The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-30
BRIEF IN CASE OF BECKHAM.
JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME
COURT is DENIED.

Constitutions and Statutes of Many
States Declared to he the Same
With Regard 10 Contested EIec-
tions-If kentucky's Law ON This
Point lis Invalid, So Are the Laws
OF other states-Other Important
Points Made.
Washington. April 29.-Lewis McQuown.
pared and will file his brief tomorrow in
the Supreme Court in the case involving
the title to the governorship of Kentucky.
On the motion to dismiss, for want of
jurisdiction in the Supreme Court. II is
contended that the provisions of the con-
stitution and statutes of Kentucky govern
ing the trial of contested elections for Gov
ernor. affored due process of law" with
in the meaning of the fourteenth amend
ment of the Constitution of the United
States.
After quoting the powers given under
the Kentucky statute including the selec-
tion of board and the latter's assignment
of dates and compulsory attendance of
Witnesses, the brief says:
ut will be perceived that a hearing, af
ter reasonable notice, is provided; and this
is all due process of law means. 1t is not
necessary that the process should issue
from court, or that the hearing should
be by judicial officer Neither is it
necessary that there should be a trial by
jury"
The Supreme Court of the United States
In the Iowa Central Company VS.. Iowa,
1eO U. $. 1872. is quoted to sustain this
point.
The provisions of the constitution and
statutes of Arkansas, Delaware. Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ore
gon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vir-
ginia and West Virginia, 1t is contended,
are substantially the same as the Ken
lucky constitution, and statutes regulating
the procedure ca the trial of q contested
election for Cove. nor; and, It Is said, that
IL the objection be sustained In this case
that "the corresponding provisions in the
organic laws of all the states referred 10
are likewise invalid"
AS to Fourteenth Amendment
AS to the point made by the counsel for
Taylor that in the administration of the
law, the contest board and the Legisla-
ture did not allow sufficient time for hear
ing, 1t Is contended that If the state pro-
vided a statute regulating the procedure
allowing a hearing after reasonable no.
tice. and the board or Legislature depart
ed from the statute and rendered an err
roneous decision, this does not bring the
case within the prohibition of the four
teenth amendment 10 the federal consti-
tuition.
The Supreme Court OF the United States
in Arrowsmith and Harmoning, l1S u. S..
24S, is quoted in support Of this propo-
sition.
1t is further insisted that there is no
property in political office and hence it's
deprivation cannot fall within the inhi-
bition contained in the fourteenth amend
ment
II is insisted that II this case presents
federal question then, by like allegations
TO those made here, such a question may
be presented in every election contest.
and the court of last resort be converted
into a supreme board OF contest" II is
therefore insisted that the motion to dis
miss the suit should be sustained be-
cause there is no color of a federal oues-
ton In the record.
Inasmuch as the case is set down for
hearing on the motion to dismiss, and
also the merits, the other questions are
also discussed.
Legislatures Jurisdiction.
1t Is contended that the jurisdiction of
the general assembly is exclusive, and it's
Judgment is conclusive; that no
other tribunal or court, under
any mode. has jurisdiction to determine
the question involved In this contesS, or
to review the action of the Legislature
As to the contention that the determi-
nation OF the contest by the board and
the general assembly was the result of
fraudulent conspiracy on the part of menu
bers of the Legislature, II is maintained
that the journals Of that body, showing
its action. cannot be impeached for fraud
or mistake, and that they impart abso-
lutte verify.
Counsel for Taylor, the brief says, seek
further TO avoid the determination by gem
erai assembly by the contention that at
the time the contest was decided on Fen.
2, 1900 the Legislature had been adjourned
by proclamation of Taylor as Governor,
until the sixth of February. to meet at
London In Laurel county. In reply Il is
insisted that the only power the Governor
Of Kentucky has at any time to adjourn
the general assembly, is by virtue of sec
ton 80 of the constitution, which only au-
thorizes an adjournment when there is a
disagreement as to the time and not the
place Of adjournment.
There Is no pretense that sucn a dis
agreement existed. Hence there was no
power to adjourn to any other place at
all. The only authority that the Governor
has to change the place OF holding a ses-
sion Of the general assembly is contain
ed in section 80 OF the constitution. which
provides that "in case OF war, insurrec-
tion or pestllence.' 1t may, "by proclama-
ton Of the Governor, assemble for the
time being. elsewhere" but this, 1t is in
sisted, applies only to a time when the
general assembly is not In session. When
IN session II Is a sovereign body and can
take care OF itself by adjourning when
and where II pleases
would Cause "a Conflict.
Besides this, II is insisted THAI by Sec
ton Al Of the constitution IL Is provided
that by consent OF both houses. the gem
cral assembly has the right 70 adjourn
and TX on the time ana place. II the Gov.
ernor has the same power, a conflict
would result n he should fix one time, and
place ana the general assembly Itself an.
other time ana place. II Is contended
moreover, that 20 allow the Governor tbls
power would be an Invasion OF the rights
Of the Legislature. n he could adjourn Il
for six days II IL said he could adjourn n
for an indelniie length of time ana re-
move n from place 20 place, ana fhereBy