Thomas Marshall v. John Dye
| Decision Date | 01 December 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 401,401 |
| Citation | 34 S.Ct. 92,231 U.S. 250,58 L.Ed. 206 |
| Parties | THOMAS R. MARSHALL, as Governor of the State of Indiana, et al., Plffs. in Err., v. JOHN T. DYE |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Frank S. Roby, Dan W. Simms, Ward H. Waston, James E. McCullough, W. V. Stuart, E. P. Hammond, Sol. H. Esarey, Elias D. Salsbury, and Mr. Thomas M. Honan, Attorney General of Indiana, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 251-254 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Addison C. Harris and Ralph K. Kane for defendant in error.
The case originated in a complaint filed in the circuit court of Marion county, Indiana, by John T. Dye, in which he alleged that he brought the suit for himself and other electors and taxpayers of the state of Indiana, the object of the suit being to enjoin the defendants, Thomas R. Marshall, governor, Muter M. Bachelder, and Charles O. Roemler, jointly composing the state board of election commissioners, and Lew G. Ellingham, secretary of state, from taking the steps required by statute to certify and transmit to the clerks of the several counties in the state a new Constitution proposed by the legislature of the state, and from printing and publishing a statement to be printed upon the ballots in such manner that the electors might indicate their choice as to such new Constitution. Upon trial in the circuit court, an injunction was granted. Upon appeal to the supreme court of the state of Indiana the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed. 99 N. E. 1. The case was then brought here by writ of error.
A motion was filed in this court on September 24, 1913, accompanied by an affidavit, stating the death of John T. Dye, defendant in error, and the appointment of Hugh Dougherty as his executor, and his qualification as such, in compliance with the laws of the state of Indiana, and asking that he be permitted to appear and defend as such executor, which motion is granted.
There was also submitted on October 14, 1913, a motion to substitute Samuel M. Ralston, governor, and Will H. Thompson and John E. Hollett, members of the state board of election commissioners, of the state of Indiana, as plaintiffs in error. As the judgment in this case was against the defendants Thomas R. Marshall, Muter M. Bachelder, and Charles O. Roemler, composing the state board of election commissioners, and their successors in office, and as such board is a continuing board , notwithstanding its change of personnel, this motion is within the principle laid down in Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, 46 L. ed. 1070, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 776, and is granted. See also Richardson v. McChesney, 218 U. S. 487, 492, 493, 54 L. ed. 1121, 1122, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43. Lew G. Ellingham, secretary of state, is one of the plaintiffs in error, and the judgment sought to be reviewed ran against him as such secretary of state, and he still occupies that office.
The statute (Acts of 1911, p. 205) under which it was proposed to submit the new Constitution of the state, provided for its submission at the general election in November, 1912, and required the election officials and other officers to perform like duties to those required at general elections, with a view to the submission of such questions. The supreme court sustained the contention that the act was void under the state Constitution, holding in substance that the act of 1911 was unconstitutional for want of authority in the legislature to submit an entire Constitution to the electors of the state for adoption or rejection, and that, if the instrument could be construed to be a series of amendments, it could not be submitted as such for the reason that article 16 of the Constitution of the state requires that all amendments to the state Constitution shall, before being submitted to the electors, receive the approval of two general assemblies, which was not the case here, and that article 16 further provides that while an amendment or amendments to the Constitution, which have been agreed upon by one general assembly, are awaiting the action of a succeeding general assembly or of the electors, no additional amendment or amendments shall be proposed, and that, as a matter of fact, another amendment was still awaiting the action of the electors.
The contention mainly urged by the plaintiffs in error of the denial of Federal rights is that the judgment below is in contravention of article 4, § 4, of the Constitution of the United States, which provides that the United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government. In Pacific States Teleph. & Teleg. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118, 56 L. ed. 377, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224, this court had to consider the nature and character of that section, and held that it depended for enforcement upon political and governmental action through powers conferred upon the Congress of the United States. The full treatment of the subject in that case renders further consideration of that question unnecessary, and the contention in this behalf presents no justiciable controversy concerning which the decision is reviewable in this court upon writ of error to the state court. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Brown, 187 U. S. 308, 314, 47 L. ed. 190, 193, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 123. And as to all questions said to be of a Federal character, although the judgment of the supreme court was rested solely upon its interpretation of the state Constitution, the rulings are assailed because of alleged wrongs done to the plaintiffs in error in their official capacity only.
We have had frequent occasion to declare that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zancanelli v. Central Coal & Coke Co.
... ... ERROR ... to the District Court, Sweetwater County; HON. JOHN R ... ARNOLD, Judge ... Action ... by M. Zancanelli to recover damages from Central ... v. Washington, 243 U.S. 219 ... Thomas ... P. Fahey, amicus curiae, and appearing on behalf of the ... workingmen ... The ... 224; Kiernan v ... Portland, Oregon, 223 U.S. 151, 56 L.Ed. 386, 32 S.Ct ... 231; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250, 256, 58 L.Ed ... 206, 34 S.Ct. 92; Davis v. Ohio, 241 U.S. 565, 60 ... ...
-
Coleman v. Miller
...138, 24 S.Ct. 51, 48 L.Ed. 125; Braxton County Court v. West Virginia, 208 U.S. 192, 28 S.Ct. 275, 52 L.Ed. 450; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250, 34 S.Ct. 92, 58 L.Ed. 206; Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 U.S. 14, 36 S.Ct. 15, 60 L.Ed. 120 Nor can recognition by a state court of such an undiffere......
-
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Mascitti v. Grath Coleman v. Grath
...12 L.Ed. 581; Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. State of Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 32 S.Ct. 224, 56 L.Ed. 377; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250, 34 S.Ct. 92, 58 L.Ed. 206. In respect to the war power over even citizens, see Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 92, 63 S.Ct. ......
-
Loring v. Loring
...v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336, 391, 99 N. E. 1, 21 (Ann. Cas. 1915C, 200), writ of error to which was dismissed in Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250, 34 Sup. Ct. 92, 58 L. Ed. 206, as the result and conclusion of an ample discussion: ‘And so the power resides in the courts, and they have, with practica......
-
State sovereign standing: often overlooked, but not forgotten.
...jurisdiction. Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1, 42; Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118, 150; Marshall v. Dye, 231 U.S. 250, 256, 257; Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447, 483, 488. (92) In Pennsylvania Railroad Co., Justice Douglas, writing for the Court, said:......
-
The Guarantee Clause in Constitutional Law
...p. 141. 56 Ibid., p. 142. 57 Ibid., p. 148. 58 Ibid., p. 151. 59 Denver v. New York Trust Company, 229 U. S. 133 (1913); Marshall v. Dye, 231 U. S. 250 O’Neill v. Leamer, 239 U. S. 244 (1915); Davis v. Hillenbrandt, 241 U. S. 565 (1916); MountainTimber Company v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219 (......