The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-04-30
THE KENTUCKY CONTEST.
Governor Beckham's Brief VIII Re Filed 10
Court Today.
EFFECT or FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Cases Cited to show TINT the sup
rene Court Has No Jurisdiction TO
Try Contested Election Cases.

has prepared and will hle his brief 10
morrow In the supreme court Of the Unit
ed States in the case involving the title
TO the governorship Of Kentucky. On
the motion to dismiss, for want of iuris-
diction in the supreme court, it is con-
tended that the provisions of the con-
stitution aud statutes Of Kentucky gov
erning the trial OF contested elections for
governor, afford due process OF law with
in the meaning of the fourteenth amend
msnt to the Constitution OF the United
States"
AS to the sufflciency of the statute it is
said 1T will be perceived that by the
provisions CT the Kentucky statute notice
of the contest specifying tho grounds,
must be given within thirty days after the
action of the canvassing board the mem
bers OF the beard must be selected by
lot and sworn to try the contest The
board is required to assign day for hear
ing the contest and may adjourn from day
10 day; 1t has power to compel the at
tendance OF witnesses and to swear them;
1t may compel the production OF papers
and records; six menbs-s may render
luSNlaiOui NulNu must Db lGpoI lSu ~ bOsA
houses OF the general assembly, which
shall finally determine the confess,
Thus it will be seen that hearing,
after reasonable notice is provided, and
this Is all due process Of law means. II
is not necessary that the process should
issue from court. or that the hearing
: should be by a judicial officer Nelthei
lis It necessary that there should be trial
by jury"
The supreme court OF the United States
in Iowa Central Railroad Company W.
Iowa, 100 United States, 1872, is quoted
to sustain this point, as follows:
:. at is clear that the fourteenth amend
meut in no way undc--skes TO control the
, power OF State to determine by what
| process legal rights may be asserted, or
legal obligations be enforced provided
, the method of procedure adopted for these
, purposes gives reasonable notice AID af-
fords fair opportunity 20 be heard be-
fore the issues are decided.
; The provisions OF the constitution and
statutes of Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois. Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Mississippi. Missouri. North Carolina, Ore
! gon Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia
and West Virginia, 1t is contended, are
5 substantially the same as The Kentucky
, constitution and Statutes regulating the
procedure in the trial of any contested
election for governor, and it is said that
IL inc ODJeCllOn ne ahHtslNeu IN lHls Ease
the corresponding provisions in the States
referred to are likewise invalid
AS to the point made by the counsel for
= Taylor that in the administration OF the
law the contest board AMI the legislature
did not allow sufficient tine for hearing. 1t
is conLended that if the State provides a
statute regulating the procedure, allowing
a hearing after a reasonable notice, and
the board of legislature departed from the
statutes and rendered an erroneous dect-
, | sion, this does not designate the case with
in the provision of the fourteenth amend
ment to the federal constitution.
The supreme court of the United States
in Arrowsmith vs. Arrowning, Z. S. 243
is quoted as follows in support OF tho las:
proposition:
THE legislature Of the State performs
its whole duty under the constitution when
1t provides a law for the government Of
the courts. while in their respective juris-
dictions which, If followed viii furnish
the parties the necessary constitutional
protection All after that pertains to tho
d courts"
: The supreme court of the United States
is further cited in Kennard vs. Louisiana,
90 U. s.. $50. It is further insisted that
= there is no property in a political office,
and hence its deprivation can not fall
- within the inhibition contained in the four
teenth amendment. Numerous decisions
v rom the supreme courts of New York
y Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin
are cited to sustain this proposition.
1t is insisted that If this case presents
federal question, then, by like allega-
II tions TO those made here, such question
t, may be presented in every election contest
: and the court OF last resort be converted
: into a supreme board of contest" 1t Is
: therefore insisted that the motion to dis
miss the suit he sustained. because there
Is no color OF federal question in the
record
= Inasmuch as the case is set down for
hearing on the motion to dismiss, and also
on the merits the other questions are
also discussed
1t is said that "the jurisdiction OF thu
general assembly is conclusive and lis
1udgmsu t is conclusive, that no othe
tribunal or court, under any form OF pro-
. ceellng or in any mode, has jurisdiction
{, to determine the question involved in this
. contest or to review the action of the
: legislature Upon the ground OF public
. policy the lawmakers have invested the
general assembly with this plenary and
hnal Jurisdiction for the determlr alton o
N these contests No provision is made
for an appeal or review by the judicial
tribunals because It was not intended that
&c they should have jurisdiction over the
contest"
The Kentucky cases of Bateman VS. NC
Gowan, Met 53S. and Slime VS. Berry
Z, SO Kentucky, 60, together with Baxter vs.
Brooks, % Ark. 1S2, and numerous Ohio
cases, are cited in support of this PROPOSE
sion,
In reference to the contention OF Tay-
lor's counsel that the determination o.
u the contest by the board and the general
u assembly was the result OF fraudulan,
g conspiracy on the part OF the member
n OF the legislature Il is maintalned that the
journals Of that body. showing its action
y can not be impeached for fraud or mis-
/ take and that they import absolute
a verify
The rule" It is said rests upon tn.
y ground that legal effect Of the record Of
+ the general assembly, soemnly made In
II pursuance to the mandate Of the coast!-
y tuition, can not be denied or DESTROYED by
y Judicial action. The rule applies whAthsf
/, the action OF the general assembly is
: sssalled in the passage OF law or IA
q performance OF any other duty imposed by
y the constitution"
- Opinions OF the courts Of Kentucky
! Indiana, Pennsylvania and Ohio are cited
a 10 support OF this conviction.
! Counsel Tor Taylor. the hrief says seek
"A further TO show the general assembly that
] II No al -.