The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-04-30
srrrsr1e Court Now has the Case In
volving the Title to the Gov
aynorship OF Kentucky.
LAWS OF OTHER STATES
:. ,s Contended, Are the Same as the
Blue Grass Commonwealth.
Bone of Contention.

c,so involving the title to the governor
hin OF Kenucky. on the motion to
S,mlss for want Of Jurisdiction in the
snnreme court, 1t is contended that the
rroyslons Of the constitution and stat
n,rs Of Kentucky, governing the trial
Of contested elections for governor at
ford due process of law" within the
meaning Of the fourteenth amendment
TO the constitution OF the United States.
As to the sufnclency Of the statute, 1t
says:
"It 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
,he action Of the canvassing board;
the members Of the board must be Sc
Iected by lot, and sworn to try the
contest the board is required to assign
a day for hearing the contest, and may
adjourn from day to day. 1t has power
10 compel the attendance Of witnesses
and to swear them. 1t may compel
the production of papers and records:
six members may render 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 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 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 and statutes regulating the
procedure on the trial OF 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-
ferred 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 haring, It is contended that II the
state provided statute for regulating
the procedure, allowing a 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
ment to the federal constitution.
Like Decisions from other States.
It's further Insisted that there is no
property in a 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 If this case pre-
sents 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" 1t is therefore In
sisted that the motion to dismiss the
suit should be sustained, because there
IS no color of u federal question In the
record.
Inasmuch 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 Of
proceedings or in any mode, has juris-
dictlon to determine the question In
VOWED, in this contest. or to review the
action Of the legislature.
No Appeal or Review.
Upon the ground of public policy the
law-makers have invested the general
assembly with this plenary and final
Jurisdiction for the determination OF
these contests. No revision is made for
u1 appeal or review by the judicial
tribunals, because II was not Intended
that they should have Jurisdiction over
tha contest"
The kentucky cases Of Batman
against Mcgowan, / Met. 633 and 5teine
VI Berry, 96 Kentucky CO, together with
Baxter VI. Brooks. ~ Arkansas, ~, ana
numerous Ohio on8es are cited In sup
port of this proposition.
In reference to the contention OF
Taylor's counsel that the determine
ton of tho contest by the board and the
general assembly was the result OF
fraudulent conspiracy on the part of
the members OF the legislature II Is
maintained that the journals Of the
NI1y showing It's action. cannot he I'M
reached Tor fraud and that they import
absolute verify
Opinions of tho courts of Kentucky,
Indiana PcnnEylvanll, West virginia
HHl Ohio are cited IN support OF thls
position. Counsel for Taylor. the btlct
says seeks further 10 avoid the deter
Wi7ailDu NJ the general assembly by
lHr contention that nt the time the con-
I..l "0E decided. on February = lvVO'
mo InH07.nturc had been adjourned Dy
PROCLAMATION " Taylor aa governor,
.HNl lhs rlNth NJ February, 70 meet ~
London Ir Laurel county. IN reply II lH
INSISTED that tha only power the COVER
N.E pi Kentucky has. nt any time 10