The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1900-04-12
BECKHAM VICTORIOUS.
THE KENTUCKY GOvERNORSEs
DECIDED IN HIS FAVOR.
The Supreme C0urt Of Appe IL Of -
State Hands Down its Gccis;a" RI
the Gubernaiorial contest fsS r
ing the Democrats rhe :sse ~ Il
Now be Carried to the tupret:s
Court OF the United states.

Frankfort, KY, April 6.-Ex-GoHe-
nor w. o. Bradley. chief counsel +.
Governor Taylor. tonight authcfizSC
the statement that an appea! On oehaii
Of Governor Taylor and Lieutenant
Governor Marshall will Ice carried t.
the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Mr.. Bradley and Judge w. H. Vest,
counsel for the Republican State OIL
GERS, were in consultation with Cover
nor Taylor for several hours this after
noon, and the above statement was
made at the close of the conference. II
is stated that Colonel w. c. P. Breck-
inridge and Republican leaders from
different parts of the State will meet
Governor Taylor in conference here to-
morrow morning.
Ex-Governor Bradley said: We will
not take advantage of any TECHNICAL
ties to delay the progress Of the case.
The decision of the Court of Appeals
is not disheartening to us. We will
ask for writ of error to the Supreme
Court at once and these contests Will
now be at an end in a very short time
The Court of Appeals to-day handed
down it's decision in the Gubernatorial
contest in favor Of Beckham, Judge Du-
Role dissenting. The other two Re
publican Judges. Burnam and Curry,
handed down separate opinion, which
differed in it's rea SOns from the opinion
of the Democratic Judges, but agreed
with them in its conclusion. Judge
Hobson, one of the four Democratic
Judges, wrote the opinion of the major
ity of the court affirming the decision
Of Judge Field, Of Louisville.
1t recites the work CT the State Can
wasting Board and Of the contest pro,
ceedings in the LegisIa ture and all sub
sequent proceedings, and continues:
We have no more right to supervise
the decisions OF the General assembly
in determining the result Of tiiis cleo
ton than we have to sUi,el wise the &C
ton of the Governor in calling special
session of the Legislature. or IL pardon
ing a criminal, or the action of the
Legislature in contracting debts or de-
termininS upon the election of its mem
bers or doing any other act authorized
by the Constitution. TGeic is 30 con-
nict between the action OF the State
Canvassing Board and that OF the Leg
islature in these cases. The State Can
vassing Board was Without power to
80 Deillllu tIlt returns icy Nc e lloi
authorized to hear evidence and deter
mine who was in truth elected bat We're
required to give a certificate OF election
to those who on tire face CT the returns
had received the highest number Of
votes. For the State Board to have
received evidence to impeach the re-
turns before them would have been for
them, in effect to act as board for
cOntesting the election. and if they had
= Il
power vested in the General Assembly
by the Constitution, for by its exp1 ess
terms only the General Assembly can
determine Il contested election for Gov
ernOr and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. But
the certificate OF the State Board Of
Canvassers is no evidence as to who
was in truth elected. Their certificate
entities the recipient to exercise the
office until the regular cOnstitutionality
shall determine who is the de jure off,
GER. The rights of the de jure officer
attached when he was elected, although
the result was unknown until it was
declared by the proper constitutional
authority. When it was SO declared
it was simply the entertainment of
fact hitherto IN doubt or unsettled. The
rights of the de facto officer under his
certificate from the Canvassing Board
were provisional or temporary until the
determination of the result of the cleo
ton as provided in the Constitution and
upon that determination, if adverse to
him. they ceased altogether. Such
determination of the result of the cleo
ton by the proper tribunal did not take
from him any pTe-eXisting right, for, if
not in fact elected, he had only right
to act until the result Of the election
could be determined.
I'VE are, therefore, unable to see how
this case can be distinguished from any
other legislative action, taken in a mat
ter over which the Constitution has
given the Legislature exclusive juris-
diction, and we are, therefore, Of the
opinion that the court is without juris-
diction to go behind the record made
by the Legislature under the COnStitu-
ton. Such a record seems to US en-
titled to every presumption in it's favor,
which the records of this court, kept
under it's supervision would be entitled
to receive at the hands of the Legisla-
ture in a matter before it. It is also
argued that the contest board was not
fairly drawn by lot, that certain men,
bers of the board were liable to objec-
ton on the score of partiality, and that
therefore this board was not properly
constituted. If any of these objections
were well founded. the General Assem-
bly, had full power to take such action
as was proper in the premises. It does
not appear that any of the objections
urged We're presented to the General
Assembly, but, if they were and it re-
fused to make correction, it must be
presumed that it had sufficient reasons
for its action. Besides, the board was
only preliminary agency to take evil
dence ard report the facts to the Cen
eral Assembly. The Assembly itself
finally determined the contest"