The age-herald., 1900-05-01
Question of Jurisdiction of Fed
 eral Court Paramount.
BRADLEY WILL CLOSE ARGUMENT
The Court Room Was Crowded and All the Judges Were Present-Pay- the Closest Attention to
 the Speeches

Washington, April 30.-The argument in the Kentucky governorship case was be- gun in the United States supreme court at 12:30 today. The first presentation was made on behalf of Governor Taylor by Att torney Helm Bruce. Mr. Bruce had a large audience of distinguished Kentuck- ians, and the lobby of the court room was crowded. All the members of the court were present, and from the beginning gave close attention to MT. Bruce's plea.
 He said that MT. Taylors contention was for constitutional liberty and that 1t was waged in a court of justice and not on a field of carnage, because in entering the union Kentucky had surrendered its rights of resistance. He came to this court on the basis of the principle laid down in a former opinion of the court to the eff feet that the arbitrary exercises of power of government, unrestrained by regard for private rights and justice, could not be tolerated. MT. Bruce reviewed the case at length upon its merits, contending that after the issuance of the certificate of selection, Mr. Taylor was as much the governor of Kentucky as any man who had ever been inaugurated for that office.
 He denied the legislative adjudication was any adjudication at all, contending that to oust MT. Taylor by this process would be to deprive him of his office by tespotic power and not by due process of law. The proceeding was not by due pro- cess of law, as required by the constitu- tion.
 Contest Before Legislature
 ! Referring to the contest before the Ken- lucky legislature, he said that the report of the committee on investigation present. ed no evidence, and stated no fact, and that it was made to a secret meeting of the assembly, of which no republican member had been notified. In this connec- ton he referred at length to the charge that the ballots used were thinner than required by the law If this was true, he said, the wrong was that of the state, if wrong had been committed.
 Surely one-third of the voters of the state could not be deprived of the right of franchise on such a plea.
 Mr. Bruce contended for the Jurisdiction of the federal supreme court under the con- stitution to review the case, quoting many precedents in support of this view. The Kenucky legislature had been given no com misison to elect a governor of Kentucky Their power extended only to the trial of a contest. The legislature had tried to ex- ercise the power of appointment. MT. Bruce contended that even if it were true that Taylor had forfeited his right to notice of the trial by prohibiting the use of the legislative hall surely this could not be said in the case of MT. Marshall in the lieutenant gOyernorShip case
 MT. Bruce contended that all but two of the grounds of contest had been practically eliminated The only two grounds remain ing were:
 Charges of Thin Ballots
 The charges of thin ballots used in forty counties, or third of the state, and intim- idation in the city of Louisville.
 With reference to the first point it could not be contended that the state itself could deprive a portion of its own population of the right of franchise without due process of law Also in Louisville, where 1t was sought to disfranchfse 36,000 voters, the wrong, if any, had not been due to the ac- ton of the state executive. This was an- other instance in which it sought to use the action of one branch of the govern ment to prevent the exercise of a proper function. This was unjust and could not be pleaded with any justice.
 MT. Bruce was followed by Hon. Law renee N. Maxwell, in MT. Beckham's inter- est. He said that the constitution of Ken lucky made the legislature the adjudicator in contests for state officers of that state. The proceeding in this case had been in accordance with the law under the consti- tuion. There had been no authority as was claimed on the other side, for dissoly- ing the legislature by Governor Taylor
 MT Maxwell contended that the case presented no federal question, and that therefore the federal supreme court had no jurisdiction. The Kentucky state court of appeals had decided that MT. Taylor had never acquired title to the office of govern or under the constitution and laws of the state. The decision was final, and the na- tional court had no part to play in the pro- ceeding. As to the certificate of election from the state board of canvassers it was merely writing showing the returns of the election of officers. It was evidence of validity of title, in view of the conclu- sion reached by the constitutional author ity, which was the state legislature.
 Ohio Case Quoted
 Mr. Maxwell quoted authorities on the point of Jurisdiction, among them many Ohio cases. He remarked that in Ohio the right to hold office was held to be almost hs sacred as the right of the pursuit of happiness
 In view of the fact that the case was merely a state question, Mr. Maxwell thought it unnecessary to consider the ap- plication of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution concerning the taking of property without due process of law. The