The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-05-27
SUNDAY. MAY 81. 1900.
SOME THOUGHTS SUGGESTED BY
THE KENTUCKY DECISION.

! There IS no more extreme Stickler for
States rights than The Times, but State
rights and rights for our States in he In
lion, under the Constitution of the United
States, must be distinguished. a State
not ruled by constitution like ours may
do whatever its Legislatures pleases; 1t
his sovereign 10 do whatever il chooses
But under our constitution the States OF
our Union have surrendered some Of their
powers. They have agreed, for instance,
that Congress alone shall regulate COM
E1nerce between the States. They have
agreed. and they are prohibited by it, from
Iimpairing the obligation OF contracts; they
are prohibited TO grant patents of nobii-
ity, and SO they have agreed and are pro-
Inhibited by the constitution to do a num-
Der of other things The true advocate OF
States rights under our constitution is
Just as positive, therefore, in demanding
that the States shall be held TO their
agreements in the cases in which they
have surrendered their sovereignty and
are under constitutional prohibitions as he
is in claiming for them the fullest eXer-
else of their freedom where they have not
surrendered their sovereignty
The fourteenth amendment to the Con-
stitution of the United Safes provides
that mo State shall deprive any person
OF life, liberty or property without due
process OF law" The Supreme Court OF
the United States has decided that Tor
the observance of this provision State
may act by any of its agencies, and that
ii II deprives any person of life, liberty or
property without due. process OF law,
whether acting by one OF its agencies or
by another, it violates this provision. In
ex parte Virginia, 1O0th U. S, at page SAG,
the Supreme Court says:
we have said that the prohibitions OF
the fourteenth amendment are addressed
10 the States. They have reference TO
actions of the political body denominateu
q State, by whatever instruments or in
whatever modes that action may be taken.
a State acts by its legislative, its execu-
tiye or its judicial authoritits. 1t can act
tn 10 other way. The constitutional pro-
vision, therefore, must mean that no agen-
cy OF the State, or of the officers or agents
by whom its powers are eXerted, shall de-
ny TO any person within Its Jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws. Who
ever, by virtue of public position under a
State government, deprives another OF
property. life or liberty without due pro-
cess of law, or denies or takes away the
eoual protection of the laws, violates the
constitutional inhibition; and he acts
IN the name and for the State, and is
clothed with the States power, his act
is that OF the State. This must be so. or
the constitutional prohibition has no mean
ting"
We need not discuss the question wheth-
er an office is property or not, but this
Is certain, If the Legislature of Kentucky
deprived Mr.. Taylor of property without
due process Of law, it would have been
entirely competent for the Supreme Court
of the United States to have annIiied Its
action, Notwithstanding the fact that the
Legislature did it, for il would have been
a case of a State depriring a person Of
property through The agency of its Lesis-
iature without due process OF law; and 1t
need not have surprised any one if the Su-
preme Court had taken Jurisdiction of this
case and had annulied the action of the
Legislature Of kentucky, as We pointed
cut some days before the decision. In
deed, Mr.. Justice Harlan. one of the ablest
Judges IN the court, delivered dissenting
opinion. in which he held that the court
should have taken jurisdiction and should
have annulled the action OF the Kentucky
Legislature.
What we have aimed at in this article
is 10 make it clear that regarding an
pfice as property, if the Legislature OF
Kentucky had deprived Mr.. Taylor OF his
sfice. ii would have been such contra
Tention of the fourteenth amendment as
would have entitled the United States
Supreme Court to interfere. because
States rights imply the correlatire States
;uties. But, as matter of fact. the Su-
prenc Court decided that the State had a
light TO appoint whatever tribunal it chose
;or deciding questions of this character.
md. as matter OF fact. Kentucky had
appointed its Legislature as the court Of
Il <>f {t,sf lnT.