The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-01

contests for Governor and Lieutenant Gov
! ernor, which. he said had stood in its
present form for substantially 100 years.
| he said that II provided in its terms a
! procedure that was due process of law.
! The constitutions or laws of fifteen States
| contained in substance the same provisions
! for settling their contests as did the con-
stitution and laws of Kentucky. II the
! Kentucky provisions for settling their con-
| tests be declared invalid, said Mr.. Nc
! Quown. the same decision would wipe out
! the provisions made by these other fifteen
1 States for accomplishing the same end.
! The law afforded due process of law. But
! it was claimed in pleadings and argument.
| he said, that in the execution or admins
| tration of the law. Taylor had been de-
prived of his property without due process
of law
In the course of a depreciation of the ex-
| ercise of the power petitioned for in this
| case. Mr.. McQuown said that il would
make the judicial branch paramount 10 the
legislative by reviewing its action in the
discharge of the duty devolyed on it by
law. He proceeded from that to argue that
the action of the Legislature in the con-
test at issue was final Its jurisdiction in
the matter by the constitution of the Stale
was exclusive
Since the case was decided by the State
court upon the sole ground that Taylor
did not show title 10 the office, it was un
necessary. in the view of the counsel, to en-
quire whether a political Office WIS prop
erty within the meaning of the fourteenth
amendment. That question could only
arise in a case in which a existing
title admitted or established, was divest-
ed by some act of the State. political
Office created by State was not property
within the meaning of the amendment.
That it was not property at all was held
by Judge Taft in the case of Sweeney VS..
Poyntz Circuit Court for the District OF
Kentucky. February u, 1900. brought to
enjoin the State Board of Canvassers from
hearing or deciding the contest over the
Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts OF
Kentucky on the ground of fraud, in which
the court refused an injunction and dis
missed the bill.
Mr.. McQuown said the plaintiff here
sought to evade the judgment of the
General Assembly. upon two grounds:
First. that its action was fraudulent:
second. that having been previously pro-
rogued the General Assembly was not in
session. He said that the courts had no
right nor power TO enquire into the mo-
tives of the Legislature taking the action
it had. The rule had been stated by Jus
tice Cooley in his Constitutional Linn
itations.' where he said: Although it
has sometimes been urged at the bar that
the courts ought to enquire into the mo-
tives of the Legislature. when fraud and
corruption were alleged and annul their
action if the allegations were established.
the argument has in no case been acceded
to by the judiciary and they have never
allowed the enquiry to be entered upon.
The laws of Kentucky Gevolved the duty
of determining contested election cases
involving the Governor and Lieutsnsnt
Governor upon the Legislature. and in the
discharge of that duty it was entitled TO
the same confidence in its honesty and in
tegrity as when engaged in enacting a
law Concerning the contention that the
Legislature was not really in session at
the time it declared Goebel elected be-
cause it had been previously prorogued.
Mr.. McQuown said it had no basis, as there
was 10 legal warrant fer such action by
the Governor.
Justice Brewer-Has the Court of Ap-
peals passed en- that matter?
Mr.. McQuown-It has. in this very case.
Justice Brewer-It is a State question,
is il nut2 -,
Mr.. McQuown-I think so.
At this point. MI McQuown. who had
been speaking with considerable difficulty.
suffering from a severe hcarseness. sus-
pended his argument and submitted the
case on behalf of Governor Beckham.
The court then adjourned until today, 1
when former Governor Bradley will con-
clude the argument on behalf of Mr.. Tay-
for