The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-29
ON THE WAY TO FRANKFORT
GOVERNOR AND MRS. TAYLOR LEFT
WASHINGTON FOR HOME.
One officer in Undisputed
Possession Of His GOal-Sanitary
Canal Case Brief Filed.

ernor of Kentucky, to-day filed their brief
of the case in that court. The brief Is
signed by James P. Helm, Helm Bruce and
Kennedy Helm, as counsel. while the
names of ex-Gov. w. o. Bradley. w. H..
Yost, A. z. Wilson, d. w. Farley, w. c.
Z. Breckenridge and John Shelby are Up
pended as ''of counsel"
After reviewing the various points In
volved in the case, the brief concludes as
follows: w will not attempt any resume
of the argument; we have attempted so to
divide 1t as not to confuse 1t. We simply
insist that the pretended ''adjudication,''
which is pleaded by Mr.. Beckham as the.
foundation of his action, whereby he seeks
to lake from William S. Taylor and John
Marshall the offices to which they GER
tainly had the admitted prima fiacie right,
and whereby he seeks to make himself the
Governor of Kentucky and the chief mag
istrate of her people, is an absolute nulli-
ty; that 1T was entered, or made, in viola
ton of rights secured to William S. Taylor
and John Marshall and to the people of
Kentucky by the Constitution of the
United States; and that when he comes
into court asking for the judicial enforce
ment of this arbitrary edict, the courts of
the land, of which this is the supreme
head, should decline to enforce it. We feel
that in this case is involved the question
of whether we are Political freemen or
political serfs: whether we have in Ken
lucky a republic or an oligarchy; whether
we vote by right secured by the law, or by
grace of a few men. 1t matters not that
these men may themselves have been
elected. They are given no commission by
the people to select a Governor for them;
and as said by Mr.. Jefferson. in speaking
for himself and his compatriots: AN cleo
tive despotism was not the government We
fought for
1--WE have been denied republicanism; the
principle has failed in its duty, and we
call on the guarantor to make good its
guaranty. We ask for the protection of
liberty and property against the arbitrary
exercise of the powers of the govern
ment.'"
Republican Governor Taylor, of Ken
lucky, left this city at 2:b o'clock this
afternoon over the Chesapeake e. Ohio.
He had a short interview with the Presi-
dent before leaving. Governor Taylor left
instructions at the hotel to forward his
mail to Frankfort. He was accompanied
by his wife.
The claim is made that Taylor received
a majority of 2.SSS votes over Goebel. and
1t is asserted that when he was ~inaugu-
rated he had "as clear a title of record as
any man ever held" 1t is asserted that
there is no contention that Goebel was
elected Governor, but the Legislature lad
judged and determined that he had been
elected" and that 1T is upon this conten-
ton that the action is based. The assign
ment of error is made under two headings,
as follows:
1.-The alleged legislative Judgment. as up
held and enforced by the Judgment in this
action, was a mere arbitrary act of the
State, and deprives plaintiffs in error of
their I'm UffhnI1f h ~ lor-
and therefore is unconstitutional.
This Judgment, as upheld and enforced,
deprives the people of Kentucky of their
right to choose their own representatives,
which right is secured by the federal Con-
stituttop in a guaranty of a republican
form of government to every State, and
d~eprives them Of their political liberty
without due process of law
ARGUMENT AND CONCLUSIONS.
They argue the case under four headings:
Ffrst-As to the right to the office.
Second-The right of suffrage in the
State.
Third-The jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
F~ourth-The legislative adjudication of
the controversy.
The conclusions reached on these points
are as follows:
First-That the right to an office of the
character now under consideration is a
right which is secured by the Constitution
of the United States and cannot be taken
away by the State, acting through any of
it's departments, except by "due process of
law"
Second-That when the people of the
State by their Constitution have fixed the
right of suffrage and have provided for a
direct vote by those upon whom the right
of suffrage is conferred. then they must
be allowed to vote and thus to choose
their representatives and that any arbi-
trary deprivation of this right by the
State, through any department or agency
IF tho State uhafhar 1aoiS1ot tive 4~41,,
tive or judicial, is forbidden by the federal
Constitution.
Third-After quoting various authorities
the counsel say: From these considera-
tons 1t must be manifest that the claim
Of immunity from judicial inquiry. the
claim to a conclusive presumption that 'all
is we'll which was made and allowed in the
State court in favor of this alleged leg
i~slative adjudication cannot be allowed
here. 1t receives TO peculiar sanction from
the fact that 1T is claimed to be the ac-
ton of the General Assembly. Neither the
General Assembly itself nor the Court of
Appeals, in aid of ii, can say this was due
process of law, because We have said So
and thereby deprive this court of the
power to inquire into the matter for itself.
Fourth-On the question of the action of
the Kentucky Legislature an examination
of the evidence is entered upon with the
result that the following conclusions are
reached: 1.-The General Assembly had not
a word of evidence when Ii acted. No evil
dence was ever returned to tx by The COM
mltIee WHICH nedrO III. Inc members of
the Assembly acted without any knowl-
edge of the facts as to said contests, and
without any opportunity to form a iudg-
ment on the merits thereof, but acted ar
bitrarily, without knowledge, and merely
because they desired to see Taylor and
Marshall deprived of their offices.
This alleged trial was had at a secret
meeting, one held without any notice either
to Taylor or to Marshall. or to a single
Republican member of the body itself, and
without any opportunity to any of these
parties to be present. The Republican MEM
bers thus excluded constituted more than
one-third of the entire membership of the
| Assembly.
1.-The remarkable result was simply due
to the fact, and ii is a fact, that. before
the contest was begun, il was arranged
and agreed between Goebel and the mem
bers of the General Assembly that the con-
test should and would be decided in his
favor"
Coming to the grounds of the contest.
counsel claim that the thin ballots were
| furnished by the State. and that therefore
the pleas as TO their use cannot be prop
erly made. They deny that there was milf
tary intimidation at Louisville. The brief
in Becknam's interest has not yet been
filed.
BRECKENRIDGE Succeeds tn Once