The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1900-02-19
JUDGE TAFT TURNS
TAYLOR CASE DOWN
Federal Judge Decides He
Has No Jurisdiction in
Kentucky Case
HE GIVES TAYLOR A TIP
After Hearing Of the Defeat, Taylor
Declares That His Case Is Not
Afiected-That He Never
Expected Any Other
Decision.
HE GIVES TAYLOR A TIP

Cincinnati, February Fin the United
States circuit court of appeals Judge w.
ii. Taft heard arguments this afternoon
for over three hours on the applications
for injunctions against the Kentucky state
board of election commissioners and the
contestants for the state officers other
than governor and lieutenant governor.
Ex-Governor Bradley, for the plaintiff
began in a statement of the grounds upon
which the action of the court is INVOKED
After reciting the provisions by which
the state board of elections Is converted
into a board of contest. he declared that
they were entirely repugnant to repub-
lican form of government which provides
for three distinct departments.
He asserted that this board of contest
had been made a judicial body by the
Goebel law.
Judge Taft inquired whether the Goebel
law had been passed upon by the court or
appeals. Governor Bradley replied that
it had. but his contention was that In case
he could show the law to be in contraven-
ton of the federal constitution then the
court could be invoked
Judge Taft replied that a decision of
the state court on the constitutionality
jurisdiction by the United States court Of
appeals, where Il proper case could be
shown.
Goebel Law Attacked.
Governor Bradley then went on to show
I'm what respect the Goebel law deprives
citizens of their rights. In this line. he
spoke of the situation in Kentucky with
regard to these cOmplainants having been
given the certificates of election by
vote of to / and that one now
the only member of the board which is
about to pass upon the contests institute
ed by the candidates opposed to these
plaintiffs. One. he said. had already Off
cially declared that the board had the
power to go behind the returns and thus
to exercise judicial powers. The other
two members had likewise. in advance of
their decision, declared their intention to
Dust these plaintiffs.
Governor Bradley admitted that while
women had not the right to vote it was
nevertheless true that authorized electors
are entitled to protection by the federal
courts against any state agent which
undertakes to nullify that vote.
Jurisdiction Is Disputed.
Lawrence Maxwell. Jr. on behalf Of
the defendants, made a brief argument
on the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction because the petitions
do not present a case of equity and do not
fall under the provisions Of the fourteenth
amendment of the United States constitu-
ton.
He said the situation was one I'm which
the position OF these complainants is In
course of settlement by state tribunal.
Contest proceedings in their cases are
pending.
He claimed there was no ground what
ever for federal interference. He ridiculed
the position of the plaintiffs who, while
stIl in the process of ascertaining whether
or not they had been elected, proposed to
throw aside the provisions of the state
law and asked the power of this court on
their behalf
A. Il. Wilson, for the plaintiffs, followed
In brief argument, in which he took
much time in reading authorities on the
subject of jurisdiction.
j. A. Scott, for the defendants. made the
point that the court could not interfere
and prevent the future action of the board
of contest. He said the only real attack
which had been made on the Goebel law
was that II provided that all the election
commissioners throughout the state should
be partisan democrats.
He ridiculed the idea of making this the
ground of interference or this court ana
insisted that the right TO hold oftlce was
not one of the rights defined In the four
teenth amendment of the constitution.
lie went on to argue against the Jurlsdic-
ton of this court saying he thought the
mserly than covetous In taxing Jurls-