The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-02
PLEADING TAYLOR.S CASE.
Arguments of Former Governor
Bradley In the Supreme Court.

=
Bradley In the Supreme Court.
w. o. Bradley. former Governor of Ken
tueSy. addressed the Supreme Court of tbs
United States yesterday. concluding the
argument in behalf of w S. Taylor in tbs
Kentucky contest
Referring 10 the claim of opposing
counsel, that Taylor never possessed the
officer of Governor of Kentucky, ac-
cording to the decision of the Court OF
| Appeals, he said that Taylor had exactly
the same title as that by which every
Governor for 100 years had held the office
| for there had never before been a contes:
over the office, and there doubtless would
have been none at this time had it not
been for the election law now prevailing In
| Kentucky. II might as well be said that a
man holding land by a title of record,
whose title was attacked by another claim
| ing superior title. never had possession
OF the land. Taylor was Governor de facto
and de jure; his title was good as to third
| parties and it was good as to himself.
1t has been said, he continued, tlat
office was not property. and the Court of
Appeals in this case had decided that Of
flee was not property. But that was a
| question to be reviewed by the Supreme
Court
An office. when it is not property per
Sc, said Mr.. Bradley. "partakes of the ma
ture OF property and liberty; 1t is a priv
ilege citizen may exercise because and
as part of his liberty. And the Court
OF Appeals had so held for half a century.
In that decision the Court of Appeals re-
cited the language of the Supreme Court"
The office of Governor. he went on. was a
valuable privilege and right, which. ac-
cording to the fourteenth amendment,
could not be taken from the citizen with
out due process of law.
But they tell u.s. said Mr.. Bradley,
that all that is necessary is for the
State to pass law providing due process
OF law. and that it makes no difference
how the law is executed Whatever that
may be, the citizen is bound by the action
of the State.
The case turned at last upon the no.
tlce OF contest in the case. BY the law
OF the State the notice must state the
grounds of contest upon which the con-
testant relies and no other grounds will
thereafter be heard from him. The only
ground upon which the Legislature cou'd
act would be the claim that Goebel had
received the greatest Number of legal
votes cast. But the notice now here
made that statement; but it asserts that
the election was weld. 1t was somewhere
claimed In the notice that Goebel was
elec.ed, but that was a conclusion OF law
ana not statement as required by law" /
Ii the Legislature decided the contest |
upon evidence, which he doubted Mr.. |
Bradley said it decided it upon a ground |
over which it had no jurisdiction 1t was |
also said, continued Mr.. Bradley, that TIE |
decision of the Legislature was final RJs |
the Supreme Court, in the maximum |
freight rate cases, recently decided, said |
Otherwise. In case of this kind there |
was no power among the people to provide
relisf. An appeal to the people, Mr. Brad |
ley said. would afford the same opportunity
TO override their will as was done in the
present case. And under present condi-
tons we feel that in the future we shall
continue to be deprived of our rights"
Year ago, he said. the Court of Appeals
decided exactly for the contention made
by the counsel for Taylor that if a court
which went outside of the law to count
votes, its action was null and void It had
further decided that where a court or a
tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine
a case. Its judgment was void, and could
properly be so treated by all men. That"
said the former Governor. lis what we con-
tend. that the judgment in this case was
20 judgment at all.
at has been said all through the argu-
nent of opposing counsel that the Legis-
allure was the final and ultimate authority
or determining the contest.
Il deny it, said Mr.. Bradley 1.-The
action Of the Legislature TO be binding
must be in accordance with the laws. And
Z it did not so act, their decision must b.
'eviewed by the judiciary The board to
the contest must be fairly
irawn. Two of the members of the board
lad contests similar to the one they were
allied on to decide. and one of them had a
vet on the result suspended until the de-
ision of the board was reached. Another |
member" he said. was resting under an
Indictment for felony"
At the conclusion of the argument the
curt took recess, to reconvene on May H.