Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-05-01
kentucky CASE IN COURT.
ARGUMENTS HEARD YESTERDAY
BY THE NATIONS HIGHEST
TRIBUNAL.
A Large Audience of Distinguished
kentuckfans Was Present to Hear
the Pleas of the AttOrneys-Ihree
Addresses Delivered Yesterday,
and One More, That of
ernor Bradley to Be Heard To
Day.

case was Degun IN the UHlCSQ otae0o
Supreme Court at 1890 to-aay. The
first presentation was made in behalf
of Governor Taylor by Attorney Helm
Bruce.
Mr.. Bruce had a large audience OF
distinguished Kentuckians, and the
lobby of the court o was rowded
All the members of the court were
present and from the beginning gave
close attention to Mr.. Bruce's plea.
He said that Mr.. Taylor's cOnten-
ton was for constitutional liberty, and
that it was Waged in a court OF justice
and not on a field of carnage, because
in entering the Union Kentucky had
surrendered its right of resistance. lie
anne to this court on the basis of the
principle laid down in a former opln-
ion of the court to the effect that the
arbitrary exercise of power CT govern
ment unrestrained by regard for prl-
vate rights and justice could rot be
tolerated.
Mr.. Bruce reviewed the case at
length upon its merits, ~contending that
after the issuance of the certificate OF
election Mr.. Taylor was as much the
Governor of Kentucky as any man who
had ever been inaugurated for that Of
fee. He denied that the legislative adj
Indication was any adjudication at all,
%conten6ing that to GUST Mr.. Taylor by
this process would be to deprive him
Of his Office by despotic power and not
by due process of law. The proceed
ing was not by due process of law as
required by the constitution.
Referring to the contest before the
Kentucky Legislature, he said That the
report of the committee of inYestiga-
ton presented no evidence and stated
no fact and that it was made to a Sc
cret meeting of the Assembly, of which
no Republican member had been mott
fed. In this connection he referred
at length to the charge that the bal
lots used were thinner than required
by the law. If this was true, he said,
the wrong was hat of the State if
wrong had been committed.
Surely one-third Of the voters of the
State could not be deprived of the
right of franchise on such a plea.
Mr.. Bruce was followed by Hon.
Lawrence N. Maxwell in Mr.. Beck
hams interest. He said that the con-
stitution Of Kentucky made the Legis-
lature the adjudicator in contests for
State offices in that State. The pro-
ceeding in this case had been in ac-
cordance with the law under the con-
stitution. There had been no author
ity, as was claimed on the other side,
for dissolving the Legislature by Gov
ernor Taylor. Mr.. Maxwell contended
that the case presented no federal
question, and that therefore the Fed
eral Supreme Court had no j%uTisdic-
ton. The Kentucky State Court of
Appeals had decided that Mr.. Taylor
had never acquired title to the office
OF Governor under the constitution
and laws of the State. The decision
was final and the national court had
no part to play in the proceeding. AS
TO the certificate of election from the
State Board of C~anvassers, it was
merely a writing showing the returns
oil the election officers. 1t was no evil
dence of validity of title in view of
the conclusion reached by the consti-
tutlonal authority, which was the State
Legislature.
Mr.. Maxwell quoted authorities on
the point of Jurisdiction, among them
many Ohio cases. He. remarked that
in Ohio the right to hold office was
held to be almost as sacred as the
right to the pursuit Of happiness.
Mr.. Louis McQuown also appeared for
Mr.. Beckham, going over all the points
at issue.
The contest, he argued, was not
only of interest to the people of Ken
lucky, but he was sure that the prin-
ciple laid down in the ease would re-
ceive the attention of the entire coun-
try. He. contended that even if Mr..
Taylor's claim to Office was to be con-
sidered as property, he was allowed
due process of law" under the Ken
lucky statutes which practically in
their present form had been in exis-
tence for almost a century. The State
law required notice of a contest to
the contestee and a reasonable oppor-
tunity to be heard. In this connection
Mr.. McQuown referred to the change
made by the Goebel election law, re-
curing presentations of committees in
contest cases to be made TO both houses
Of the Legislature, but this provis-
on was not different from the prac-
tice in fifteen or twenty other States.
# therefore, the law should be held
Invalid. in the Kentucky case, the
law bearing upon the question in those
States would also be affected.
If the State had provided a proper
mode OF procedure; if the election
aw was constitutional, there could be
40 legitimate criticism of the method
If application and in that case the
Federal Court was clearly devoid OF
jurisdiction. Error Of that character
could not give this court jurisdiction.
Mr.. McQuown argued for the final
and exclusive jurisdiction of the leg
stature in contests of this character.
Mr.. McQuown also contended that
he Federal Court had no right to in
7estigate or question the motives of
he legislature in it's decision of the
Sovernorship case-no more right
han it would have to inquire into
he motives of Congress in the, enact
nent of any statute.
When Mr.. McQuown concluded, the
court adjourned for the day.
Ex-Governor Bradley, who is to
make the concluding speech for Gov
,rnor Taylor. is the only attorney still
o be heard.
Charged With Forgery.