The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-05-01
HEARING OF KENTUCKY CASE.
ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE
SUPREME COURT.

Taylor's Counsel Upheld the Courts
Jurisdiction Which Was Denied
by Attorneys for Bcckham-ActIon
of the state Legislature Held to
BE Final-ClRimed for Taylor That
There Was Insufficient Evidence.
Bradley VIII Conclude To-day.
Washington. April 30.-The argument in
the Kentucky governorship case was be-
gun in the United States Supreme Court
at 1880 p. m to-day. The court room was
crowded
The first presentation was made in be-
half of Gov. Taylor by Attorney Helm
Bruce He said that Mr.. TayIor's conten-
tion was for cons dtutional liberty, and
that 1t was waged In a court of justice
and not on field of carnage. because in
entering the Union Kentucky had surren-
dered its right of resistance.
Mr.. Bruce contended that after the is
suance of the certificate OF election Mr.
Taylor was as much the Governor of
Kentucky as any man who had ever been
inaugurated for that office. He denied
that the legislative adjudication was any
adjudication at all. The proceedings was
not by due process of law, as required by
the constitution.
He said that the report of the commit
tee on investigation presented TO evil
dence and stated no fact, and that 1t
was made to a secret meeting of the as
sembly' of which no Republican member
had been notified.
Mr.. Bruce contended for the Jurisdiction
of the Federal Supreme Court under The
constitution. The Kentucky Leg. g.slature's
power extended only to the trial of a con-
test. Mr Bruce contended that il had
been confessed that there was no evidence
In nve of the ten counts in the contest.
While of the remaining five, three were so
himsy that they could not be insisted up
on.
The only two grounds remaining were:
The charges of thin ballots used Ia forty
counties, or a third of the state, and OF
intimidation in the city of Louisville 1t
could not be contended that the state it.
self could deprive portion of its own
population OF the right Of franchise with
out due process of law. So also in Louis
vile, where II was sought to disfranchlse
5000 voters, the wrong, If any had been
done, had been due to the action of the
state executive
Beclxham's Case Presented.
Hon. Lawrence NJ Maxwell, appearing
for Mr.. Beckham. argued that the pro
ceeding In this case had been in accord
ance with the law under the constitution.
Mr.. Maxwell contended that the case
presented no federal question and that
therefore, the Federal Supreme Court had
no Jurisdiction. The Kentucky State Court
of Appeals had decided that Mr.. Taylor
had never acquired title to the Office Of
Governor under the constitution and laws
of the state. Its decision was final The
certificate of election from the State Board
Of CanVoGaerG Inc
ing the returns of the election officers. Ii
was no evidence Of validity of title in view
of the conclusion reached by the con8itu-
tional authority which was the State Leg
islature.
AS the case was merely a state question,
Mr.. Maxwell thought It unnecessary to
consider the Application of the fourteenth
amendment to the constitution concerning
the taking of property without due pro-
cess of law. That amendment could only
be applied where right has accrued and
Mr.. Taylor had never held any title to the
office claimed by him.
Mr.. Louis McQuown also spoke for Mr.
Beckham He arged that IL the state had
provided a proper mode Of procedure: IL
the election law was constitutional, there
could be 10 legitimate criticism of the
method of application, and in that case
the federal court was clearly devoid of
jurisdiction. Error of that character
could not give this court Jurisdiction.
He argued for the final and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Legislature in contests
of this character, which the laws and the
constitution intended. It would be possible
in view of this fact to give the courts only
concurrent jurisdiction.
Mr.. McQuown also contended that the
federal court had no right ~ Investigate
or question the motives Of the Legisla-
ture in its decision. II was to be pre-
sumed that the Legislature had acted on
a proper knowledge of the facts OF the
case. The only resort was to the bal
lot.
Ex-Gor. Bradley. the only attorney re-
naming to be heard, will make the con-
'cluding speech for Gov. Taylor.
ALL PLEADED NnT GIrIInY