The State of Louisiana passed an act entitled "An Act to
regulate proceedings in contestations between persons claiming a
judicial office."
Sec. 1 provided that
"In any case in which a person may have been appointed to the
office of judge of any court of this state, and shall have been
confirmed by the senate, and commissioned thereto, . . . such
commission shall be
prima facie proof of the right of such
person to immediately hold and exercise such office."
Sec. 2 provides
"That if any person, being an incumbent of such office, shall
refuse to vacate the same and turn the same over to the person so
commissioned, such person so commissioned shall have the right to
proceed by rule before the court of competent jurisdiction, to have
himself declared to be entitled to such office, and to be inducted
therein. Such rule shall be taken contradictorily with such
incumbent, and shall be made returnable within twenty-four hours,
and shall be tried immediately without jury, and by preference over
all matter or causes depending in such court, . . . and the
judgment thereon shall be signed the same day of rendition."
The next section provides that an appeal, if taken, shall be
applied for within one day after the rendition of the judgment, and
be made returnable to the supreme court within two days. The appeal
has preference over all other business in that court, and the
judgment thereon is final after the expiration of one day.
Held that the state, by proceedings under this act, which
resulted in a judgment adverse to the title of the plaintiff in
error to a certain judicial office, did not, through her judiciary,
violate that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States which declares, "nor shall any state deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law."
On the 3d of December, 1872, John H. Kennard was, during a
recess of the Senate of Louisiana, appointed by the Governor
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in place of W.
W. Howe, resigned.
On the 4th of January, 1873, the acting governor commissioned P.
H. Morgan Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in place of W. W.
Howe, resigned. Kennard claimed to hold until the expiration of the
next regular session of the legislature.
To settle the disputed title to the office, suit was brought.
The courts of Louisiana, proceeding under an Act of the legislature
of Jan. 15, 1873, determined in favor of Morgan.
The case was then brought here upon the ground that the State of
Louisiana acting under this law, through her judiciary, had
deprived Kennard of his office without due process of law, in
violation of that provision of the Fourteenth Amendment of
Page 92 U. S. 481
the Constitution of the United States which prohibits any state
from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, "without
due process of law." The provisions of the law are set forth in the
opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The sole question presented for our consideration in this case,
as stated by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, is whether the
State of Louisiana, acting under the statute of Jan. 15, 1873,
through her judiciary, has deprived Kennard of his office without
due process of law. It is substantially admitted by counsel in the
argument that such is not the case, if it has been done "in the due
course of legal proceedings, according to those rules and forms
which have been established for the protection of private rights."
We accept this as a sufficient definition of the term "due process
of law" for the purposes of the present case. The question before
us is not whether the courts below, having jurisdiction of the case
and the parties, have followed the law, but whether the law, if
followed, would have furnished Kennard the protection guaranteed by
the Constitution. Irregularities and mere errors in the proceedings
can only be corrected in the state courts. Our authority does not
extend beyond an examination of the power of the courts below to
proceed at all.
This makes it necessary for us to examine the law under which
the proceedings were had, and determine its effect.
It was entitled "An Act to regulate proceedings in contestations
between persons claiming a judicial office." Sec. 1 provided,
that
"In any case in which a person may have been appointed to the
office of judge of any court in this state, and shall have been
confirmed by the senate and commissioned thereto, . . . such
commission shall be
prima facie proof of the right of such
person to immediately hold and exercise such office."
It will thus be seen that the act relates specially to the
Page 92 U. S. 482
judges of the courts of the state, and to the internal
regulations of a state in respect to its own officers.
The second section then provides,
"That if any person, being an incumbent of such office, shall
refuse to vacate the same, and turn the same over to the person so
commissioned, such person so commissioned shall have the right to
proceed by rule before the court of competent jurisdiction, to have
himself declared to be entitled to such office, and to be inducted
therein. Such rule shall be taken contradictorily with such
incumbent, and shall be made returnable within twenty-four hours,
and shall be tried immediately without jury, and by preference over
all matter or causes depending in such court; . . . and the
judgment thereon shall be signed the same day of rendition."
There is here no provision for a technical "citation," so
called, but there is, in effect, provision for a rule upon the
incumbent to show cause why he refuses to surrender his office, and
for service of this rule upon him. The incumbent was therefore to
be formally called upon by a court of competent jurisdiction to
give information to it, in an adversary proceeding against him, of
the authority by which he assumed to perform the duties of one of
the important offices of the state. He was to be told when and
where he must make his answer. The law made it the duty of the
court to require this return to be made within twenty-four hours,
and it placed the burden of proof upon him. But it required that he
should be called upon to present his case before the court could
proceed to judgment. He had an opportunity to be heard before he
could be condemned. This was "process," and, when served, it was
sufficient to bring the incumbent into court and to place him
within its jurisdiction. In this case, it is evident from the
record that the rule was made and that it was in some form brought
to the attention of Kennard, for on the return day he appeared. At
first, instead of showing cause why he refused to vacate his
office, he objected that he had not been properly cited to appear,
but the court adjudged otherwise. He then made known his title to
the office; in other words, he showed cause why he refused to
vacate. This was, in effect, that he had been commissioned to hold
the office till the end of the next session of the Senate, and that
time had not arrived.
Page 92 U. S. 483
Upon this, he asked a trial by jury. This the court refused, and
properly, because the law under which the proceedings were had
provided in terms that there should be no such trial. He then went
to trial. No delays were asked except such as were granted.
Judgment was speedily rendered, but ample time and opportunity were
given for deliberation. Due process of law does not necessarily
imply delay, and it is certainly no improper interference with the
rights of the parties to give such cases as this precedence over
the other business in the courts.
The next section provides for an appeal. True, it must be taken
within one day after the rendition of the judgment, and is made
returnable to the Supreme Court within two days. The proceeding on
appeal was given preference over all other business in the
appellate court, and the judgment upon the appeal was made final
after the expiration of one day. Kennard availed himself of this
right. He took his appeal, and was heard. The court considered the
case, and gave its judgment.
From this it appears that ample provision has been made for the
trial of the contestation before a court of competent jurisdiction;
for bringing the party against whom the proceeding is had before
the court, and notifying him of the case he is required to meet;
for giving him an opportunity to be heard in his defense; for the
deliberation and judgment of the court; for an appeal from this
judgment to the highest court of the state, and for hearing and
judgment there. A mere statement of the facts carries with it a
complete answer to all the constitutional objection urged against
the validity of the act. The remedy provided was certainly speedy;
but it could only be enforced by means of orderly proceedings in a
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with rules and forms
established for the protection of the rights of the parties. In
this particular case, the party complaining not only had the right
to be heard, but he was in fact heard, both in the court in which
the proceedings were originally instituted and, upon his appeal, in
the highest court of the state.
Judgment affirmed.
