The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1900-05-02
KENTUCKY'S
GOVERNOR.
Argument Before the u.
S. Supreme Court
Concluded.

Washington, May 2. - The Supreme
Court resumed Its hearing yesterday In
the Kentucky Governorship case Hon.
w. O. Bradley, Ex-Governor OF that State,
being tho only speaker. lie appeared for
Governor Taylor, baking up first the claim
of the opposition thatTaylor had never po-
sessed any title to the office. He contend
cd that Taylor's tile was as good as that
of any man who had ever held the office
This was the first contest that the state
had ever had over that Office, and this con-
test would never have occurred but for
what Is characterized ~ the iniquitous
election law known as the Goebel law.
He argued that Taylor's title was oom-
plete: that no was not only de Jure Cover
nor. but dc facto Governor as well, and
that every stop he had taken rs Governor
was officially good under tho law.
On the point of Jurisdiction he Q ntend-
ed that no pending case 4 very similar TO
that of Thayer VS.. Boyd, Of Nebraska. in
which Jurisdiction had boon assumed. He
met the argument Of Governor BOckhain's
counsel that IN Office was not property by
quoting authorities to the contrary, ,Argu'
ing this point. he said that office was
species of property, because it was right
OF value. d privilege Of citizenshlp OF
worth to any man. 1t was ono OF the
rights Of privilege coming under the pro-
lection guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment of tho Constitution, and,
therefore subject to review by the highest
Federal court. No State could disregard
the provision, norcould any State Legis-
lature assume to be super or to 1t. ln
case Ike this OF the Goyernorship there
was no such thing as an appeal to the PEG.
pie. The Adjudication was necessary. And
why appeal?" Mr.. Bradley asked, with
some apparent bitterness In his tone OF
voice 'If we appeal to tho ballot box"
he continued 'is it not easier now to deny
tho expressed will of the people than 1t
ha, been even In this case. when there had
been such an open defiance of the express
cd desire of the electors OF the Sthter
Under the State Constitution tho Legis-
lature was nothing more then a board OF
contest. This was q special power and 1t
was limited by the Constitution. II this
limitation was transcribed, the act was
tyrannicul, and such the speaker claimed
the act of the Legislature in this case to
be. lie challenged the method observed
in drawing the Board as some Of the
members Of 1t themselves had contests
pending. while another had laid wager
upon the result On this account,
according TO presidents, the decl-
sion Of the Board must BIO hold void, the
members of the Board being judges IN
their own cases. Furthermore, there had
been no time for reasonable hearing nor
sufficient notice. Seventeen hundred
pages Of testimony were taken, but their
was not time allowed tho Legislature to
road q word of It,
MIR. Bradley Closed with All appeal for
recognition ny the Court. Instead of bend
ing the knee to the Legislature, tue Court,
ho said, should inves igute their processes
and see that they were in accord with the
requirements of tho Consti, ution. The
occasion was momentous one for The
people OF Kentucky. This was the first
tight which had been made south of the
Ohio for the preservation of civil liberty
by the processes Of tho Courts, land IL we
fail" he said, ut is liable to be the last
The same Dlishtjng influence of arbitrary
power is sure to go farther and extend to
her Statos If there is mt some supreme
tribunal to which the people can come
with assurance Of such recognition as Will
guarantee the preservation of their privi-
leges and immunites."