Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-04-30


The Jurisdiction of the General
Assembly is Exclusive and its
Judgment Conclusive.
WASHINGTON, April 29.-Lewis
McQuown, attorney for J.. c. w. Beck
ham. has prepared and will file his
brief tomorrow in the Supreme Court
in the case involving the title to the
governorship of Kentucky. On the
motion to dismiss fer want of juris-
diction in the Supreme Court, it is
contended that the provisions of. the
constitution and statutes of Kentucky,
governing the trial of contested cleo
tons for Governor, afford "due pro-
cess of law" within the meaning of
the fourteenth amendment TO the con-
stitntion of the United States. AS
to the sufficiency of the statute it
says:
1T will be perceived that by the pro-
visions of the Kentucky statute. no
tice of the contest, specifying the
| grounds, must be given within thirty
days after the action Of the canvass
ing board; the members of the board
must be selected by lot and sworn to
try the contest; the board is required
to assign a day for hearing the con-
test and may adjourn from day to
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 members
may render a decision. which must
be reported to both houses of the Cen
eral Assembly, which shall finally de-
termine the contest.
"Thus it will be seen that a hearing,
after reasonable notice, is provided for,
and this is all due process of law
means. 1t is not necessary that the
process should issue from a court, or
that the hearing should be by a judi
cial officer. Neither is it necessary
that there should be a trial by jury"
The provisions of the constitutions
and statutes of Arkansas, Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kan
sas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Caro-
lima, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, it
is commended, are substantially the
same as the Kentucky constitution and
statutes regulating the procedure on
the trial of a contested election for
Governor, and, it is said, that if the OBJ
lection be sustained in this case, that
the corresponding provisions in the or
ganic laws. OF all 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 and the
Legislature did not allow sufficient
time for hearing, it is contended that
if the State provided a statute for the
regulating of the procedure, allowing
a hearing after reasonable notice, and
the board or Legislature departed from
the statute and rendered an n
decision, this does not bring the case
within the prohibition of the four
teenth amendment to the Federal con-
stitution.
It is further insisted that there is no
property in a political Office, and hence
it's deprivation cannot fall within the
inhibition contained in the fourteenth
amendment. Numerous decisions from
the Supreme Courts of New York, Ken
lucky, Ohio, Missouri and Wisconsin
are cited to sustain this proposition.
1t is insisted that if this case pre-
sents a federal question, then, by like
allegations to these made here SUCH
a question may be presented in every
election contest, and the court of last
resort be converted into a supreme
board of contest" 1t is therefore in
sisted that the motion to dismiss the
suit should be sustained because
there is no color of a 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 ques-
tons are also discussed.
1t is said that the jurisdiction of the
General Assembly is exclusive, and its
judgment is conclusive; that no other
tribunal of court, under any form OF
proceeding, or in any mode, has jur-
isdiction to determine the question in
volved in this contest, or to review
the action of the Legislature.
Upon the ground of public policy
the law makers have invested the Gen
eral Assembly with this plenary and
final jurisdiction for the determination
of these contests. No provision is made
for an appeal or review by the judicial
tribunals, because it was not intended
that they should have jurisdiction
over the contest"
The Kentucky cases of Batman VS..
Mcgowan, / Met 533, and Steine VS..
Berry, 9S Kentucky. So, together with
Baxter VS.. Brooks, 20 Arkansas, 1872
Continued on Third Page