The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-04-30
WILL ENTER
THE RECORD
FOR BECKHAM.
s,,rsrae Court Now Has the Case Tn-
IVY volving the Title to the Gov
egnorship of Kentucky.
LAWS OF OTHER STATES
:. 4. contended, Are the Same as the
Blue Grass Commonwealth.
Bone of Contention.

or,,rn attorney for ]. c. W. Beckham'
~, nreparcd, and will file his brief to-
'-a in the supreme court in the
a ,., INVOLVING the title to the governor
,sln ~ Kenucky. on the motion to
5I.mIss for want of Jurisdiction in the
'nnreme court, It is contended that the
,-ayIsIons of the constitution and stat
NOS Of Kentucky, governing the trial
=, contested elections for governor at
,ord due process OF law" within the
meaning Of the fourteenth amendment
IN The cons tItution OF the United States.
As to the suGiclency of the statute, It
says:
1T will be perceived that by the pro-
visions Of the Kentucky statute, notice
o, the contest, specifying the grounds,
must be given within thirty days after
tbe action Of the canvassing board;
tho members Of the board must be Sc
lpsted by lot and sworn to try the
contest: the board is required to assign
day for hearing the contest, and may
adjourn from day to day. 1t has power
n compel the attendance Of witnesses
and TO swear them. 1t may compel
tho production OF papers and records:
six members may render a decision,
which must be reported to both houses
OF the general assembly, which shall
finally determine the contest.
Not Necessary to Issue from Court.
Thus It will be seen. that a hearing.
after reasonable notice is provided,
and this is all due process of law means.
1t Is not necessary that the process
should issue from a court, or that the
hearing should be by a judicial officer.
Neither is 1t necessary that there
should be a trial by jury.
THE provisions of the constitution
and statutes OF Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri
North Carolina, Oregon. Pennsylvania,
tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West
Virginia, 1t is contended are sub
stantially the same as the Kentucky
constitution ana statutes regulating the
procedure on the trial of a contested
election for governor. and, 1t is said.
that II the objection be sustained in this
case. that the corresponding provisions
in the organic laws OF all the states re-
terred to are likewise invalid"
As to the point made by the counsel
for Taylor, that In the administration
OF the law the contest board and The
legislature did not allow sufficient time
for hanug, It is commended that IL the
state provided a statute for regulating
the procedure, allowing hearing, at
ter reasonable notice, and the board OF
legislature departed from the statute,
and rendered an erroneous decision,
this does not bring the case within the
prohibition of the fourteenth amend
meni to the federal constitution.
Like Decisions from other States.
is further insisted that there is no
property in political office, and hence
its deprivation cannot fall within the
Inhibition contained in the fourteenth
amendment. Numerous decisions from
the supreme courts OF New York, Ken
lucky. Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin
are cited to sustain this proposition.
1t is insisted that II this case pre-
sents n federal question, then, by like
allegations to those made here, such
proposition may be presented in every
election contest, and the court Of last
resort be converted into a supreme
board Of contest" It is therefore In
sisted that the motion to dismiss the
suit should be sustained. because there
is no color OF a federal question In the
record.
Tnasmuch as the case Is set down for
hearing on the motion to dismiss. and
also on the merits. the other questions
are also discussed.
It Is said that the Jurisdiction OF the
general assembly is exclusive and It's
Judgment is conclusive; that no other
tribunal or court, under any form or
proceedings or in any mode, has 1urls-
dctlOn to determine the question In
v0lved, in this contest, or to review the
action OF the legislature.
No Appeal or Review.
Upon the ground of public policy the
lawmakers have invested the general
assembly with this plenary and final
Jurisdiction for the determination OF
these contests. No revision is made Tor
uH appeal or review by the judicial
tribunals, because II was not Intended
that they should have Jurisdiction over
th contest"
The kentucky cases Of Batman
against Mcgowan. Met 533 ana Steine
vs. Berry, s6 Kentucky GO, together VIII
Baxter ". Brooks. % Arkansas. 49, and
numerous Ohio CuEsR are cited In sup
port NJ this proposition.
lu reference to the contention OF
TnylYrs counsel that the determine
ton 9f the contest by the board and the
general assembly was the result OF
fraudulent conspiracy on the part OF
the members Of the legislature II "
maintained that the journals OF the
body showing It's action, cannot DC I'M
Heachrl for fraud and that they import
lb7pluir verify.
Opinions OF tho courts Of Kentucky,
Indiana, PcnnEylvnnln, West Nirglnlh
and Ohio are cited In support OF this
position, Counsel FOR Taylor. the brief
says seeks further to avoid the deter
m,nalIDn ~ the gcnetnl assembly by
iHn contention that nt the time the con-
igft was decided. on February 2 1900.
ihn Iag.7Ilturc had been adjourned by
proclamation Of Taylor rs governor
.n'Il The sixth Of February to meet az
L1lnD In Laurel county. In reply u 10
.h.'8i1l that the only power the cover
nlF 0f Kentucky has. at any time 10
adjourn the general assembly, Is by VIZ