The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-04-07
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
THAT WILL BE. THE NEXT MOVE
MADE IN THE LONG-DRAWN-
OUT CONTEST
DECISION FAVORED BEcKHAM
Republican Judges Concur, While
Expressing sympathy for the
Man Now Holding the
State House.

NA@AANhAr OINAs NY, April R.-EX-GOV.
W. o. Bradley, chief counsel for Gov
Taylor, tonight authorized the statement
that an appeal on behalf of Gov. Taylor
and Lieut.. Gov. Marshall will be. carried
to the supreme court of the United States
Mr.. Bradley and Judge w Yost, counsel
for the Republican state officers, were in
with Gov. Taylor for several
hours this afternoon, and the above state
ment was made at the close Of the con
ference
1t is stated that Col. w c. P. Breckin-
ridge and Republican leaders from differ
ent parts Of the state will meet Mr.. Tayicr
In conference here tomorrow morning
Ex-GoV. Bradley said:
I'VE will not take advantage of any
technicalities to delay the progress OF
the case. The decision of the court Of APP
peals is not disheartening to us. We will
ask for writ of error to the supreme
court at once, and these contests will now
be at an end in very short time
RULING OF THE COURT.
The court Of appeals today handed down
It's decision In the gubernatorial contest
in favor of Beckham, Judge Durele dis-
senting. The other two Republican judges.
Burnam and Guffy, handed down a sepa-
rate opinion, which differed In its reasons
from the opinion of the Democratic ludg-
es, but agreed with them In Its conc.u-
sion Judge Hobson, one of the four
Democratic judges, wrote the opinion OF
the majority Of the court, affirming the
decision of Judge Field, of Louisville. It
recites the work of the state canvassing
board and OF the contest proceedings IN
the legislature, ana ali subsequent pro
ceedings., and holds
1--WE have no more right to supervise
the decision of the general assembly in
determining the result of this election
than we have to supervise the action Of
the government in calling special ses-
sion of the legislature, OF in pardoning
a criminal, or the action of the legis-
lature in contracting debts or determining
upon the election of its members or doing
any other act authorized by the consti-
tuition.
There is no conflict between the faction
of the state canvassing board and that OF
the legislature In these cases. The state
canvassing board was without power TO
go behind the returns. They were not au-
thorized to determine who was in truth
elected, but We're required to give a cer-
tiicate of election TO those who, on The
face Of the returns had received the
highest number of votes. For the state
board to have received evidence to i'm
peach the returns before them would have
been for them, in effect, to act as a board
for contesting the election, and if they
had done this they would have usurped
the power vested In the general assembly
by the legislation, for by it's express te-Ins
only the general assembly can determine
contested election for governor and
lieutenant governor.
But the certificate of the state board
of canvassers is no evidence as to who
was in truth elected. Their certificate
entities the recipient to exercise the Of
flee until the regular constitutional au-
therity shall determine who Is the de Jure
officer The rights Of the de jure officer
attached when he was elected, although
the result was unknown until it was
declared by the proper constitutional au-
thority. When it was so declared 1t was
simply the ascertainment of fact hith-
erto In doubt or unsettled.
1.-The rights of the de facto officer under
his certificates from the canvassing board
were provisional or temporary until the
determination of the result Of the cleo
tion as provided In the constitution, and
upon that determination if adverse to
him, they ceased altogether. Such de-
termination of the result of the election
by the proper tribunal did not take from
him any pre-eXisting right, for, If not in
fact elected, he had only right to act
until the result of the election could be
determined
COURT CANNOT INTERFERE.
1--WE are, therefore unable to see how
this case can be distinguished from any
other legislative action taken in a mat
| ter over which the constitution has
priy 10 asriS1 10 fl1ro isTi r.
tion, and we are therefore of the opin-
ion that the court is without jurisdic-
tion to go behind the record. made by the
! legislature under the constitution. Such
a record seems TO US entitled to every
presumption in it's favor which the rec
ords of this court kept under its super
vision, would be entitled to receive at the
hands of the legislature In a matter be-
| fore it.
at is also argued that the contest board
was not fairly drawn by lot, that GER
tain members of the board were liable
to objection on the score of partiality
and that therefore this board was not
! properly constituted. If any of these OBJ
| jections We're well founded, the general
assembly had full power to take such
action as was proper in the premises.
| 1t does not appear that any of the OBJ
| jections urged were presented to the
| general assembly. but If they were and
! 1t refused to make correction, it must
! be presumed that it had sufficient rea-
sons for it's action. Besides the board
was only a preliminary agency to take
evidence and report the facts to the gen
eral assembly. The assembly itself final
! ly determined the contest
REPUBLICAN JUDGES CONCUR.
Judges Burnam and Guffy, Republicans
while concurring in the courts having
no jurisdiction, dissented from the rea.
soning. Judge Burnam's separate opinion
says:
"It is hard to imagine a more fragrant
and partisan regard of the methods oil
| procedure than is made manifest by the
| facts alleged and relied on by contestees
and admitted by demurrer, and I an
firmly convinced from admitted facts
that the legislature, in the heat of anger
| engendered by intense partisan excite.
ment have done two faithful. conscien.
tious and able public servants an ire
| parable injury in depriving them of the
| office to which they were elected and 2
| still greater wrong to the majority OF
electors who voted under difficult cir.
| cumstances to elect these servants. But
we are met at the Threshold with the
! contention that the courts of the state
| under the constitution, have no power