The Saint Paul globe., 1900-05-22
REJOICING lTFRAEKFORT
PEOPLE DELIGHTED AT THE RE-
TURN TO A GOVERNMENT OF
LAW AND ORDER
TROOPS HAVE STARTED HOME
Mr.. Taylor Packing Up, Preparatory
to Leaving the Executive Man
siOn-GOv. Mounts Pc
cuIiar Action.

WASHINGTON, May H.-The United
States supreme court today decided the
Kentucky governorship case in favor of
Gov Beckham, dismissing the writ of
error from the Kentucky court Of appeals.
The opinion was handed down by Chief
Justice Fuller, and vigorous dissenting
opinion was delivered by Justice Harlan.
Justices Brewer, Brown and McKenna
also dissented from portions of the
opinion.
The opinion was handed down by Chief
Justice Fuller, and the case was dismissed
Tor want of jurisdiction. He said the
court should be the last to overstep the
| bounds limiting its own Jurisdiction, and
that the determination of cases of this
character, contests for state offices, must
necessarily be settled by the political
branch of the government. That branch
had acted in the Kentucky cases when
the general assembly took Jurisdiction
There was no appeal from the assembly's
decision, which was favorable to Goebel
and Beckham, except to the tribunal of
the people, which tribunal, the chief jus
tice said, was always in session. He also
said the case was purely a state case
that Kentucky was in full possession of
Its faculties as a member of the Union,
and that there was no emergency at this
time calling for interference.
The opinion in the Kentucky case was
not unanimous, some of the justices dis
senting.
Justices Brewer Harlan, Brown and
Mckenna were the dissenting justices.
THE OPINION.
After reviewing the facts in the case,
Chief Justice Fuller said
''It Is obviously essential to the inde-
pendence of the states and to their people
and their tranquility and to their power
to preserve the 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 exclusive and free
from external interference, except so far
as plainly provided by the constitution of
the United States, and when there are
controversies over the election of state
officers which 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 In which the inter-
ference of this court can be properly in
Voked."
The chief Justice then reviewed the
cases of Boyd versus Thayer, Wilson
versus North Carolina, Kennard versus
Louisiana, and Foster versus Kansas, and
continued:
THE grounds on which our Jurisdiction
Is sought to be maintained in the present
case are set forth in the errors assigned
to the effect in substance:
''FirSt-That the action of the general
assembly in the matter of these contests
deprives plaintiffs IN error Of their offices
! without due process of law.
Second-That the action of the general
assembly deprtYes the people of Ken
lucky of the right to choose their own
representatives secured by the guarantee
OF the federal constitution from a repub-
ican form of government to every state
| and depr1ves them Of their political lib
erty without due process of law.
For more than 100 years the constitu-
| ton OF Kentucky has provided that con-
tested elections for governor and Iieuten-
ant governor shall be determined by the
general assembly In 1898, by a commit
| tee to be selected from both houses of
the general assembly and framed and
regulated in such manner as shall be di-
rected by law since 1850 by both houses
or the general assembly, according to
by law
The highest court of the state has
often held and in the present has again
| declared that under their constitutionai Il
provisions, the power of the general as
sembly to determine the result is ex-
| elusive, and that its decision is not open
! to judicial review. authorities quoted
here)
The statute enacted for the purpose
! OF carrying the provisions into effect has
been in existence in substance since 1893,
ana many of the states have similar con-
stltutional provisions and similar statutes.
I'VE do not understand this statute to
! be objected as in any manner obnoxious
to constitutional enactment, but that
] TAll inf 1I.,.. ~
! of the general assembly under the statute
under the judgment of the state courts
| declining to disturb that action
DISSENTING VIEWS.
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 on certain points. Justice
Harlan, in his dissent, quoted various
authorities, and then said:
Notwithstanding these adjudfcations.
the decision today is that this court has
10 jurisdiction to inquire whether the
citizen has been deprived without due
! process of law, of an office held by him
under the constitution and laws of his
state If the contest between the one
holding the office and the person seeking
to hold it is determinable by the legisla-
ture, in a prescribed mode, this court It
appears, cannot inquire whether that
mode was pursued and cannot interfere
for the protection of the incumbent even
if the final action of the legislature was
confessedly capricious and arbitrary, in
! consistent with the recognized principles
that belong to due process of law, and
not based in any degree on the evidence
taken in the contest. If the Kentucky
Legislature had wholly disregarded the
mode prescribed by the statutes of that
state and without appointing board of
contest composed of its own members,
had by joint resolution simply declared
I Goebel to be governor, and especially If
such action had been held by the highest
court of the state to be conclusive, this
court, as we are informed by the decision
! just rendered, would be without jurisdic-
ton to protect the incumbent for the
reason as now adjudged, that the office
in dispute is not properly within the
! fourteenth amendment. So that while we
may inquire whether the citizens land
or his mules have been taken from him
! by the legislature or judicial authorities
of his state without due process of law.
we may not inquire whether the legisla-
| ture or judicial authorities of a state
! have, without due process of law. ousted
one lawfully elected and holding the office
/ of governor for fixed term with a sal
ary which cannot be diminished during
such term, and put into his place one
whom the people have said should not ex-
! ercise the authority appertaining to that
/ high position. When the fourteeRth
amendment forbade any state from De