The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-04-07
Declaring Him Lawful Governor Of
the Blue Grass State.
JUDGE DU ROLE DISSENTED.
The other Two Republican Judges
Handed Down 4 Separate Opinion,
Which, While Differing Some
what From That OF the Dem
ocrats. Agreed With It's
Conclusions in Main.

FRANKFORT, ny, April G.-EX-Gov-
ernor w. D. Bradley, chief counsel for
Governor 2,aylor, tonight authorized the
statement that an an9eal on behalf OF
Governor 1'aylor and Lieutenant-Goyer-
ror Marshall will be carried to the Su-
preme Court Of the United States.
Mr.. Bradley and Judge W. IL Yost,
counsel for the Republican State officials,
were in CONSULTATION with Governor Tay-
lor for several hours this evening, and
the above statement was made at the
close Of the conference.
1t is stated that Colonel w. c. P. Breck-
enridge and Republican leaders from diff
ferent parts of the State will meet Gov
ernor TAYLOR in conference here to-mor-
row morning.
Ex-Governor Bradley said I'VE will
not take advantage of any technicalities
to delay the passage of the case. The
decision Of the Supreme Court of Appeals
is not diy.heartenng to us. We will ask
for wr.t of error to the Supreme Court
al once and these contests will be at an
end in a very. short time"
l;ECkHAAI GOVERNOR.
The Court of Appeals to-,:ay handed
down it, decision in the Gubernatorial
contes: in favor Of Beckham, judge Di1
Role dissenting. The other two Repubii-
can judges Burni,am and Guffy, handed
down a Separate opinion, which differed
in its reasons from the ooinion of the
Denrocra tic judges, but agreed in the
main With its conclusions. Judge Hob
son, one of the four Democratic judges,
wrote the opinion of the majority of the
court. ltiirnlins the decision OF Judge
Field. Of Louisville.
It retites the work of the State Can
vassing Board and of the contest pro-
ceedings in the Legislature, and con-
cludes:
..There is no conflict between the action
of the State Canvassing Board and that
OF the Legislature in these cases. The
State Canvassing Board was without
power to so behind the returns. They
were rot authorized to hear evidence and
determine who was in truth elected, but
were required to give 4 certificate of
election to the one who on the face of
the returns had received the highest
number of votes.
WITHOUT JURISDICTION.
"We are, therefore, unable to see how
this case can be distinguished from any
other legislative action taken on 4 mat
ter w;lch the Constitution has given the
Legislature exclusive jurisdiction, and We
are, therefore, of the opinion that the
court is without jurisdiction to go behind
the record made by the-Legishlture under
the Constitution.
..It is also argued that the Contest Board
was not fairly drawn by lot: that cef.
tain members of the Board were liable to
objection on the score of partiality, and
that. therefore, this Board was not pro-
perlH constituted. If any of these objec-
tons were we'll founded the General As
semtly had full power to take such ac-
,tion as was proper in the premises. It
does not appear that any of the objec-
tiorj urged were presented ito the Gene
raj Assembly, but if they were and it re-
fused to make a correction it mist be
presumed that it had sufficient reasons
for its action.
"Eesides the Board was only a prelimi-
nary agency to take evidence and report
the facts to the General Assembly. The
Assembly itself finally determined the
cclNest.''