Taylor v. Beckham
Taylor v. Beckham | |
---|---|
Case history | |
Prior | 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1735, 56 S. W. 177 |
Holding | |
Court refused to intervene in the case, claiming that no federal questions were at issue. The Kentucky Court of Appeals' decision in favor of Beckham was allowed to stand. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Fuller, joined by Gray, Shiras, White, Peckham |
Concurrence | McKenna |
Concur/dissent | Brewer, joined by Brown |
Dissent | Harlan |
Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900), was a case heard before the
Claiming the General Assembly's decision was invalid, Taylor sued to prevent Beckham from exercising the authority of the governor's office. Beckham countersued Taylor for possession of the
The injection of Taylor's claim under the Fourteenth Amendment gave him grounds to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a
Background
History
In 1898, the
Goebel secured the Democratic nomination for governor at a contentious nominating convention.
When the official tally was announced, Taylor had won by a vote of 193,714 to 191,331.[3] Though the Board of Elections was thought to be controlled by Goebel allies, it voted 2–1 to certify the announced vote tally.[8] The board's majority opinion claimed that they did not have any judicial power and were thus unable to hear proof or swear witnesses.[9] Taylor was inaugurated on December 12, 1899.[8] Goebel announced his decision to contest the board's decision to the General Assembly.[9] The Assembly appointed a committee to investigate the allegations contained in the challenges.[10] The members of the committee were drawn at random, though the drawing was likely rigged – only one Republican joined ten Democrats on the committee.[10] (Chance dictated that the committee should have contained four or five Republicans.)[11] Among the rules the General Assembly adopted for the contest committee were: that the committee report at the pleasure of the General Assembly, that debate be limited once the findings were presented, and that the report be voted on in a joint session of the Assembly.[12] The rules further provided that the speaker of the House preside over the joint session instead of the lieutenant governor, as was customary.[12] The Republican minority fought the provisions, but the Democratic majority passed them despite the opposition.[12]
Republicans around the state expected the committee to recommend disqualification of enough ballots to make Goebel governor.
Goebel died of his wounds on February 3, 1900.
Lower court decisions
As negotiations for a peaceful resolution of the elections for governor and lieutenant governor were ongoing, the Republican candidates for the state's minor offices filed suit in federal court in
The case was argued before Judge (and later President) William Howard Taft, who held that the federal court could not prevent the removal of officers by injunction. He advised the Republicans to seek remedy quo warranto in the state courts. Taft further opined that, should any federal question be raised in such proceedings, the officers could seek remedy in a federal court on appeal. The Republicans were encouraged by Taft's decision, which cleared the way for an appeal all the way to the federal Supreme Court if a federal question could be raised.[19]
The Republican minor officeholders returned to the state courts with their case.
Taft's ruling had no bearing on the cases of Governor Taylor and Lieutenant Governor Marshall except to spell out a means for them to take their cases to the federal courts, if necessary.
Republicans claimed that Taylor's suit, by virtue of having been filed two hours before Beckham's, gave the case precedence in Louisville.
On March 10, 1900, Field sided with the Democrats.[17] In his ruling, he opined that legislative actions "must be taken as absolute" and that the court did not have the authority to circumvent the legislative record.[25] Republicans appealed the decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.[20] In their appeal, they were careful to raise a federal issue.[27] If Judge Field's ruling was correct, and the Board of Elections, the General Assembly, or both had the right under the state constitution to an absolute review of all elections, then the Assembly had been given absolute arbitrary power over elections, in conflict with the federal constitution.[27]
On April 6, 1900, the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Field's decision by a vote of 6–1.
The four Democratic judges concurred on the majority opinion.[29] Two Republican judges, in a separate opinion, concurred with the majority opinion, but declared that Taylor and Marshall had been done an irreparable injustice.[29] The lone dissent, authored by the court's third Republican, held that the contest board had acted outside its legal authority.[29] Republicans turned to the Supreme Court of the United States as their final option.[25]
Supreme Court
Louisville attorney Helm Bruce opened the Republicans' case before the Supreme Court on April 1, 1900.[30] He maintained that, after Taylor's election had been certified by the Board of Elections, he was legally the governor of Kentucky, and the attempt by the legislature to oust him from office amounted to an arbitrary and despotic use of power, not a due process, as the federal constitution required.[30] In addressing the complaints upon which the dismissal of ballots was justified – namely, the intimidation of voters in Jefferson County by the state militia and the use of "thin ballots" in forty Kentucky counties – Bruce maintained that even if the allegations were true, both were the fault of the state, not Taylor and Marshall, and were not sufficient grounds upon which to deny them their right to the offices they claimed.[31]
Bruce was followed by Lawrence N. Maxwell, counsel for Beckham.[31] Maxwell reiterated that the General Assembly had acted within its enumerated powers under the state constitution in deciding the outcome of the disputed election.[31] He claimed that the decision of the state court of appeals made it clear that Taylor had not been legally elected governor, and therefore never possessed the property he was now claiming had been taken from him without due process.[31] Maxwell further asserted that this disposed of any federal questions with regard to the case, and that the Supreme Court could claim no jurisdiction.[31] The decision of the state court of appeals should be allowed to stand, he concluded.[31] Lewis McQuown further argued on behalf of Beckham that, even if Taylor's claim to the governorship were legitimate, the investigation and decision by the General Assembly's contest committee represented sufficient due process.[32] He acknowledged that the Goebel Election Law's provision that the legislature be the arbiter of any contested gubernatorial election differed little if at all from provisions in as many as twenty other states.[32] If the Goebel Election Law was constitutional, as it had before been declared, then the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction regarding how it had been administered.[32]
When Maxwell concluded his argument, ex-Governor Bradley spoke on Taylor's behalf.[33] After reiterating Taylor's legal claim to the office of governor, he answered the question of jurisdiction by citing Thayer v. Boyd, a similar case in which the court had assumed jurisdiction.[33] He further quoted authorities who opined that an elected office was property, using this to contend that Taylor's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated, thus giving the court jurisdiction.[33] Also, Bradley asserted, the election of some members of the Assembly's contest committee would hinge on the decision of that very committee.[33] At least one member of the committee was known to have wagered on the election's outcome.[33] These facts should have nullified the decision of the committee and the Assembly on the grounds that it had left some members as judges of their own cases.[33] Finally, Bradley cited irregularities in the proceedings of the contest committee, including insufficient time given for the review of testimony provided in written form by Taylor and Marshall's legal representation.[34] Following Bradley's argument, the court recessed until May 14, 1900.[34]
Opinion of the Court
In his 1910 book, The Constitutional Law of the United States, Westel W. Willoughby noted that the court's ruling that an elective office was not property was at odds with previous decisions in which it had assumed jurisdiction in cases between two contestants for an office to determine if due process was granted.[28] By assuming jurisdiction in these cases, Willoughby claimed, the court had given elective offices standing as property. Accordingly, Justice Joseph McKenna issued a separate concurring opinion in which he stated: "I agree fully with those decisions which are referred to [in the majority opinion], and which hold that as between the State and the office holder there is no contract right either to the term of office or to the amount of salary, and that the legislature may, if not restrained by constitutional provisions, abolish the office or reduce the salary. But when the office is not disturbed, when the salary is not changed, and when, under the Constitution of the State, neither can be by the legislature, and the question is simply whether one shall be deprived of that office and its salary, and both given to another, a different question is presented, and in such a case to hold that the incumbent has no property in the office, with its accompanying salary, does not commend itself to my judgment."[28]
Dissent of Justice Brewer
Justice
Dissent of Justice Harlan
The only dissent came from Kentuckian John Marshall Harlan.[20] Harlan opined that not only did the court have jurisdiction, it should have sustained the writ of error on the grounds that the General Assembly's actions had deprived Taylor and Marshall of property without due process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.[28] Going beyond the claim that an elective office is property, Harlan wrote that the right to hold office fell within the definition of "liberty" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment.[28] Justifying this claim, Harlan wrote: "What more directly involves the liberty of the citizen than to be able to enter upon the discharge of the duties of an office to which he has been lawfully elected by his fellow citizens?"[28]
Whereas the majority opinion wholly ignored the proceedings of the General Assembly as irrelevant (the court lacking jurisdiction) and Brewer and Brown affirmed them, Harlan excoriated the legislature in his dissent. "Looking into the record before us, I find such action taken by the body claiming to be organized as the lawful legislature of Kentucky as was discreditable in the last degree and unworthy of the free people whom it professed to represent. ... Those who composed that body seemed to have shut their eyes against the proof for fear that it would compel them to respect the popular will as expressed at the polls."[28] He also expressed disbelief at the majority opinion: "[T]he overturning of the public will, as expressed at the ballot box, without evidence or against evidence, in order to accomplish partisan ends, is a crime against free government, and deserves the execration of all lovers of liberty. ... I cannot believe that the judiciary is helpless in the presence of such a crime."[28]
Subsequent developments
Taylor v. Beckham established as a judicial principle that public offices are mere agencies or trusts, and not property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2005 stated that the Supreme Court subsequently had adopted a more expansive approach to identifying "property" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but that it is the Supreme Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents.[36]
Notes
- ^ a b c Kleber, "Goebel Election Law", p. 378
- ^ Kentucky Constitution, Section 153
- ^ a b c Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 270
- ^ Hughes, p. 8
- ^ Kleber, "Music Hall Convention", pp. 666–667
- ^ Tapp, p. 439
- ^ a b c Tapp, p. 441
- ^ a b Klotter, "Goebel Assassination", p. 377
- ^ a b Tapp, p. 444
- ^ a b c Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 271
- ^ Tapp, p. 445
- ^ a b c Hughes, p. 174
- ^ Tapp, p. 446
- ^ Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, pp. 271–272
- ^ Tapp, p. 449
- ^ a b c d Harrison in A New History of Kentucky, p. 272
- ^ a b c d e f g h Tapp, p. 451
- ^ Hughes, pp. 277–278
- ^ a b Hughes, p. 282
- ^ a b c d Tapp, p. 453
- ^ a b Klotter in William Goebel, p. 114
- ^ a b Tapp, p. 505
- ^ a b c d Hughes, p. 284
- ^ a b c Hughes, p. 285
- ^ a b c d Klotter in William Goebel, p. 112
- ^ Hughes, p. 288
- ^ a b Hughes, p. 286
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Willoughby, "Taylor v. Beckham"
- ^ a b c Hughes, p. 317
- ^ a b Hughes, p. 324
- ^ a b c d e f Hughes, p. 325
- ^ a b c Hughes, p. 326
- ^ a b c d e f Hughes, p. 327
- ^ a b Hughes, p. 328
- ^ a b c d e Hughes, p. 341
- ^ Velez v. Levy, 401 F.3d 75, 86 - 87 (2d Cir. 2005).
References
- ISBN 978-0-8131-2008-9. Retrieved June 26, 2009.
- Hughes, Robert Elkin; Frederick William Schaefer; Eustace Leroy Williams (1900). That Kentucky campaign: or, The law, the ballot and the people in the Goebel-Taylor contest. R. Clarke Company. Retrieved March 9, 2010.
- "Kentucky Constitution, Section 139". Legislative Research Commission. Archived from the original on May 22, 2014. Retrieved June 22, 2010.
- Kleber, John E. (1992). "Goebel Election Law". In Kleber, John E (ed.). The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Associate editors: ISBN 978-0-8131-1772-0. Archived from the originalon January 12, 2013. Retrieved March 9, 2010.
- Kleber, John E. (1992). "Music Hall Convention". In Kleber, John E (ed.). The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Associate editors: ISBN 978-0-8131-1772-0. Archived from the originalon January 13, 2013. Retrieved March 9, 2010.
- ISBN 978-0-8131-0240-5.
- ISBN 978-0-8131-1772-0. Archived from the originalon December 28, 2012. Retrieved March 9, 2010.
- Tapp, Hambleton; ISBN 978-0-916968-05-2. Retrieved June 26, 2009.
- Willoughby, Westel Woodbury (1910). "Taylor V. Beckham". The Constitutional Law Of The United States. New York City, New York: Baker, Voorhis & Company. Retrieved June 15, 2010.
External links
- Text of Taylor v. Beckham, 178 U.S. 548 (1900) is available from: Justia Library of Congress