmed instead OF
dsmissing the writ of He said the pre-
scribed procedure was followed In awarding the
offices to the contestants The first decision or
the General Assembly. he said, was made at
secret session outside It's ordinary place OF meet
ing, but subsequently this action was ratified
and confirmed when the General Assembly was
in the discharge Of its ordinary duties. He con-
tinued:
do not ignore the many allegations of wrong,
such as that the selection of the committee was
not by lot prescribed by the laws but was
cm II ms un 'be m pconced that the outcome Of that
drawing lends support TO this allegation; Curious
those results happen 50 largely along the lines of
posed chance it is not strange that outsiders are
apt TO feel that purpose, and not chance. deter
mined the result.
Justice Brewer said that question can be
raised in the courts as to honesty or integrity
of the members of the Legislature in the dis
charge of their duties.
lacking in the conduct of any one of them Is
mater to be Inquired into W m his m fb
judiciary to challenge or question the integrity OF
his action.
He agreed with the Court of Appeals of Ken
lucky that the award of the Assembly no
other Judgment can be entered than that which
sustans ii.
JUSTICE HARLANS VIEWS.
Justice Harlan in his dissent quoted various
authorities, and then said
Notwithstanding these adjudcations, the decision
to-day is that this Court has no jurisdiction 10 h m
quire whether the citizen has been deprived with, I'm
under the Constitution and laws of his state II
the tn the 9 one d aby by
the Legislature in prescribed mode this court; s
nufnsd and cannot interfere for the protection
the incumbent even i the final action of the
inconsistent with the recognized principles that De,
degree on the evidence taken in the contest,
II the Kentucky Legislature had wnolly 9iSre
State, and without appointing Board Of Contest
of its 10 had ps e ad
especially if such action had been held by the high
as s' we se"a 0t BY the Just
would be without jurisdiction to protect the in in
cumbent, for the reason, as Is now adjudged, that
the ONCE in dispute is not pTope1ty within hi hd. the
While we may inquire whether the citizens land or
his mules have been taken from him by the the iegis
without due process of law. We may not inquire
gi due OuSted
lawfully elected and holding the office of Governor
diminished during such term and put into his place
one whom the people have said should not not exer- t
tioa @ tn" WHEN the Foarteenth Amendment forbade
or property Without due process of law. had sup
posed that the purpose was to guard citizens i;aa
ton OF the fundamental guarantees that lnhere IN
But it seems that, under our system of govern
ment the right of citizen to exercise S state are
people may so the Constitution of the United
dson is e S taken % nm in d
regard of the principle that Anglo-saxon freemen
requirement of due process of law. / cannot assent
ment
KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE DENOUNCED.
He then maintained that the Court recently,
in Wilson against North Carolina (Which was
a contest about local office, had taken con-
trary view. and, continuing, said:
It is to be regretted that case like this should
be the occasion of departure from principles here
a0kng no Se Of h 9 such
action TO have been taken discreditable to
the body claiming TO be the Legislature of Ken
lucky and which assumed to be acting in accord
with law 1t openly and defantly tramped
upon the will of the people expressed at the ballot
box. 1t struck the very foundation of liberty
regulated by law l find also that the declaration
of the body of gentlemen claiming to be the Ken
lucky Legislature purely arbitrary, because
made without looking at all into the evidence.
1t is not a pleasant thing to say, but feel
constrained from sense of duty to say that the
action OF that body such that it ought not
o be respected in any court s judgment upon
the question involving important rights submitted
decision, but action taken wholly out
side of all and in contempt constitutional
rights freemen select their rulers. The record
justifies the belief that that body was wholly in
different to the nature of the evidence and that
there fixed purpose on its part TO put Goebel
into office and oust Taylor regardless of the proof
in the case. If any regard whatever had been paid
to the evidence, no conclusion favorable to Goebel
could have been reached on any ground upon which
the Board of Contest the body calling itself the
Legislature had jurisdiction to determine the con-
tests
He announced that in his opinion the judg
ment should be reversed and said that later he
would file more elaborate written opinion.
SOCIETY ELECTIONS STOPPED