The age-herald., 1900-05-02
Authorities Quoted Contradicting
 Beckham's Counsel.
SCORED KENTUCKY LEGISLATURE
and Predicted Terrible Future in the South if Such Was
 Not Granted

Washington, D. C., May l. The su- preme court resumed its hearing to-
 day in the Kentucky governorship case,
 Hon. w. O. Bradley, former governor of
 that state, being the only speaker He ap- peared for Governor Taylor, taking up
 first the claim of the opposition that Tay-
 Tor had never possessed any title to the office He contended that Taylor's title
 was as good as that of any man who had
 held the office This was the first contest
 that the state had ever had over that of-
 flee and this contest would never have oc-'
 cured but for what he characterized as
 the ubiquitous election law" known
 as the "Goebel law" He argued that Tay-
 lor's title was complete; that he was not
 only de jure governor, but de facto govern
 or as well, and that every step that he had taken as governor was legal.
 On the point of jurisdiction, he contended
 that the present case is very similar to
 that of the Thayer vs. Boyd case or Ne braska, in which jurisdiction had been as-
 stunned. He met the argument of GoVernor
 Beckham's counsel that an office was not property, by quoting authoities to the con-. | trary Arguing this point he said that of- | flee was species of property, because It
 was a right of value--a privilege of citizen
 ship of worth to man. 1 It was one of the rights, or should come
 under the protection guaranteed by the l fourteenth section of the constitution, and
 therefore subject to review by the highest l federal court. | Disrega rd of Constitution
 No state could disregard the provisions of this constitutional provision, nor could any state legislature assume to be superior to it, nor is a state legislature bound to grant due process of law, but state courts
 must administer cases under the same au- thorty In a case like this governorship there was no such thing as an appeal. The | adjudication was necessary
 And why appeal?" MT. Bradley asked, with some apparent bitterness in his tone of voice. "If we appeal to the ballot" he continued, "is it not easier not to defy | the expressed will of the people than it has been even In this case, when there has been such an open defiance of the ex- l pressed desire of the electors of the state? l ''Under the state constitution the legis- lature was nothing more than board or contest This was a special power, and 1t was limited by the constitution. If this l limitation was transcended the act was l tyrannical, and such, the speaker claimed | the act of the legislature in this case to be. He challenged the method observed in l drawing the board, as some of the mem- | bers of it themselves had contests pend- l ing, while another had laid wager upon l the result. On this account, according to precedents, the decision of the board must 1 be held void-the members of the board be- l ing judges in their own cases.
 | No Reasonab Hearing
 "Furthermore, there had been no reason-
 able hearing nor sufficient notice There ] also had been irregularities in the trial and Taylor's friends had been refused the priv ilege of arguing the case. Seventeen hun
 dred pages of testimony were taken, .but
 there was not time allowed the legislature
 to read a word of it. Therefore, the leg slature had never really and legally de- termined the case" All this, r. Bradley | concluded, was denial of the due process | of law guaranteed by the constitution. The point was also made that the notice of
 contest had failed to state the ground of | contest under the law. Hence the legisla-
 ture had assumed jurisdiction 1t did not
 have.
 MT. Bradley attacked the finding of the
 legislature in the as irregular and
 therefore void And it has as much pow
 er," he said, Ito bring back to life the
 body of MT. Goebel as it has to put life in- | to transaction which Is void"
 | Mir Bradley closed with an appeal Tor | recognition by the court. Instead of bend ing the knee to the legislature, the couit' he said should investigate their processes and see that they were in accord with the | requirements of the constitution The oc- | ca sion was a momentous one, he said, for | the people of Kentucky. This was the first | fight which had been made south of the | Ohio for the preservation of civil liberty | by the processes of the courts, "and if we
 fail," he said, "it is liable to be the last. | The same blighting influence of arbitrary | power is sure to go farther and extend to | other states, if there is not some supreme tribunal to which the people can come with
 assurance of recognition as will guarantee
 the preservation of their privileges and | immunities. If we fail here our condition l is pitiable indeed, for an appeal to the ball. | lot box will be, in the face of tht failure, | more worthless in the future than 1t has been in the past. Our bill of rights though | written in the blood of martyrs, will be 1 worthless to us if the agencies given for | our protection turn upon and betray us. | We make our last appeal to you, but in so doing we look beyond to that eternal principle of justice which we know should | and does regard the affairs of naen.'
 When Mir. Bradley closed the court took | a recess until the 14th instant