Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-02-13

CINCINNAM, O., February I'm
the United States Circuit Court OF APP
peals Judge J. H. Taft heard argument
this afternoon for over three our on
the applications for injunction against
the Kentucky State Board OF Elections
Commissioners and the contestants for
the State offices other than governor
and lieutenant governor.
The large court room was Unable to
hold all who came to the federai
building for admission. Very many OF
the visitors were from the Kentucky
side, notably the plaintiffs against the
State board, who are citizens OF Gov
ington. The Republican State officers
were also present, but the only one OF
the defendants in attendance was
Judge Poyntz, Of the State board.
There were quite a number present
from Frankfort and Louisville.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Bradley, Wilson, Sweeney and Yost all
OF Kentucky. The defendants were re-
presented by Scott, Hendrick, Hager
and Maxwell, the latter being a mem
Der of the bar of Cincinnati, and the
others of Kentucky.
Ex-Governor Bradley made a plain
statement of the ground upon which
the action of the courts Is invoked.
After reciting the provisions by which
the State Board of Elections is con-
verted into a board Of contest, he de-
clared that they were entirely repug-
nant to the Republican form of gov
eminent, which provides for three dis
tinct departments. He asserted that
this board Of contest had been made a
judicial body by the Goebel law.
"At this point Judge Taft inquired
whether the Goebel law had been pass
ed upon
BY the Court of Appeals.
Governor Bradley replied that it had.
but his contention was that never
theless, in case he could show the law
to be in contravention Of the federal
constitution, then this court could be
invoked.
Judge Taft replied that a decision OF
the State Court on the constitutional
ity of the law did not necessarily pre-
vent Jurisdiction by the United States
Court of Appeals where a proper case
could be shown.
Governor Bradley then went on to
show in what respect the Goebel law
deprives citizens of their rights. In
this line he spoke of the situation in
Kentucky with regard to these COM
plainants having been given certifi-
Gates of election by a vote of 2 to
and that one, now the only member of
the board which is about to pass up
the contests, instituted by the candi-
dates opposed to these plaintiffs. That
one, he said already officially de-
clared that the board had the power
to go behind the returns and thus ex-
ercise judicial powers. The other two
members had likewise, In advance OF
their decision declared their intention
to Dust these plaintiffs.
Going into the argument for the jur-
isdict!on of this court he said that
this action had its basis in the pro-
vision of the Fourteenth amendment
Of the Constitution of the United
States. He quoted Justice Harlan as
saying that a State may not disregard
by any of Its agents the provisions of
this section by taking life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
He went on 10 define.
The Meaning of Liberty
SO as to include in it the right to vote,
to have the vote counted and the Of
ficers elected permitted to exercise the
functions of their Office.
Judge Taft here created a diversion
by asking If the right to vote was
granted by the Fourteenth amendment
to women. Mr.. Bradley admitted that
while women had not the right to vote.
1t was nevertheless true that authoriz-
ed electors are entitled to protection
by the federal courts against any State
against which undertakes to nullify
that vote.
Lawrence Maxwell. Jr., on behalf of
the defendants, made a brief argument
on the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction because the petit
lions do not present a case of equity
and don't fall under the provisions of
the Fourteenth amendment of the
United States constitution. He said
the situation was n in which the
position of these compliments is in
course of settlement by a State tribu-
nal. Contest proceedings in their cases
are pending. This contest presents
none of the features of an equity case.
Mr.. Maxwell then recited a number
of cases In which it had been held that
the court had no power to interfere in
the removal OF an officer and that GER
tihcates Of equity took c~ognizance on
" Of civil and property rights. This
being true he claimed there was no
ground whatever fSr federal interior