The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-04-07
BUT TAYLOR WON'T YIELD
He Will Appeal to the United States
Supreme Court,
REPUBLICAN JUDGES ARE AGAINST HIM
Judge Du RoIe Wrote Dissenting Opinion
The Other Two Republican Judges
Agreed With the Democratic
Judges in Conclusion.
Judges in Conclusion.
(By the Associated Press.)

kDy tue aooOCidtSu IICSo.(
Frankfort, Ky, April Eek Governor
". o. Bradley, chief counsel for Governor
Taylor, tonight authorized the statement
that an appeal on behalf Of Governor
Taylor and lieutenant Governor Mar
shall will be carried to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Mr.. Bradley and Judge w. H. Yost,
counsel for the Republican State officers,
were in consultation with Governor
Taylor for several hours this afternoon
and the above statement was made at
the close Of the conference 1t is stated
that Colonel w. c. p. Breckenridge and
Republican leaders from different parts
of the State will meet Governor Taylor
in conference here tomorrow morning.
I'VE will not take advantage of any
technicalities to delay the progress OF
the case The decision of the Court of
Appeals is not disheartening to us. We
will ask for a writ of errCr to the Supreme
Court at once and these contests will now
be at an end in a very short time
The Court of Appeals today handed
down it's decision in the gubernatorial
contest in favor Of Beckham, Judge Du-
Role dissenting. The ether two Repub-
lican Judges, Burnam and Guffy, handed.
down a separate opinion, which differed
in it's reasons from the opinion of the
Democratic Judges, but agreed with them
in its conclusion Judge Hobson, one of
the -four Democratic Judges, wrote the
opinion of the majority Of the court,
affirming the decision of Judge Field. of
Louisville.
It recites the work OF the state can
y
ings in the Legislature anG all subsequent
proceedings, and continues:
I'VE have no more right to supervise
the decision of the General Assembly In
determining the result of this election
than we have to supervise the action OF
the Governor is calling a special session
of the Legislature. or in pardoning
criminal. or the action of the Legisla
ture in contracting debts or deter
mining upon the election CT its members
or doing any other act authorized by the
Constitution. There is no conflict between
the action of the State canvassing board
and that of the Legislature in these cases.
The State canvassing board was without
power to go behind the returns. They
were not authorized to hear evidence and
determine who was in truth elected, but
were required TO give a certificate OF cleo
tion to those who cn the face of the re-
turns had received the highest number
of votes. For the State board to have
received evidence to impeach the returns
before them would have been for them
in effect TO act as a beard for contestlns
the election, and if they had done this
they would have uSurped the power vest
ed in the General Assembly by the consti-
tuition for by its express terms, only the
General Assembly can determine con-
tested election case for Governor ana
Lieutenant Governor. But the certltcate
CT the State board of canvassers is evil
dence as TO who was in truth elected
Their certificate entitled the recipients
TO exercise the office until the regular
constitutional authority shall determine
who is the de jure officer. The rights or
the de jure officer attaches when he was
elected, although the result was unknown
until il was declared by the proper con-
stitutional authority When it was so de-
clared. it was simply the aScertainment
Of fact hitherto in doubt or unsettled
The rights OF the de facto officer under
his certificate from the canvaSSing
beard were temporary until the de-
termination of the result Of the cleo
tion as provided in the constitution, and
upon that determination if adverse to
him they ceased altogether. Such a de-
termination of the result of the election
by the proper tribunal did not take from
him any pre- existing right for. If not IN
fact elected, he had, only a right to act
until the result of the election could be
determined. We are, therefore, unable
to see how this cause can be distinguish
ed from any other legislative action,
taken in matter over which the con-
stitution has given the Legislature ex-
elusive jurisdiction, and we are therefore
of the opinion, that the court is without
jurisdiction to go behind the record made
by the Legislature under the constitu
tiona Such a record seems to us entitled
to every presumption in its favor, which
the records of this court, kept under its
supervision would he entitled to receive
at the hands of the Legislature in mat
ter before it. 1t is also argued that the
contest board was not fairly drawn by lot,
that certain members Cf the board were
liable to objection on the score of par
was not properly constituted. If any of
these objections were well founded the
General Assembly had full power to take
such action as was proper in the prem
ises. 1t does not appear that any of the
objections urged were presented to the
General Assembly but, il they were and
il refused to make a correction ii must