The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-15
TWO SUITS IN STATE COURTS
ONE FILED BY BECF<HAN, ASKING
INJUNCTION AGAINST TAYLOR,
And the other by Counsel for the Re-
publican Governor Requesting
the Restraint OF Democrats.

CINCINNATI, Feb. lL-In the Circuit
Court of the United States. Judge w. IL
Taft, this afternoon, denied the motion for
a preliminary injunction in both of the
cases from Kentucky. In addition to the
attorneys in the cases. most of the MEM
bers of the bar OF Cincinnati, Covington
and Newport were present and the court
room was unable to hold all others want
ing admission. Judge Taft completed the
delivery of his opinion at 2:50 p. m. and
occupied less than half an hour in deliver
ing almost four thousand words. While
the court held that no injunctions would
issue under these bills, yet IL also held
that after the cases had been heard in the
state courts they could get in on error for
review in the United States Supreme Court
After the decision was announced former
Governor Bradley and his associate coun-
sci announced that they were unable to
state what would be the next step of the
Republican state officers OF Kentucky.
Counsel for the plaintiffs held a long con-
sultation in the law library after the an
nouncement OF the decision. Governor
Bradley and his associate counsel. after
their consultation. said they had no doubt
either of the ultimate possibility of hear
ing of these cases in the United States
Court, as indicated by Judge Taft. or of
the final result, but at present counsel
could not say what would be the next pro-
cedure. Following is the decision OK Judge
Taft, in part:
The injunctive process of the court is
sought TO prevent a removal from office.
1t is unnecessary to discuss the question
whether a federal question is presented on
the face of this bill or TO consider the cor
rectness OF the claims of complainant, that
the rights and immunities secured TO him
as citizen of the United States by the
fourteenth amendment TO the federal Con-
stitution are infringed, or are likely 10 De
infringed, by the acts OF the defendants
done or to be done IL Is sufficient to hold.
as do, that a court OF equity cannot, by
process OF Injunction, prevent the removal
of an officer from his Office. His remedy
must be at law by quo warranto or other
like proceedings. IL is conceded that the
laws of kentucky afford 20 the complain
ant remedy by quo warranto, also
remedy at law TO prevent usurpation in
office. If, in such proceeding, any federal
question can be raised, complainant may
carry IL, IL decided against him by the
state courts. by writ OF error. TO the SUI
preme court OF the United States. He cam
not invoke the action Of a court OF equity
to protect his right to his Office"
Tne judge cited the United States SUI
preme Court decision in the Sawyer case,
la u. s.. 200. and said it was claimed by
complainants that the Sawyer case did not
apply because, in this case, 1t is averred
that the Office is property. The Judge held
that public Office in Kentucky is not prop
erty. but a trust. where the compensation
is only for services rendered. Ii is not even
contract. Referring to the claim that the
Kentucky courts practically denied hear
ing he said:
1T is said there Is inadequate remedy
here because the courts OF Kentucky, In
which this action would have - be
brought, are two years behind in the dispo-
sition Of their business and a decision
would be long delayed. IL Is hardly suffi-
cient ground for appeal to a federal t)urt
OF equity that state courts OF law too
busy To do justice. The delays incident TO
quo warranto proceedings as a reason for
justifying equitable interposition was GER
tainly brought TO the attention or the Su-
preme Court in the Sawyer case. because
Justice Waite, in his dissenting opinioS-
commen.s on IL and suggests IL as his
ground for Withholding his concurrence
from the broad doctrine laid down by the
court that, under no circumstances, had
court OF equity Jurisdiction to interfere by
injunction TO prevent removal from Of
fee, however fraudulent or unjust the
threatened proceeding
'.It is suggested that the case OF Wilson
VS.. North Carolina, log L. ., 30, modineS
the doctrine OF the Sawyer case upon the
point under consideration. An examination
OF that case fails to support the suggestion.
ine Wilson case involved the title TO a
state Office and the validity OF a removal
therefrom But IL was an action at law-it
was a proceeding In quo warranto and WAS
carried from the Supreme Court OF North
Carolina to that OF the United States by
writ OF error. IL did not involve the Ques-
ton OF equity jurisdiction at all
THE case of I'm re Sawyer Is leading
case upon the subject and settles conelu-
sively for this court the principle which
must obtain in the exercise OF the In
junctive power OF a court ol equity The
case Is so e.doorate that any other citation
OF authority and any discussion upon the
principle which IL relies are wholly SUPER
huous.
II should have been able 10 decide this
question at the close OF the argument. but
the Importance OF the interests involved
and the outrageous character OF the cleo
toral frauds under the forms OF law which
the bills charge that the state contest
board is about TO consummate have led
me 10 give the question presented a fuller
and more careful investigation. This has
only confirmed my first impression and re-
Quires me 10 make an order denying the