The age-herald., 1900-04-30
BRIEF IN THE.
 BECKHAM CASE Attorney QuOemn Will File the
 Paper Today STRONG ARGUMENTS MADE Main Point Discussed is the Ques- ton of the Jurisdiction of the
 Supreme Court in the
 Famous Case.
STRONG ARGUMENTS MADE

Washington, April 29.-Lewis McQuoemn, attorney for Governor J. c. W. Beckham, has prepared and will file his brief tomor- row in the supreme court of the United States in the case involving the title to the governorship of Kentucky On the motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction in the supreme court it is contended that the provisions of the constitution and statutes of Kentucky governing the trial of contested elections for governor afford ''due process of law within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment to the con- stitution of the United States. As to the suficiency of the statute, it is said:
 "It will be perceived that by the pro- visions of the Kentucky statute notice Of fhe contest, specifying the grounds, bust be given within thirty days after the ac- tion of the canvassing board; the members of the board must be selected by lot and sworn to try the contest; the board Is re- quired to assign day for hearing the contest; and may adjourn from day to day; 1t has power to compel the attend ance of witnesses and to swear them; 1t may compel the production of papers and records; six members may render de- cision, which must be reported to both houses of the general assembly, which shall finally determine the contest.
 Thus, it will be seen that hearing after reasonable notice, is provided; and this is all due process of law means. It is not necessary that the process should issue from court, or that the hearing should be by judicial officer. Neither is 1t nec- essary that there should be trial by jury"
 Railroad Case Cited
 The supreme court of the United States in Iowa Central Railroad company vs. Iowa, 160 United States 332, Is quoted to sustain this point, as follows:
 Tt is clear that the fourteenth amend ment in no way undertakes to control the power of a 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 and af- fords a fair opportunity to be heard, be- fore the issues are decided"
 The provisions of the constitutions and satutes of Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ore- gon, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Vir- ginia, 1t is contended, 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 objection be sus- tained in this case, that 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 and the legislature did not allow sufficient time for hearing, it is contended that if the state provided a statute regulating the process, allowing a hearing after reasonable notice, and the board of legislature departed from the statute and rendered an erroneous decision, this does not bring the case within the prohibition of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution.
 The supreme court of the United States in Arrowsmith vs. Harmoning, 11S United States 243, is quoted as follows in support of this propositions:
 .."The legislature of state performs It's whole duty under the constitution when 1t provides a law for the government of the courts, while exercising their respective Jurisdictions; which, if followed, will fur nish the parties the necessary constitu- tional protection. All after that pertains to the courts.'
 Political omce Not Property
 The supreme court of the Uniteu States is further cited in Kennard vs. Louisiana 92 United State 4SO. It is further insisted that there is no property in political of- fee and hence its deprivation cannot fall within the inhibition contained in the fourteenth amendment Numerous decis- ions from the supreme courts of New York, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri and Wis., consin are cited to sustain this propsi- tion.
 It is insisted that If this case presents a federal question, then by like allegations to those made here, such question may be presented in every election contest and the court of last resort be converted into a supreme board of contest" 1t is there- fore insisted 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 questions are also discussed.
 It is said that the Jurisdiction of the gen. eral assembly Is conclusive; that the other tribunal or court under any form of pro- ceedfng, or in any mode. has Jurisdiction to determine the question involved in this 
 frsonfin,,ed m Third paraN