The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-13
Democrats Charged with Trying to
Deprive Republicans of Rights
Guaranteed by Constitution.
NOTHING DONE AT FRANKFORT
TAYLOR'S LEGISLATURE WAITING
ON JUDGE TAFTS RULING.
One Of the Bullets Fired at the Late
Mr.. GoebeI Found In q Tree-Dem-
Ocrats Still at Louisville.

CINCINNATI, O., Feb. 12-In the United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals Judge w.
II. Taft heard arguments this afternoon
for over three hours on the applications for
injunctions against the Kentucky State
Board of Election Commissioners and the
contestants for the State offices other than
Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The
large courtroom was unable to hold all
who came to the federal building for ad-
mission. Very many of the visitors were
from the Kentucky side. notably the plain
tiffs against the State Board. who are
citizens Of Covington. The Republican
State officers were also present. but the
only one of the defendants in attendance
There were quite number present from
Frankfort and Louisville.
The plaintiffs were represented by Brad
ley, Wilson. Sweeney and Yost, all OF Ken
lucky. The defendants were represented by
Scott, Hendrick. Hager and Maxwell, the
latter being member of the bar Of Gin
cinnati. and the others Of Kentucky.
Ex-Governor Bradley, on being asked by
Judge Taft to state the case, began at once
in plain statement of the ground on
which the action Of the court Is invoked.
After reciting the provisions by which the
State Board of Election Commissioners Is
converted into a board OF contest, he de-
clared they were entirely repugnant to a
republican form Of government. which pro-
vides for three distinct departments. He
asserted that this Board of Contest had
been made a judicial body by the Goebel
law.
At this point Judge Taft inquired whether
the Goebel law had been passed on by
the Court of Appeals. Governor Bradley
replied that it had been. but his contention
was that, nevertheless, in case he could
show the law to be in contravention of the
federal Constitution, then this court could
be invoked.
Judge Taft replied that decision Of the
State court the constitutionality of the
law did not necessarily prevent jurisdiction
by the United States Court OF Appeals
where proper case could be shown.
Governor Bradley then went on to show
in what respect the Goebel law deprives
citizens of their rights. In this line he
spoke OF the situation in Kentucky with
regard to these complainants having been
given the certificates of election by 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 behind
the returns and thus to exercise judicial
powers. The other two members had like
wise, in advance of their decision. de-
clared their intention to oust these plain
tiffs.
JUSTICE HARLAN QUOTED.
Going into the argument for the jurisdic-
ton of this court, he said that this action
had its basis in the provision of the four
teenth amendment of the Constitution of
the United States He quoted Justice Har-
Ian as saying that State may not disre-
gard by any of its agents the provisions
of this section by taking life. liberty or
property without due process of law. He
went on to define the meaning of liberty
so as to include in it the right to vote, to
have the vote counted and the officers
elected permitted to exercise the functions
of their Office.
Judge Taft here created a diversion by
asking If the right to vote was granted
by the fourteenth amendment to women.
NJ. Bradley admitted that while women
had not the right to vote, 1t was neverthe-
less true that authorized electors are en-
titled to protection by the federal courts
against any State agent which undertakes
to nullify that vote.
Lawrence Maxwell, jr., on behalf of the
defendants, made brief argument on the
two propositions that this court had no
jurisdiction because the petitions do not
present a case of equity and do not fall
| under the provisions of Tie fourteenth
amendment Of the United States Constitu-
| ton. He said the situation was one In
which the position of these complainants
| is in course of settlement by a State tri-
bunal. Contest proceedings In their cases
are pending. This condition presents none
| OF the features Of an equity case. Mr..
| Maxwell then recited a number OF cases
| in which 1t had been held that the court
| had no power TO interfere in the removal
| of an officer and that courts of equity
| took cognizance only of civil and property
| rights. This being true he claimed there
| was no ground whatever for FEDERAL inter-
| ference. Referring to the claim under the
| fourteenth amendment, he said the right
| to hold an Office in the State Of Kentucky
was not one OF the rights guaranteed. by
| that amendment. These Offices are crea-
| tions of the state Of Kentucky and the
right TO hold them cannot lie construed
| into one of the rights designated In the
amendment referred to. In conclusion he
| ridiculed the position OF the plaintiffs. who,
| while still in the process Of ascertaining
whether or not they had been elected. pro-
posed to throw aside the provisions of the
| State law and asked the power c; this
| court on their behalf.
A. Z. Wilson. for the plaint 1s. followed