The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1900-02-23
COURT LACKS JURISDICTION.
lucky Election Casas -Colnmrnts
Oa the Gases.

Os the Gases.
Cincinnati, Feb i6.-In the circuit
court of the United States Judge w. n.
Taft. Wednesday afternoon. denied the
motion for a preliminary injunction in
both of the cases from kentucky.
In addition TO the attorneys in the
cases. most Of the members of the bar
of Cincinnati. Covington and Newport
were present, and the court room was
unable To hold all Others wanting ad-
mn son.
Judge Taft completed the delivery
Of his opinion at so p. m, and occn-
pied less than half an hour in deliver
ing almost 1000 words.
While the court held that no injunc-
ton would issue under these bills. vet
il also held that after the cases had
been heard in the state courts, they
could get in on error for review in the
United States supreme court.
After the decision was announced
former Gov. Bradley and his associate
counsel said that they were TN
ole to state what would be the next
step CT the republican state officers OF
kentucky.
Counsel for the plaintiffs held long
consultation in the law library after
the announcement OF the decision. Gov.
Bradley and his associate counsel, af-
ter their consultation, said they had
no doubt either OF the ultimate posi-
bility Of hearing of these cases in
n "a. .,.s ,,,.l, ....- ..1
by Judge Taft. or of the final result,
hut al present. counsel could not say
wha; would be the next procedure.
The following is the decision of
Judge Taft in part:
Thu injunction process Of the court Is
sought to prevent a removal from oftice.
IL !. Unnecessary 70 discuss the question
whether "A federal question is presented
upon the face OF this bill or TO consider
the correctness OF the claim OF complain
ant, that the rights and immunitles Sc.
cured 10 him as citizen OF the United
States by the fourteenth Amendment 20
the federal constitution are infrnged or
are likely TO be infringed by tho acts Of
tho defendants done or TO be done. 1t IS
sufficient 10 hold. as ! do, that court OF
equity can not. by process OF Injunction.
prevent the removal OF an officer from his
office. His remedy must be at law by QUO
Narranto or other like proceedings. Ii IL
cCrceded that the laws OF Kentucky al
fore to the compliments a remedy ~
quo warranto, also remedy at law 10
prevent usurpation In office. II in such
pr cCe edinE any federal question can ,e
raised complainant may carry II. II de-
ciGed against him by the state courts Ivy
writ OF error, TO the supreme court OF the
United States lie can not invoke the
action OF a court Of equity to protect his
right to his office.
The Judge cited the United States
supreme court decision in Sawyer. 12i
-. n
ccmplainants that the Sawyer case did
not apply, because in this case. il is
avcreo that the Office is property. The
jl.cgc held that public Office in Ken
tl'cky is not property. but trust,
" here the compensation is only for
services rendered 1t is not even
contract
Referring to the claim that the Ken.
tucky courts practically denied a hear
ing. he said
1t is said that there Is inadequate rem
edy here because the courts OF Kentucky
in which this action would have TO be
brought, are two years behind in the d.
position OF their business. and a decision
would be lorg delayed. Ii is hardly a suf-
fcient ground for appeal TO a federal
ccur, OF equity that state courts of law
a-e toe busy to do justice. The delays in
cfdent TO Gus Hsrranto proceedings as
reason for justifying equitable intsrposi-
tior was certainly brought to the atten-
ton OF the supreme court in the Sawyer
case because chief Justice Waite. i'm his
dissenting opinion comments upon II and
suggests IT as his ground for Withholding
his concurrence from the broad doctrine
laid down By the court that under no
circumstances had a court OF equity juris-
dictlon to interfere by Injunction to re-
vent a removal from Office. however
fraudulent or unjust the threatened pro-
ceeding.
1t II suggested that the case OF Wilson
vs.. North Carolina, 1863 u. s. 5S6 modifies
the doctrine Of the Sawyer case upon tho
pointLnder discussion An execution OF hat
case Is cited TO support the suggestion.
The Wilson case involved the tire 70
state ONCE and the validity OF a removal
thcrefrom- But II was an action at law
II was proceeding in quo warranto and
was carried from the supreme court OF
North Carolina 10 that Of tho United
Stateg by writ or error. Ii did not involve
the question OF equity Jurisdiction at all.
The case of In re. Sawyer is leading
case upon the subject. and settles con-
clusively for this court the principle which
must obtain In the exercise OF the injunc-
tive power OF a court OF equity. The case
Is 50 elaborate that any other citation OF
authority and any discussion upon the
principle which IL Involves are wholly ST.
I should have been able to decide this
question at the close or the argum ent,
but the Importance OF the interests IN
vowed and the outra x~ous character Of
the electoral frauds under the forms Of
Ia ~ which the bills charge that the state
contest board IS about to cOnsummate.
have led me to give the question presented
fuller and more careful investigation.
This has only confirmed my first impress
sion ana requires me TO make an order
denying the motion for a preliminary in
function in both cases.
DOES NOT AFFECT HIS CASE