The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-02
KENTUCKY ARGUMENT ENDS.
Ex-GOv. BRADLEY CLOSES Fob
GOV. TAYLOR.
On the Question of Jurisdiction He
Contended That an ONCE Was
Property within the Meaning of
Copstitution-Is Subject to Review

WASHINGTON, May 1.-The supreme
court resumed its hearing today in the
Kentucky governorship case. Hon. w. y.
Bradley, former governor of that STATE
being the only speaker. He appeared Tor
Gov. Taylor, taking up first the claim OF
the opposition that Taylor had never
possessed any title to the office. he con-
tended that Taylor's title was as good as
that of any man who had ever held the
office He argued that Taylor's title was
complete. That he was not only de Jure
governor. but de facto governor as well.
and that every step that he had taken as
governor was legal.
on the point of Jurisdiction, he contend
ed, that the pending case is very similar
to that of Thayer versus Boyd, of Ne
braska, in which jurisdiction had been as
sumed. He met the argument of Gov.
Beckhams counsel that an office was not
property, by quoting authorities to the
contrary. Arguing this point, he said that
office was species Of property because
1t was a right of value-a privilege of cit
izenship of worth TO any man.
1t was one of the rights or privileges
coming under the protection guaranteed
by the fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution, and therefore subject to review
by the highest federal courts
No state could disregard the provisions
of this constitutional provision, nor could
any state legislature assume to be supe-
rior to IT, nor is a state legislature bound
to grant due process of law but state
courts must administer cases under this
authority
In the case of the governorship, there
was no such thing as an appeal. An adj
judication was necessary.
And why appeal?" Mr., Bradley asked.
IF we appeal to the ballot is 1t not easier
now to defy the expressed will of the
people than 1t has been even in this case,
when there has hppn stlrh de-
fiance of the expressed desire of the cleo
tors of the staten
Under the state constitution the legis-
lature was nothing more than a board of
contest This was a special power and it
was limited by the constitution. II this
limitation was transcribed, the act was
tyrannicaT. and such the speaker claimed
the act of the legislature in this case to
be. He challenged the method observed
In drawing the board as some of the MEM
bers OF 1t themselves had contests pend
ing, while another had laid q wager upon
the result On this account, according to
presidents, the decision of the board must
be held void. the members of the board
being judges in their own cases. Further
more, there had been no time for reason
able hearing nor sufficient notice.
There had also been Irregularities In the
trial. and Taylors friends had been re-
fused the privilege Of arguing the case.
were taken, but there was not time al
lowed the legislature to read a word of it.
Therefore the legislature had never really
and legally determine the case. All this,
Mr.. Bra--v concluded, was denial OF the
due process OF law" guaranteed by the
constitution.
The point was also made that the notice
OF contest had failed to state the ground
of contest under the law. Hence the leg
islature had assumed jurisdiction 1t did
not have.
Mr.. Bradley attacked the finding of the
legislature in the case as irregular. and
therefore void.
And they have as much power" he
said, ito bring back to life the body of
transaction which Is void"
he closed with an appeal for recogpi-
ton by the court. Instead of bending the
knee to the legislature. the court, he said,
should investigate their processes and see
that they were in accord with the require
ments OF the constitution. The occasion
people Of Kentucky. This was the first
fight which had been made south of the
Ohio for the preservation of civil liberty
by the process of the courts.
And II we fail" he said, at is liable to
be the last The same blighting influence
of arbitrary power is sure to go further
and extend to other states II there is no
supreme tribunal to which the people can
come with assurance OF such recognition
as will guarantee the preservation of their
privileges and immunities. II we fail here
our condition is pitiable indeed, for an APP
peal to the ballot box will be in the face
of that failure more worthless In the flu
ture than 1t has been in the past Our
bill of rights, though written in the blood
of martyrs, viii be worthless to us II the
agencies given for our protection turn
upon and betray us. We make our last
appeal to you, but in so doing we look be-
yund to that eternal principle of Justice
which we know should and does regulate
the affairs of men"
When Mr.. Bradley closed the court took
a recess until the 18th instant.
Inn. mi 4 l....