The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1900-04-12
AGAINST TAYLOR.
The Kentucky Democrats Cone Out
Winners.
REPUBLICANS WILL APPEAL CASE
Will Ask fcr Writ oi Error, and Carry
the Matter to the Supreme Court
Of The United States,

Frankfort, KY, Specialize court OF
Appeals has handed down q decision
in the governorship IN favor Of the
Democrats. Ex-Governor Bradley.
chief counsel for Taylor author. .Zed the
statement that an appeal on behalf oi
Governor Taylor and Lieut. Governor
Marshall wlIl be carried TO the Supreme
Court OF the United States Mr.. Brad
ley and w. II. Yost. counsel for the
Republican State officers. were in con-
sultation with Governor Taylor foi
several hours and the above stetemeiii
was made at the close OF the confer
ence. 1t Is stated thai Col. w. c. p.
Breckinridge and Republican leaders
from different parts OF the State. will
| meet Governor Taylor in conference
here. 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 disheartenlng TO us. We
| will ask for writ OF error to the Su-
| preme Court at once, and these con
tests will now be at an end in a very
short time
The Court of Appeals hands down its
decision in the gubernator.al contest 10
favor Of Beckham, Judge DuRolle dis
sendng. The other two Republican
judges, Burnam and Guffey, handed
down a different opinion, which differ
fered in its reasons from the opinion OF
the Democratic judges, but agreed with
them in it's conclusion. Judge Hobson
one of the four Democratic judges
wrote the opinion OF the majority oI
the court, affirming the decision ol
| Ind o1d nf nyrfc
the work of the State canvassing board
and contests before the legislature, ant
continues:
eve have no more right to supervls'
the decisions of the General Assembl.
in determining the result Of this elec
tion than we have to supervise the &C
ton of the Governor in calling a specia
session of the legislature, or in pardon
!. ing a criminal, or the action OF tn
legislature in contracting debts or de
termining upon the election of its mem
bers, or doing any other act authorize
/ ! by the constitution. There is no con
fiict between the action of the Stat
canvassing board and that of the leg.s
lature in these cases. The State car
, | vassing board was without power
, go behind the returns. They were nc
, authorized to hear evidence and detel
mine who was in truth elected, bl
were required to give certif:ate
election to those who, on the face {
the returns, had received the highe
= number Of votes. For the State boar
J, to have received evidence to impeac
= the returns before them would hal
been for them, in effect, to act &c
: board contesting the election, and
they had done this they would ha'
. usurped the power vested In the gel
a eral assembly by the constitution, Il
: by its expressed terms, only the gener
= assembly can determine a contests
election for governor and lieutena
governor. But the certificate OF t
State board of canvassers is no eN
dence as to who was in truth electe
c. Their certificate entities the recipie
"a to exercise the Office until the regul
e. constitutionality shall determine w
s. is the de jure officer. The right OF I
le de jure officer attached when he W
vs. elected, although the result W
u unknown until it was declared
as the proper constitutional authors
VI When it was so declared 1t was simI
the aceertainment of a fact hitherto
G. doubt or unsettled The rights of
ed de facto officer under his certific;
IL. from the canvassing board were prov
g. ional or temporary until the de-ermiI
x ton of the result of the election
n provided in the constitution and up
ms that determination, IL adverse to h.
he they ceased altogether. Such de;
III mination of the result Of the elect
IS by the proper tribunal did not ta
ne from him any existing right shrdlr
DE from him any pre-existipg right for
ms not in fact elected, he had only ri
IL to act until the result Of the elect
"a could be determined. We are tteref
IRE unable to see how this case can be
termined from any other legislat
,,d action taken in the matter over VIII
~ the constitution has given the legis
The ture exclusive jurisdiction, and We ;
,ur therefore, of the opinion that the CO
ali is without jurisdiction to go behind
nd record mace py tne iesisidlu VI.
to the constitution. Such a record se'
hill to Us entitled to every presumption
it its favor which the records OF
nd court, kept under its supervision. VIC
~, be entitled to receive at the hands
the legislature in matter before It.
=, is also argued that the contest bo
was not fairly dTawn Dy iot' thdt
,ac9 tain members of the board were II;
aol' TO objection on the score OF partia
sa and that, therefore, this board was
OF properly constituted. If any OF u
'uo- objections were we'll founded, the {
ans eral assembly had full power TO
'nei such action as was proper In the pr
pro fses. It does not appear that an!
seu the objections urged were presente
,oi J. the general assembly, but II they
- and il refused to make correction
sncy must be presumed that 1t had sufic
tied reasons for its action. Besides,
was board was only preliminary ag.
to take evidence and report the
was TO the general assembly. The ass
ting bly, itself finally determined the
Mr.. test"
'rity
.Ae Breyities.