The age-herald., 1900-02-15
CITED FAMOUS SAWYER CASE The Decision Contained Four
 Thousand Words. TAYLOR IS NOT DISCOURAGED
The Result Was Not Unexpected, But Republican Attorneys Hope to Yet Get the Case in the
 United States Court.

Cincinnati, O., Feiofuary i4-lH ule C1i- cult court of the United States Judge w. H. Taft this afternoon denied the motion for a preliminary injunction in both of the cases from Kentucky. In addition to the attorneys in the cases, most of the members of the bar of Cincin- nati, Covington and Newport were present, and the court room was unable to hold all others wanting admission. Judge Taft completed the delivery of his opinion at 2;50 p. m and occupied less than a half hour in delivering almost 1000 words.
 While the court held that no injunctions would be issued under these bills yet it also held that after the cases had been heard in the state courts they could get in on error for review in the United States supreme court.
 After the decision was announced former Governor Bradley of Kentucky and his as- sociate counsel announced that they were unable to state what would be the next step of the republican state officers of Kentucky. Counsel for the plaintiffs held a long consultation in the law library after the announcement of the decision. Gov ernor Bradley and hds associate counsel, af- ter their consultation, said they had no doubt either of the ultimate possibility of hearing of these cases in the United States court, as indicated by Judge Taft, or of the final result, but at present counsel could not say what would be the next pro- cedure
 The following is the decision of Judge Taft in part:
 Judge Tart's Decision
 'The injunctive process of the court is sought to prevent removal from office. It Is unnecessary to discuss the question whether federal question is presented up- on the face of this bill, or Ito consider the correctness of the claims of complainant that the rights and immun.ties secured to to him as a citizen of the United States by the forty-edghth amendment to the federal constitutions are infringed or are likely to be infringed, by the acts of the defendants, done, or to be done. It is sufficient to hold as l do that a court of equity cannot by process of injunction prevent the removal of an officer from this office His remedy must be at law quo warrarlto other like proceedings. It is conceded that the laws of Kentucky afford to the complainant a remedy by quo warranto, also remedy at law, to prevent usurption in office. If in such proceeding any federal question can be raised, complainant may carry it, if de- cided against him by 'Jhe state courts, by writ of error, to the supreme court of the United States. He cannot invoke the ac- tion of court of equity to protect his right to his office."
 Cited the Sawyer Case
 The judge cited the United States su- preme court decision in the Sawyer case 124 United States, POO, and said it was claimed by complainants that the Sawyer case did not apply because in this case 1t is averred that the office is property. The judge held that public office in Kentucky is not property, but a trust where the com- pensation is only for services rendered. It is not even contract.
 Referring to the claim that the Kentucky courts practically denied a hearing, he said:
 'It is said there is inadequate remedy here because the courts of Kentucky which this action would have to be brought are two years behind in the disposition of their business and a decision would be long de- layed. It is hardly sufficient ground for appeal to federal court of equity, that state courts of law are too busy to do jus tice. The delays incident to quo warranto proceedings as a reason for 1ustifying equitable interposition was certainly brought to the attention of the supreme court in the Sawyer case because Chief Justice White in his dissenting opinion com- ments on it and suggests 1t as his ground for withholding his concurrence form the broad doctrine laid down by the court that under no circumstance had court Of equity jurisdiction to interfere by injunc- tion to prevent a removal from office. how ever, fraudulent or unjust the threatened proceeding.
 The Wilson Case
 'It is suggested that the case of Wilson versus North Carolina, 169 U S., 587, modi- fies the doctrine of the Sawyer case upon tine points under consideration. An exam anation of that case fails to support the suggestion. The Wilson case involved the title to a state office and the validity of a removal therefrom. But 1t was an action at law-it was a proceeding in quo war ranto, and was carried from the supreme court of North Carolina to that of the United States by writ of error. It did not involve the question of equity Jurisdiction all."
 '-The case in re Sawyer Is leading case upon the subject, and settles conclusively for this court the principle which must ob- tain in the exercise of the injunctive power of @ court of equity. The case is so elab- crate that any other recitation of authority which does not bear upon the principle is wholly superf1uous. should have been able to decide this question at the close of the argument; but the importance of the interests involved and the outrageous char acter of the electoral frauds under the forms of law which the bills charge that the state contest board is about to con Ia l,ox, lad rr,a ffs ofu