Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

fathers waged the war for independence and established the Constitution of the United States. Yet by the decision this day rendered, no redress can be had in the courts when a legislative body, or one recognized as such by the courts, without due process of law, by the exercise of absolute, arbitrary power, and without evidence, takes an office having a fixed salary attached thereto from one who has been lawfully elected to such office by the voters of the State at a regular election. The doctrine of legislative absolutism is foreign to free government as it exists in this country. The cornerstone of our republican * institutions is the principle that the powers of government shall, in all vital particulars, be distributed among three separate coordinate departments, legislative, executive and judicial. And liberty regulated by law cannot be permanently secured against the assaults of power or the tyranny of a majority, if the judiciary must be silent when rights existing independently of human sanction, or acquired under the law, are at the miercy of legislative action taken in violation of due process of law.

Other grounds are disclosed by the record which support the general proposition that the declaration by the body referred to that Goebel received the highest number of legal votes cast and was entitled to the office of Governor ought not to be regarded as valid, much less conclusive, upon the courts. But as those grounds have not been discussed by this court, and as it declines to determine the case upon the merits as disclosed by the evidence, I will not extend this opinion by commenting on them.

What has been said in this opinion as to the contest for Governor applies to the contest for Lieutenant Governor.

I am of opinion that the writ of error should not have been dismissed, and that the court should have adjudged that the decree below took from Taylor and Marshall rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

VOL. CLXXVIII-39

Opinion of the Court.

TAYLOR AND MARSHALL v. BECKHAM (No. 2).

ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KENTUCKY.

No. 604. Argued April 30, May 1, 1900. - Decided May 21, 1900.

It results from the conclusions announced in No. 603, ante, 548, that the

writ of error in this case must be dismissed.

The facts affecting this case are stated in Taylor and Marshall v. Beckham (No 1), ante, 548. It was argued with that case, and by the same counsel.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER: These were suits in equity brought by Taylor and Marshall against Beckham, and one Carter, asserting himself to be the president pro tempore of the Senate of Kentucky, with the right to preside over that body though Marshall was present, in which complainants prayed for injunctions restraining defendants from interfering with complainants in their offices. These suits were heard with the case of Beckham v. Taylor and Marshall, just decided. When the Circuit Court of Jefferson County reached the conclusion that Beckham was entitled to the office of Governor and entered judgment of ouster, it dismissed the suits. From the decrees appeals were taken to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, where they were affirmed, and thereafter a writ of error from this court was allowed. It results from the conclusions announced in the preceding

case that the writ of error must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA concurred in the result.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER and MR. JUSTICE BROWN concurred in a dissent for reasons stated in their dissent to Taylor & Marshall v. Beckham (No. 1), ante, 548.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissented for reasons stated in his dissent to Taylor & Marshall v. Beckham (No. 1), ante, 548.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

DECISIONS ANNOUNCED WITHOUT OPINIONS DUR

ING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOLUME.

No. 402. BOYLE V. SINCLAIR. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. Submitted December 11, 1899. Decided May 14, 1900. Per Curiam : Dismissed with costs on the authority of Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564. Mr. Samuel H. Hays for motion to dismiss. Mr. William A. Maury opposing.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

No. 609. Pin Kwan v. UNITED States and No. 610. PING Yık v. UNITED STATES. Second Circuit. Granted April 30, 1900. Mr. Richard Crowley for petitioners. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General opposing.

No. 594. CENTRAL TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. INDIANA AND LAKE MICHIGAN RAILWAY COMPANY. Seventh Circuit. Denied April 30, 1900. Mr. Augustus L. Mason, Mr. Adrian H. Joline and Mr. Henry Crawford for petitioner. Mr. Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., and Mr. S. 0. Pickens opposing.

No. 588. O'BRIEN v. WHEELOCK. Seventh Circuit. Granted May 14, 1900. Mr. Henry M. Duffield for petitioners. Mr. Benjamin Harrison and Mr. Thomas Worthington opposing.

No. 571. NATIONAL BANK OF BALTIMORE V. BRUNSWICK TERMINAL COMPANY. Fourth Circuit. Denied May 14, 1900. Mr. Wm. A. Fisher and Mr. Allan McLane for petitioner. Mr. Henry W. Williams opposing.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

No. 617. GUARANTEE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA V. MECHANICS SAVINGS BANK AND TRUST COMPANY. Sixth Circuit. Granted May 14, 1900. Mr. William L. Granbery for petitioner.

No. 618. SUN PRINTING AND PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION V. MOORE. Second Circuit. Granted May 14, 1900. Mr. James Russell Soley and Mr. Franklin Bartlett for petitioner. Mr. George Zabriskie and Mr. James Lowndes opposing.

No. 619. WERNER V. HEARST. Second Circuit. Denied May 14, 1900. Mr. Roger M. Sherman for petitioner. Mr. Frederic D. McKenney opposing.

No. 591. CITY OF LAMPASAS v. Talcott. Fifth Circuit. Denied May 14, 1900. Mr. Clarence H. Miller for petitioner.

No. 621. HOOK v. MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK. Seventh Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. William Brown, Mr. S. P. Wheeler and Mr. E. P. Kirby for petitioner. Mr. Bluford Wilson and Mr. Philip Barton Warren opposing.

No. 622. BENZ V. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY. Sixth Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. Thomas B. Turley and Mr. Don M. Dickinson for petitioner. Mr. J. M. Dickinson opposing

No. 626. HOLZAPFELS COMPOSITIONS COMPANY, LIMITED, v. RAHTJENS' AMERICAN COMPOSITION COMPANY. Granted May 21, 1900. Mr. John G. Carlisle for petitioner. Mr. T. E. Kerr and Mr. Timothy D. Merwin opposing.

No. 629. OWEN V. JONES, RECEIVER. Fifth Circuit. Denied

Decisions announced without Opinions. May 21, 1900. Mr. J. J. Darlington and Mr. Charles A. Douglass for petitioners. Mr. Alexander C. King opposing.

No. 630. SMITH V. PACKARD. Seventh Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. A. B. Browne and Mr. Frank F, Reed for petitioner. Mr. Leroy D. Thomas opposing.

No. 632. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE, COLORADO, v. SUTLIFF. Eighth Circuit. Granted May 21, 1900. Mr. Charles S. Thomas and Mr. W. H. Bryant for petitioner.

No. 637. CITY OF NEW YORK v. D’ESTERRE. Second Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. George L. Sterling for petitioners. Mr. Henry B. B. Stapler opposing.

No. 638. NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE OF Kansas City, MISSOURI, v. HOBBS. Second Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. Omar Powell and Mr. Elijah Robinson for petitioner. Mr. Charles E. Patterson and Mr. Alpheus T. Bulkeley opposing.

No. 639. NORTHERN ASSURANCE COMPANY OF LONDON, ENGLAND, v. GRAND VIEW BUILDING ASSOCIATION. Granted May 21, 1900. Mr. Charles J. Greene and Mr. Ralph W. Breckenridge for petitioner.

No. 640. DORSEY V. UNITED STATES. Eighth Circuit. Denied May 21, 1900. Mr. J. M. Wilson and Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for petitioner. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General opposing.

No. 641. Roy, MASTER, V. SHIPS “WATERLOO ” AND “GLENALOON” and No. 642. Roy, MASTER, v. GIRARD POINT STORAGE

« AnteriorContinuar »