The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-04-10
KENTUCKY SUPREME COURT DECIDES
GOVeRNORSHIP CASE.
TO APPEAL To FEDERAL COURT
Taylor's Lawyers Their In
tention to Apply for a Writ ef Error
Justice Dissents-Other Two Repub-
lican Judges Concur with the Demo-
cratic Justices In Their Conclusions
The Opinion Of the Court.


ernor w o. Bradley. chief counsel for
Governor Taylor, tonight authorized
the statement thai an appeal on benalt
of Governor Taylor and Lieutenant
Governor Marshall Will be carried to
the supreme court OF the United
States.
Mr.. Bradley and Judge w. H. Yosi.
counsel for the republican state Off
GERS, were in consultation with Govern
or Taylor for several hours this after
noon, and the above statement was
made al the close of the conference.
Ii is stated that Colonel w. c. =.
Breckenridge and republican leaders
from different parts OF the state viii
meet Governor Taylor in conference
here tomorrow morning.
Ex-Governor Bradley said: w VII.
not take advantage OF any
tiles to delay the progress or the case
The decision of the court or appears
is not disheartening 10 US. We Will
ask for a writ of error TO the supreme
court at once and these contests VIII
now be at an end in a very short time
The court of appeals today handed
down its decision in the gubernatorial
contest in favor of Beckham, Judge
ou WI ~ cNA
republican judges Burnam and Jufy.
handed down a separate opinion. which
differed in its reasons from the opin-
ion of the democratic judges. Blu
agreed with them in its conclusion.
Judge HobSon, one of the four demo-
cratic judges, wrote the opinion of the
majority of the court affirming the de
cision of Judge Field. of Louisville. IL
recites of the state c~anvassing board
and of the contest proceedings in the
Legislature and all subsequent proceed
ingS and continues:
w have no more right to supervise
the decisions of the general assembly
in determining the result of this cleo
ton than we have to supervise the &C
ton of the governor in calling a spe-
cial session of the Legislature or in
p~ardoning a criminal, or the action OF
the Legislature in contracting debts or
determining upon the election of its
members or doing any other act au-
thorized by the constitution. There
is no conflict between the action of the
state c~anvassing 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 election to those who on the face Of
I'm = Ao AA@o NAN &c 1890
number of votes. For the state board
to nave received evidence to impeach
returns before them would heve been
for them, in effect, to act as a board
for conteSting the election, and if they
had done this they would nave usurped
the power vested in the general assem-
bly, by the constitution, for by its ex-
press terms only the general assembly
can determine a contested election for
governor and lieutenant governor; but
the certificates of the state board of
vas is no evidence as to who
was elected. Their certificate entities
the recipient to exercise the office until
the regular constitutional authority
shall determine who is the de jure Off
Ger.
Such a determination of the result
of the election by the proper tribunal
did not take from him any p~re-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
can be distinguished from any other
Legislative action, taken in a matter
over which the constitution has given
the Legislature exclusive Jurisdiction,
and we are therefore of the opinion
that the court is without jurisdictio.
to go behind the record made by the
legislature under the constitution.
Such a record seems tous entitled to
every presumption in its favor which
the records of this court, kept under
its supervision, would be entitled to
receive ait the hands Of the legislature
in a matter before it.
1T is also argued that the contest
board vas not fairly drawn by lot:
that certain members of the board
were liable to objection on the score
of partiality, and that, therefore, this
board was not properly constituted
If any Of these objections were well
founded, the general assembly a full
power to take such action as was prop
er in the premises. 1t does not appear
that any of the objections urged were
presented to the general assembly, but
if they were and it refused to make a
correction, it must be presumed that
it had sufficient for its action.
Besides, the board was only a prelim-
mary agency to take evidence and re-
port the facts to the general assembly.
| The assembly itself finally determined
the contest.