The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1900-02-17
Judge Taft, at Cincinnati, Hears
Argument Ii TIC kentucky
Contested Election Cases.
The QUESTION OF JURISDICTION RAISED.
Grounds Upon Which the Plaintiffs
Depend for Relief at the Hands OF
the Federal Judge, and Answer of
Defendnnts-Will Announce Deci-
sion Wednesday Afternoon.


the Kentucky state board of election
commissioners and the contestants for
the state Offices other than governor
and Acknowledgements.
A Crowded Court Room.
The large court room was unable 70
hold all who came to the Federal
building for admission. Many of the
visitors were from the Kentucky side,
bly, the plaintiffs against the stale
board who are citizens of Covington.
Tnti republican state officers were also
present but the only one of the lie
PENDANTS in attendance was Judge
Poyntz, of the state board. There were
quite number present from Frank
fort and Louisville.
The Attorneys In the Case.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Eradley, Wilson, Sweeney and Iost, all
OF kentucky. The defendants were rep
resented by Scott, Hendrick, Hager
and Maxwell, the latter being mem
Der of the bar in Cincinnati and the
others of Kentucky.
EXsOOv. brauleyA StateHeuts
EN-Gov. Bradley, on being asked by
Judge Taft to state the case, began a
once in a plain statement of the
ground upon which the action 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 We're
entirely repugnant to republican
form of government, which provides
for three distinct departments. He as
serted that this board of contest had
been made judicial body by the Goe-
bel law.
The Judge AsIks 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 3on, 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-
sarily prevent jurisdiction by the Unit
ed States court of appeals where Il
u oper case could be shown.
working of the Goebel 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
lucky with regard to these complain
ants having been given the certificates
of election by q 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-
diciai powers. The other two members
had likewise in advance of their deci-
sion, declared their intention to GUST
these plaintiffs.
Based on Fourteenth Amendment.
Going into the arguments for the
Jurisdiction of this court, he said that
this action had it's basis in the provi-
sion of the fourteenth amendment of
the constitution of the United States.
He quoted Justice Harlan. of the ST.
preme court of the United States, rs
saving that q state may not disregard
bv any Of it's agents the provisions Of
this section by taking life, liberty or
property without due process of law.
Fl. went on to define the meaning of
liberty so as to include in it the rigbi
to vote, to have the vote counted and
the officers elected permitted to exer-
else 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 W omen.
Electors Entitled to Protection.
Mr.. Bradley admitted that while
women had not the right to vote il
was nevertheless true that authorized
electors are entitled to protection by
TIL, federal courts against any state
agent who undertakes to nullify the
vote.
JurisdIctiOn of the Court Denied.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., ON behalf Of
the defendants, made brief argument
OH the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction because the petit
items do not present case of equity
and do not fall under the provisions Of
the fourteenth amendment of the cor
stitution of the United States. He
said the situation was one in which
the position of these compliments is in
course of settlement by state tribun-
al. Contest proceedings in their cases
ar, pending. This condition presents
none of the features of an equity case.
Authorities Cited.
Mr.. Maxwell then recited a number
OF cases in which it had been held that
tn court had no power to interfere in
the right of an Office, and that courts
of equity took cognizance only of civil
and property rights. This being true,
he claimed there was no ground what
ever for federal interference.
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 were creations of the state of
Kentucky, and the right to hold them
can 1ot be construed into one of the
rights designated in the amendment
referred to.
RidIcuIed Position of Plaintiffs.
In conclusion, he ridiculed the posi-
ton of the plaintiffs, who, while still
in the process of ascertaining whether
or not they had been elected, proposed
IL. throw aside the provisions of the