Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1900-02-13
RIGHT 10 ACT RAISED.
u, SCOUTS Jurisdiction Ones
toned In Kentucky Case.
BRADLEY ARGUES AFFuRMATrELY.
MAXWELL and Others Say n state Tribunal
shonld Deoidc-Bradiey Claimed Goe-
bel Law Made the Election hoard =
Judicial Body.


States circuit court Of appeals, Judge
w. H. Taft heard arguments for over
hree hours on the applications for in.
functions against the Kentucky state
board of election commissioners, and the
contestants for the state offices other
than governor and lieutenant governor.
Tho plaintiffs were represented by
Bradley, Wilson, Sweeny and Yost, all
Of Kentucky. The defendants were
represented by Scott, HendI-ck, Hager
and Maxwell, the latter being a Elember
of the bar Of Cincinnati and the others
Of Kentucky.
Ex-Governor Bradley made plain
statement Of the ground upon which the
action Of the court is invoked. After
reciting the provisions by which the
state board of elections is converted into
board of contest, he declared that they
were entirely repugnant to the Republi-
can form of government, which pro-
yides for three distinct departments.
He asserted that this board Of contest
had been made a judicial body by the
Goebel law
At this point Judge Taft inquired
whether the Goebel law had been passed
upon by the court of appeals. Governor
Bradley replied that it had, but that his
contention was that nevertheless, in
case he could show the law to be in con-
travention of the federal constitution,
then this court could be invoked. Judge
Taft replied that q decision of the state
court on the constitutionality of the law
did not necessarily prevent jurisdiction
by the United States court of appeals
where a proper case could he shown
Governor Bradley then went on to
show in what respect the Gobel law de-
prives citizens of their rights In this
line he spoke of the situation in Ken.
tucky with regard TO these complain
ants having been given certificates of
election by vote of two TO one, and that
one now the only member of the board
which is about to pass Upon the contests
instituted by the candidates opposed to
these plaintiffs. That ono, he said had
already officially 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 oust these plaintiffs.
Going into the argument for the juris-
diction of this court, he said that this
action had its basis in the provision Of
the fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution of the United States. He quoted
Justice Harlan ms saying that state
may not disregard, by any Of it's agents,
the provisions of this section by taking
life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law. Ho went on to define the
meaning of liberty so as to include in it
the right to vote, TO have the vote count
ed and tie officers eectd permitted to ex-
ercise the functions of their office.
Judge Taft hero created diversion by
asking If the right 10 vote was granted
by the fourteenth amendment to wonlcn.
Mr.. Bradley admitted that while
women haG not the right to vote. it was
nevertheless true that authorized elect
ors are entitled to protection by the
federal courts against any state agent
which undertakes to nullify that vote.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., on behalf of
the defendants made brief argument
on the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction, because the pcti-
tions do not present n case Of equity, and
do not fall under the provisions of the
fourteenth amendment to the United
States constitution. He said sthe situa-
tion was one III which the position OF
these complainants is in course of settle
ment by state tribunal. Contest pro
ceedlngs in their cases arc pendiHy. This
condition presents none of the features
of an equity case.
Mr. Maxwell then recited Il number Of
cases in which il had been held that the
court had no power to interfere in thu
removal of an officer, and that courts of
equity took cognizance only of civil and
property rights. This being true. he
claimed there was no ground whatever
for federal interference. Referring to
the claim under the fourteenth amend.
H. ~ ....l.. L.
in the state OF Kentucky was not one Of
the rights guaranteed by that amend
ment, whose offices are creations Of the
state of Kentucky, and the right to hold
them cannot be construed into one of
the rights designated in the amendment
referred to-
Mr.. A. II. Wilson, for the plaintiffs,
followed in brief argument, IN which
he took much time in reading authori-
ties on the subject of the jurisdiction OF
court under the fourteenth amend.
mept of the United States constitution
He spoke fcelingly OF the gravity of the
situation in kentucky. He character.
lied this court as one free from the on
eitement and partisanship that existed
in Kentucky.
Mr.. J. A. Scott, for the defendants,
made the point that the court could not
interfere TO prevent the future action OF
the board of contest. He said the only
real attack which had been mado ON the
Goebel law was that il provided that al
the election commissioners throughout
the state should he partisan Democrats.
He ridiculed the idea Of making this the
ground OF interference of this court
and insisted that the right to hold ofiic,
was not one OF the rights defined in tn,
fourteenth amendment of the constitu
tion He argued against tho jurisdiction
Of this court.
Mr.. Bradley, in his closing argument
insisted that the contest board beinl
made into court was repugnant To tht
constitution Of Kentucky, which speci
fes what courts shall be created. Tn,
attempt to confer judicial authority OF
this board deprived these plaintiffs OF
their rights and gives this court jurisdic
ton.
In reply to question by the court
Mr.. Bradley said ne did claim that thes,
offices were property. He closed by tn,
declaration that there was no remedy il
the state courts and that equity ha
jurisdiction where common law fail
and even whore equity can better TO
dress the Jury than can the common
law.
After the conclusion Of the argument
Judge Taft advised council that he
would announce his decision so far M
the court having jurisdiction in th'