The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1900-02-17
N UNITED STATES COURT.
Judge Taft, at Cincinnati, Hears
Argument in the Kentucky
Contested Election Cases.
The QUESTION OF JURISDICTION RAISED.
Grounds Upoa Which the Plaintiffs
Depend o Relief Mt the Hands of
the Federal Judge, and Answcr OF
Defendaat.-Will Deci-
sion Wednesday Afternoon.


the Federal Judge, and Answer Of
Defendaats-WiH Announce Deci-
sion Wednesday Afternoon.
Cincinnati, Feb. 13.-In the United
States circuit court of appeals Judge
w. Ii. Taft heard arguments, Monday
afternoon, for over three hours on the
applications for in%junctions agains,
the kentucky state board of election
commissioners and the contestants for
the state Offices other than governor
and lieutenant-governor.
A Crowded Court Room.
The large court room was unable %
hold all who came to the Federal
building for admission. Many of tile
visitors were from the Kentucky side,
notably the plaintiffs against the state
board who are citizens of ~Covington.
TIE: republican state officers were also
present, but the only one OF the ue-
fe1,Gants in attendance was Judge
Poyntz, of the state board. There were
quite q number present from Frank
fort and Louisville.
The Attorneys I'm the Case.
The plaintiffs were represented by
BRADLEY. Wilson, Sweeney and Iost, 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
ground upon which the action of the
court is invoked. After reciting the
provisions by which the state board
of elections is converted into a 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 q judicial body by the Goe-
bel law.
The Judge Asks q 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 c~ontravention of the federal constr
futon. then this court could be in
voked. Judge Taft replied that a de
cision of the state court on the con-
s~titutionality of the law did not neces'
sarily prevent jurisdiction by the Unit,
ed States court of appeals where a
roper case could be shown.
Working of the Goebel Law.
Gov. Bradley then went on to show
In what respect the Goebel law de
privet citizens of their rights. In thii
line he spoke of the situation in Ken
lucky with regard to these complain
ants having been given the certificate:
of election by a vote of two to one,ant
that one now the only member of tn,
board which is about to pass upon thu
contests instituted by the candidate:
orposed to these plaintiffs. That one
he said, had already officially declared
that the board had the power to go be
hind the returns and hus exercise Ju
dicjai powers. The other two member
had likewise in advance of their deci
sion, declared their intention to Gus
these plaintiffs.
Based ON Fourteenth Amendment.
Going into the arguments for til:
jurisdiction of this court, he said tina
this action had its basis in the provi
sion of the fourteenth amendment o
the constitution of the United States
He quoted Justice Harlan, of the ST
preme court of the United States, -
saving that a state may not disregar'
by any Of its agents the provisions @
this section by taking life, liberty G
property without due process of law
IL. went on to define the meaning o
liberty SO as to include in it the righ
to vote, to have the vote counted AM
the officers elected permitted to excl
cise the functions of their Office.
Judge Taft here created a diversion
by asking if the right to vote Wa
granted by the fourteenth amendmen
to women.
Electors Entitled to Protection.
Mr.. Bradley admitted that Will
women had not the right to vote
was nevertheless true that authorize
electors are entitled to protection b
til. federal courts against any sta.
agent who undertakes to nullify III
ote
Jurisdiction of the Court Denied.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., on behalf G
the defendants, made a brief argumeT
on the two propositions that this cour
had no jurisdiction because the pet
items do not present a case of equit
and do not fall under the provisions @
the fourteenth amendment of the cor
stitution of the United States. Ii
said the situation was N in whic
the position of these compliments is i
course of settlement by a state tribul
al. Contest proceedings in their case
are pending. This condition present
none of the features of an equity cas-
: Authorities Cited.
Mr.. Maxwell then recited a numbe
OF cases in which it had been held tina
tn. court had no power to interfere i
the right of an office, and that court
of equity took c~ognizance only of civ