The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-02-13
KENTUCKY
CONTEST in
U. S. COURT
Before Judge TAFT, at Cincinnati.
Able Argument by Governor
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
And Jurisdiction of the court-Judge
Taft win Announce His Deci-
cision Wednesday.

ctBton Weaneaoays
CINCINNATI, o., Feb. 12.-In the
United States circuit court Of appeals
Judge ). II. Taft heard argument this
afternoon for over three hours on the
application for injunctions against the
Kentucky state board Of election COM
missioners and the contestants for the
state offices other than governor and
lieutenant.Eovernor. The large court
room was unable to hold all who came
to the federal building for admission.
Very many of the visitors were from
the Kentucky side, notably the plain-
tins against the state board, who arc
citizens Of Covington. The Republican
state officers were also present, but the
only one OF the defendants in attend-
ance was Judge Poyntz. of the state
board. There were quite a number
present from Frankfort and Louisville.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Bradley, Wilson. Sweeney and Yosti all
OF Kentucky, The defendants were rep-
resented by Scott. Hendrlck, Hager and
Maxwell, the latter being member Of
the bar OF Cincinnati, and the others
of Kentucky.
Ex-Governor Bradley made a plain
statement of the ground upon which
the action OF the courts is invoked. Af-
ter recitlng the provisions by which
the state board Of elections is convert-
ed into board of contest, he declared
that they were entirely repugnant to
the Republican form Of government,
which provides for three distinct de-
partments. He asserted that this board
OF contest had been made a judicial
body by the Goehel law. At this point
Judge Taft inquired whether the Goe-
bel law had been passed upon by the
ffe6art Of appeals Governor Bradley re-
piled that It had, but that his conten-
tIon was that nevertheless, in case he
could show the law to be In contrayen-
tIon of the federal constitution, then
this court could be invoked. Judge
Taft replied that decision Of the state
court on the cOnstitutIonality of the
law did not necessarily prevent juris-
dietIon by the United States court Of
appeals where proper case could be
shown.
Going Behind Returns.
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 Ken
tueky with regard to these complain
ants having been given certificates of
election by a vote of to l, and that
one now the only member of the board
which is about to pass upon the con-
tests instituted By the candidates OPP
posed TO these plaintiffs. That one, he
said already officially declared that the
board had tine power to so behind the
returns and thus to exercise judicial
powers. The other two members had
likewise. in advance Of their decision.
declared their intention to oust these
plaintiffs.
Going into the argument for the juris-
dlction OF this court he said that this
action had it's basis in the provision OF
the fourteenth amendment Of the con-
stitution Of the United States. He
quoted Justice Harlan rs saying that a
state may not disregard 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 de-
fine the meaning OF liberty so as to in
clude in 1t the right to vote. to have
the vote counted. and the officers elect
ed permitted to exercise the functions
of their office.
Judge Taft here created u diversion
by asking II the right TO vote was
granted by the fourteenth amendment
TO women. Mr.. Bradley admitted that
while women had not the right to vote.
It was. nevertheless, true that author
lied electors are entitled to protection
by the federal courts against any state
which undertakes to nulllfy that vote.
Maxwell Claimed No Jurisdiction.
Lawrence Maxwell jr.. on behalf OF
the defendants, made brief argument
on the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction because the prtl-
tlons do not present case of equity
and don't fall under the provisions OF
the fourteenth amendment OF the Uni
ted States constitution. He said the
situation was one in which the position
Of these complaInants is in course OF
settlement by state tribunal. Contest
proceedings in their cases are pending.
This contest presents none Of the fea-
lures of an equity case. Mr. Maxwell
then recIted a number of cases in which
It had been held that the court had
no power to Interfere in the removal OF
nm oflcer, and that certificates Of equity
took cognlzancc only OF civil and prop
erty rights. This being true, he claim
ed there was no ground whatever for
federal interference. Referring TO the
claim under the fourteenth amendment
h said the right to hold an office in the
state OF Kentucky was not one OF the
rights guaranteed by that amendment.
,R A., 80