Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/665

LAVIK V. EMIGEANT IKDUSTBTAL SAVINGS BANK 657 �tKereof , or with any treaty made under the authority of the United States. Here the state court Las decide d that the proceeding below was in accordance with the law of the state, and we do not find that to be contrary to the constitution or any law or treaty of the United States." �In Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480, where the law of a Btate provided for a proceeding by rule before a court for testing the right to an oiSce, and the party whose right was disputed was required to put in his answer within 24 hours, and then the case waa to be tried immediately before the judge, without a jury, and in preference to ail other causes, and the law imposed the burden of proof upoii the incumbent, and in favor of the party who held the governor's commis- sion, it was held that this was due process of law within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Waite there says: "The sole question presented for our con- sideration in this case, as stated by the counsel for the plain- tiff in error, is whether the state of Louisiana, acting under the statute of January 15, 1873, throagh her judiciary, bas 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 doue ' in the due course of legal proceedings, according to the rules and forms which have been established for the protection of private rights.' We accept this as a sufScient 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 Ken- nard the protection guaranteed by the constitution." He then reviews the statute in detail, and says: "There is here no provision for a technical citation, so called, but there was in effect provision for a rule upon the incumbent to show cause, etc. * * * He was to be told when and where he muat make his answer. * * * He had an opportun ity to be heard before he could be condemned. This was ' proeess,' and when served it was sufficient to bring the incumbent into court, �v.l,no.9 — 42 ��� �