New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-15
JUDGE TAFT DENIES INJUNCTION.
HE HOLDS THAT IT IS NOT PROPER
REMEDY FOR RETAINING oFFICE-DE-
NOuNCEs THE ELECTORAL FRAUDS.


REMEDY FOR RETAINING oFFIcE-DE-
NOUNCEs THE ELECTORAL FRAUDS
Cincinnati, Feb 14.-In the Circuit Court of
the United States Judge W. H. Taft to-day de-
MED the motion for a preliminary Injunction in
the cases from Kentucky.
While the Court held that injunctions
would issue under these bills. yet it also held
that after the cases had been heard in the State
courts they could get in error for review in
the United States Supreme Court.
After the decision announced former Gov
ernor Bradley and his associate counsel stated
tat they were unable to say what would be
the next step Of the Republican State officers
of Kentucky. Counsel for the plaintiffs held a
long consultation after the announcement Of
the decision Governor Bradley and his asso
ciate counsel after their consultation, said they
had no doubt either of the ultimate possibility
of a hearing Of these cases in the United States
Supreme Court, as indicated by Judge Taft, or
of the final result, but at present counsel could
not say what would be the next procedure.
The following is the decision of Judge Taft
in part:
The injunctive process OF the Court is sought
TO prevent a removal from office. 1t is I'M
necessary to discuss the question whether
Federal question is presented on the face of this
bin or TO consider the correctness of the claim
Of complainant that the rights and immunities
secured TO him citizen of the United States
by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal
Constitution are infringed or are likely to be
infringed by the acts of the defendants done or
TO be done. 1t is sufficient TO hold as do, that
court Of equity cannot by process Of injunc-
ton prevent the removal of officer from his
Office His remedy must be at law by quo war
Tanto or other like proceedings 1t is con-
ceded that the laws of Kentucky afford to the
complainant a remedy by quo warranto, also
a remedy at law to prevent usurpation in office
II in such proceeding any Federal question can
be raised, complainant may carry it, II de-
cided against him by the State Courts, by writ
OF error, to the Supreme Court of the United
States. He cannot invoke the action of court
of equity to protect his right 10 his office.
Judge Taft cited the United States Supreme
Court decision in the Sawyer case, 124 Z. S. 200
and said it claimed by compliments that
the Sawyer case did not apply because in this
case it is averred that the Office is property. The
Judge held that public office in Kentucky is not
property, but trust, where the compensation is
only for services rendered. It is not even con-
tract Referring to the claim that the Kentucky
courts practically denied hearing, he said:
II is said that there is inadequate remedy here
because the courts Of Kentucky in which this
action would have to be brought are two years
behind in the disposition of their business and
decision would be long delayed. II is hardly a
sufficient ground for appeal 10 a Federal court
OF equity that State courts of law too busy
TO do justice. The delay incident to quo
ranto proceedings, as a reason for justifying
equitable interpOsition. was certainly brought to
the attention Of the Supreme Court in the Saw
yer case, because Chief Justice Waite in his dis
Sentlng opinion comments on IL and suggests II
his ground for Withholding his concurrence
from the broad doctrine laid down by the court
that under circumstances had a court of
equity jurisdiction TO interfere by injunction to
prevent removal from office. however fraudu-
lent unjust the threatened proceeding.
II is suggested that the case of Wilson vs.
North Carolina, 1859 u. s. $50, modifes the doc
trine of the Sawyer upon the point under
consideration An examination of that case
fails to support the suggestion. The Wilson
case involved the title to a State office and the
validity Of a removal therefrom. But II was an
action at law-it proceeding in quo war
ranto and was carried from the Supreme Court
Of North Carolina that Of the United States