Iron County register., 1900-02-15
| IN UNITED STATES COURT.
Judge Taft, at Cincinnati, Hears
Argument in the Kentucky
Contested Election Cases.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION RAISED,

Grounds Upon Which the Plaintiff,
Depend for Relief at the Hands o.
the Federal Judge, and Answer o
Defendants-WiH Announce Deci.
sion Wednesday Afternoon.
Cincinnati, Feb. 13.-ln the United
States circuit court of appeals Judge
w. FL. Taft heard arguments, Monday
afternoon, for over three hours on the
applications for injunctions agains,
the Kentucky state board of election
commissioners and the contestants fol
the state offices other than governor
and heutenant-governor
A Crowded Court Room.
The large court room was unable 20
hold all who came to the Federal
building for admission. Many of the
visitors were from the Kentucky side,
notably the plaintiffs against the state
board who are citizens of Covington.
The: republican state officers were also
present, but the only one of the de-
PENDANTS in attendance was Judge
Poyntz, of the state board. There were
quite a number present from Frank
fort and Louisville.
The Attorneys in the Case.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Bradley, Wilson, Sweeney and Yost, all
of kentucky. The defendants were rep
resented by Scott, Hendrick, Hager
and Maxwell, the latter being a mem
Der of the bar in Cincinnati and the
others of Kentucky.
Ex-GOv. Bradley's Statement.
EN-Gov. Bradley, on being asked by
Judge Taft to state the case, began at
once in a plain statement of the
court is invoked. After reciting the
provisions by which the state board
of elections is converted into board
OF contest, he declared that they were
entirely repugnant to a republican
form of government, which provides
for three distinct departments. He as
serted that this board of contest had
been made a judicial body by the Goe-
bel law.
The Judge Asks a Question.
AT this point Judge Taft inquired
whether the Goebel law had been
passed upon by the court of appeals.
Gov Bradley replied that it had, but
his contention was that, nevertheless,
in case he could show the law to be
in contravention of the federal consti-
tut:on, then this court could be in
vcked. Judge Taft replied that a de-
cisioI of the state court on the con-
stitutionality of the law did not neces-
ssrily prevent jurisdiction by the Unit
ed States court of appeals where a
p1 oper case could be shown.
Working of the GoebeI Law.
Gov. Bradley then went on to show
III what respect the Goebel law de-
prived citizens of their rights. In this
line he spoke of the situation in Ken
tucky with regard to these complain
ants having been given the certificates
of election by a vote of two to one, ,and
that one now the only member of the
board which is about to pass upon the
contests instituted by the candidates
opposed to these plaintiffs. That one,
he said, had already officially declared
that the board had the power to go be-
hind the returns and thus exercise ju-
1iciai powers. The other two members
had likewise in advance of their deci-
sion, declared their intention to oust
these plaintiffs.
Based on Fourteenth Amendment.
Going into the arguments for the
of this court, he said that
,nis action had its basis in the provi-
sion of the fourteenth amendment of
The constitution of the United States. |
He quoted Justice Harlan, of the ST.
1reme court of the United States, as |
saving that a state may not disregard |
1y any of it's agents the provisions of |
his section by taking life, liberty Or |
without due process of law. |
He went on to define the meaning of |
liberty so as to include in it the right |
o vote, to have the vote counted and |
he officers elected permitted to exer- |
Use the functions of their Office.
Judge Taft here created a diversion |
oy asking if the right to vote was
ranted by the fourteenth amendment |
O women.
Electors Entitled to Protection.
Mr.. Bradley admitted that while
had not the right to vote il
vas nevertheless true that authorized
lectors are entitled to protection by
lie federal courts against any state
gent who undertakes to nullify The
ote.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., on behalf Of
he defendants, made a brief argument
n the two propositions that this court
a6 no jurisdiction because the petit
icns do not present a case of equity
nd do not fall under the provisions of
nc fourteenth amendment of the con-
titution of the United States. He
aid the situation was one in which
he position of these ecomplainants is in
purse of settlement by state tribun-
|. Contest proceedings in their cases
re pending. This condition presents
one of the features of an equity case.
Authorities Cited.
Mr.. Maxwell then recited a number
[ cases in which it had been held that
IL court had no power to interfere in |
ne right of an Office, and that courts I
equity took cognizance only of civil |
nd property rights. This being true,
e claimed there was no ground what s
yer for federal interference. {
Referring to the claim under the
,urteenth amendment, he said the ;
ght to hold an Office in the state Of !
entucky was not one of the rights | {
uaranteed by that amendment. These
fices. were creations of the state of
entucky, and the right to hold them
III not be construed into one of the :
gifts designated in the amendment
ferred to.
Ridlculed Position of Plaintiffs,