New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-04-30
THE PLEA OF BECKHAM.
CONTENTION THAT KENTUCKY LAWS
ARE SUFFICIENT To COVER CASE.

.ofney for J. c. W. Beckham. has prepared and
VIII file his brief tomorrow in the Supreme Court
ir the case involving the title the Governorship
NJ kentucky. On the motion dismiss for
Of Jurisdiction in the Supreme Court 1t is con-
tended the provisions of the Constitution and
statutes of Kentucky governing the trial OF con-
tested elections for Governor afford due process of
Law" within the meaning OF the Fourteenth Amend
Tnent the Constitution Of the United States. As
10 the sUfficiency of the statute 1t is said:
II will be perceived that by the provisions Of the
Kentucky statute notice of the contest specifying
after the action Of the canvassng Board: the
members OF The Board must be selected by lot and
assign a day for hearing the contest. and may adj
attendance Of witnesses and to swear them; 1t may
compel the production Of papers and records; six
reported to both houses of the General Assembly.
" men stta iltiSilS -. IN y. 800.
sonabe notice. is provided and this is all due pro
cess OF law means. 1t is not necessary that the
process should issue from court. or that the hear
ing should be by a judicial officer. Neither is IL
necessary that there should be a trial by jury.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Iowa
Central Railway Company against Iowa 1so U.
6 500 is quoted 10 sustain this point, follows:
II IS clear that the Fourteenth Amendmen t in no
way ule ~ ht - i.p rsb,o ,nat he 90
serted or legal obligations be enforced. provided the
eiyes reasonabIe notice and afrords a fair oppor-
tunty 10 be heard. before the issues are decided.
The provisions of the constitutions and statutes
Of Arkansas. Delaware, Florida, Georgia. Illinois,
Indiana Iowa. Kansas Mississippi. Missouri North
Carolns Oregon Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas
and West Virginia, il is contended. are the same
as the kentucky Constitution and statutes regu,
election for Governor; and it is said that If the OBJ
ssnor5ing provisions in the organic laws Of ali the
States referred to are likewise invalid
As 10 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
70 hear * hat he tat
provided statute regulating the procedure. allow
ing hearing after reasonable notice, and the
Board Legislature departed from the statute
and rendered erroneous decision, this does not
bring the case within the prohibition of the XIVth
amendment 10 the Federal Constitution.
The Supreme Court of the United States in Ar
rowsmith agt Harmonin. lis L. S. 243. is quoted
follows in support Of this last proposition:
The legislature Of Sta-e performs its whole
duty under the Constitution when il provides law
for The government Of the courts while exercising
their respective Jurisdictions. which, if followed
viii furnish the parties the necessary Constitu-
tional protection. All after that pertains to the
courts
The supreme Court is further cited in Kennard
agt Louisiana. 90 L. s. 4so as follows:
The question before US is not whether the courts
re,9E have followed the law but whether the
law il followed. would have furnished Kennard
etes and mere err errors IN the proeeed d
Of the power Of the courts below to proceed at all
II is further insisted that there is property
IN political Office. and hence its deprivation
not fall within the Inhibition contained in the Four
tenth Amendment Numerous decisions from the
suprene Courts OF New-York. Kentucky Ohio
Missouri and Wisconsin cited TO sustain this
proposition.
It is insisted that This case presents Federal
question. then, by like allegations those made
here such z question may be presented in every
election contest and the court of last resort be
converted into supreme board OF contest It is
therefore insisted that the motion to dismiss the
slit should sustained because there is no color
OF q Federal question in the record.
Inasmuch the case is set down for hearing on
re motion dismiss and also the merits. the
other questions also discussed.
II is said that the Jurisdiction Of the General
ssernhly is exclusive and its judgment is conclu-
eive: that other tribunal court, under any
form Of proceeding or in any mode, has jurisdc-
20 determine the question involved in this
tcst review the action OF the Legislature. 1t
Is added:
have invested the General Assembly with this pie
!g ana ai ,0r - 'e nee s IN OF
or review by the judicial tribunals. because II was
over the contest.
Tie Kentucky cases OF Batman against Megow-
an. Net. 5Ss and Slime against Berry. e6 KY. S.
together with Baxter against Brooks. % Ark. 1872
and numerous Ohio cases, are cited in support OF
this proposition.
IN reference TO the contention of Taylor's
sci that the determination OF the contest by the
Board and the General Assembly was the result
OF fraudulent conspiracy the part Of the
members Of the Legislature. il is maintained that
the journals Of that body, showing its action
not be impeached for fraud or mistake. and that
they impart absolute verify. 1t is said:
se The rule rests upon the ground that the legal
t9lemnly made in pursuance to the mandate Ct the
Constitution, cannot be denied or destroyed by
judicial action. The rule applies whether the ac-
ZION Of the General Assembly s assailed in the
opty imposed by the Constitution
opinions OF the courts of Kentucky. Indiana,
pennsylvania, Virginia md Ohio are cited IN sup
port OF this position
Counsel for Taylor the brief says seek further to
avoid the determination by the General Assembly
Of the contention that at the time the contest was
decided, on February 2. 1900 the Legislature had
been adjourned by proclamation of Taylor as Gov
sIAor until February 6, London, in
Laurel County In reply is insisted that the only
power the Governor Of Kentucky has at any time
70 adjourn the General Assembly is by virtue Of
Seecuon ~ Of the Constitution which provides that
N case Of disagreement between the two houses
Win respect TO The time of adjournment he may
aa.ourh mem 20 such time as he shall think proper.
h9l exceeding four months
d. ms only authorizes adjournment when there
IS Disagreement 10 the time and not the place
"a ao!oarnnent There is no pretense that such a
disagreement existed. Hence there was no power
- raoJoufn TO any other place at all
me only authority that the Governor has to
change the place Of holding a session OF the Cen
siitution. which provides that I'm case OF war in
slrrecton pestllence'' 1t may by proclamation
~ me Governor. assemble for the time being else
tIine when the General Assembly IS in session.
men in session II is a sovereign body and can
rke care OF Itself by adjournng when and where IT
Besides this is insisted that by Section Al of
me constitution u is provided that by OF
% adjourn and fix on the time and place. II the