Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-01
PLEADING aTtYLOR'S CASE
EX-GOvERNoRa BRADLEY BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
Claims That thea Republicnn Candidate
Was EaconsHitutiOnallyD DEPRIVE
ed of His Office.

Inc supreme Sburt resumed It's nearing
today In the Kentucky governorship case.
W. .. Bradley. ,former governor OF that
state. peias the only speaker. He appeared
Of Gov baylor. taking up first the claim
OF the opposition that Taylor had never
possessed any title to the office. He con-
tended that Taylor's title was good as
that of any man who had ever held the
office. This was the first contest that the
state had ever had over that Office, and
this contest would never have occurred but
for what he characterized as 1.-The Ubiquitous
election law, known the Goebel law.
He argued that Faylors title was complete;
de facto governor as we'll, and that every
step that he had taken as governor was
onc1ally good under the law.
On the point of jurisdiction he contended
that of Thayer against Boyd Of Nebraska,
IN winch jurisdiction had been assumed.
ne met the argument of Mr.. Beckhams
counsel that an Office was not property. by
quoting authorities to the contrary. Argu-
ing this point, he said that office was
species of property because it was a right
OF Vaiue-a privilege Of citizenship Of worth
TO any man. 1t was one of the rights or
privileges coming under the protection guar
anteed by the fourteenth amendment Of the
constitution. and therefore subject to re-
view by the highest federal court.
NO state could disregard the provisions of
state legislature assume to be superior to
Ii, nor Is state legislature bound to grant
que process of law but state courts must
administer cases under the same authority.
In case like this of the governorship
there was no such thing as appeal to
the people. The adjudication was neces-
sary.
And why appeal?" Mr. Bradley asked.
III we appeal to the ballot box" he con-
tinued, is it not easier now to defy the
expressed will of the people than 1t has
peen even in this case when there has
been such an open defiance of the ex-
pressed desire of the electors of the state?"
"Due Process of Law" Denied.
Under the state constitution the legsla-
ture was nothing more than board Of
contest This was a special power and it
was limited by the constitution. II this
limitation was transcribed the act was
tyrannical, and such the speaker claimed
the act Of the legislature in this case to be.
lie challenged the method observed in
Drawing the board, some of the men,
bers OF 1t themselves had contests pending
Whle another had laid a wager upon the
result. On this account, according to prece-
dents the decision of the board must be
held void-the members of the board being
JUDGES In their own cases. Furthermore
there had been no time for reasonable hear
ing nor sufficient notice. There also had
been Irregularities in the trial, and Taylor's
friends had been refused the privilege of
arguing the case. Seventeen hundred pages
OF testimony were taken, but there was not
time allowed the legislature to read a word
of 1t. Therefore, the legislature had never
really and legally determined the case. All
this Mr. Bradley concluded. was denial of
the due process of law guaranteed by the
constitution.
The point also was made that the notice
or contest had failed to state the ground of
contest under the law. Hence the leeisa-
ture had assumed a Jurisdiction it did not
have.
Proceedings of the Legislature.
Mr.. Bradley attacked the finding of the
legislature In the case as irregular and
therefore void. u
And they have as much power" he said
to bring back to life the body of Mr.. Goe-
bel as 1t has to pat life into transaction
which is v6fd."
by the court Instead of bending the knee
to the legislature, the court, he said should
investigate their processes and see. that
they were IN accord with the requirements
of the Constitution. 7qThe occasion was a
momentous one. he said, for the people of
Kentucky. t~Thts was the first fight which
had been made south of the Ohio for the
preservation of civil liberty by the pro-
ceSses of the courts, land If we fail he
said. ut is liable to be the last. The same
bhghting influence of arbitrary power is
sure to go farther and extend to other
states II there is not some supreme tri-
bunal to which the people can come with
assurance Of such recognition as will guar
antee the preservation of their privileges
and immunittes. If we fail here our condt-
ton is pttiabte, indeed, for an appeal to the
ballot box will be in the face Of that fall
ure 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 worthless to us If the agencies
given for our protection turn upon and be-
tray 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 regulate the affairs of
men"
When Mr.. Bradley closed the court took
q recess until the 14th Instant