The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-07
Two Others Hold with the Four Dem.
ocrats on the Main Point be-
fore the Tribunal.
TO BE APPEALED AT ONCE
ANNOUNCEMENT BY w. O. BRADLEY
REPUBLICAN COUNSEL.
Case to BE Taken to the United States
Supreme COurt-Statement by
Governor Taylor.


OF Appeals to-day handed down its deci-
sion in the gubernatorial contest in favor
OF Beckham, Judge Du Relic dissenting
The other two Republican judges. Burnam
and Guffy, handed down a separate
opinion, which differed in its 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.
Ex-Governor W. o. Bradley, chief coun-
sci for Governor Taylor. tonight author
lied the statement that an appeal on
behalf of Governor Taylor and Lieutenant
Governor Marshall will be carried to the
Supreme Court of the United States. Mr..
Bradley and Judge w. III. 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
Taylor in conference here tomorrow. Ex-
Governor Bradley said: 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 error to
the Supreme Court at once and these con-
tests will now be at end in a very short
time"
The action Of Judges Burnam and Guffy,
Republicans, in concurring in the opinion
of the Democratic judges was a surprise.
THE nE,NnCp ATTIC nDJNION
The opinion recites the work of the State
canvassing board and of the contest pro-
ceedings in the Legislature and all sub
| sequent proceedings and holds:
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 in calling a special session of the
| Legislature or in pardoning criminal,
| or the action of the Legislature in con-
| tracing debts or determining upon the
| election of its members, 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 can
vassing board was without power to go be-
| hind the returns. They were not author
| lied to hear evidence and determine who
was in truth elected but were required to
| give certificate of election to those who
| on the face OF the returns 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
beard for contesting the election. and if
they had done this. they would have
usurped the power vested i'm the General
Assembly by the Constitution, for by its
express terms only the General Assem-
bly, can determine contested election for
Governor and lieutenant governor
| But the certificate of the State Board
| OF Canvassers is no evidence as to who
| was I'm truth elected. Their certificate
entities the recipient to exercise the Of
| flee until the regular constitutional author
ity shall determine who is the de jure Of
| ficer. The rights of the de jure officer at
tachei when he was elected. although the
| result was unknown until it was declared
| by the proper constitutional authority
When it was declared it was simply
| the ascertainment of fact hitherto in
i doubt unsettled. The rights of the de
| facto officer under his certificate from the
| cRnvassing board were provisional or tenn
| porary until the determination of the re-
suit of the election, as provided in the
| Constitution and upon that determination.
If adverse TO him, they ceased altogether.
! Such "A determination 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.
| CANNOT Go BEHIND RECORD.
| 1--WE are therefore unable 10 sec how
this case can be distinguished from any
| other legislative action taken I'm a matter
over which the Constitution has given the
| Legislature exclusive 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 Constitution. Such a record seems TO
| us entitled to every presumption in its
/ favor which the records of this court
| kept under its supervision. would be en-
tilted to receive at the hands of the Legis-
| lature i'm a matter before IL. 1t is also ar
| gued that the contest board was not
fairly drawn 10y lot. that certain men,
! bers of the board were liable to objection
on the score of partiality and that, there
fore. this board was not properly consti-
| tuted IL any of these objections were
| well founded. the General Assembly had
full power 10 take such action as was
| proper i'm the premises. II does not ap-
rear that any of the objections urged
| were presented to the General Assembly.
but IL they were and II refused To make
"A correction. IL must be presumed that
81 had sufficient reasons for its action. Be-
sides the board was only a preliminary