The age-herald., 1900-04-30
BRIEF IN THE
 BECKHAM CASE
(Contlnued From First Page.)

contest, or to review the action of the legislature.
 Ground of Public Policy
 Upon the ground of public policy the lawmakers have invested the general as- sembly with this penary and final juris- diction for the determination of these con- tsets. No provision is made for an appeal or review by the judicial tribunals, because it was not intended that they should have jurisdiction over the contest
 The Kentucky cases of Batman against Mcgowan, 1 Met. 5S3 and Stine vs. Berry 96 Kentucky 63, together with Baxter vs Brooks % Arkansas, 1S2, and numerous Ohio cases are cited in support of this proposition.
 In reference to the contention of Tay- lor's counsel that the determination of the contest by the board and the general as- sembly was the result of a fraudulent conspiracy on the part of the members of the legislature, it is maintained that the journals of that body, showing its action, cannot be impeached for fraud or mistake and that they import absolute verity.
 ''The rule," it is said, rests upon the ground that the legal effect of the record of the general assembly, solemnly made in pursuance to the mandate of the constitu- ton, cannot be denied or destroyed by judicial action. The rule applies whether the action of the general assembly is as- sailed in the passage of law or the per formance of any other duty imposed by the constitution"
 Opinions of the courts of Kentucky In- diana, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio are cited in support of this position.
 As to the Adjournment
 Counsel for Taylor the brief says, seek further to avoid the determination by the general assembly of the contention that at the time the contest was decided on February 2, 1900, the legislature had been adjourned by permission of Taylor as gov ernor until the 9th of February, to meet at London, in Laurel county. In reply 1t is insisted that the only power the gover- nor of Kentucky has at any time to ad- journ the general assembly is by virtue of section of the constitution, which pro- vides that fin case of disagreement by the two houses with respect to the time of adjournment he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper, not exceeding four months"
 This only authorizes an adjournment when there is a disagreement as to the time and not the place of adjournment There is no prospect that such disagree ment existed. Hence there was no power to adjourn to any place at all.
 The only authority that the government has to change the place of holding a ses- sion of the general assembly is contained in section 36 of the constitution, which provides that 'in case of war, insurrec- tion or pestilence, it may, by proclamation of the governor, assemble for the time being elsewhere" but this. 1t is insisted, applies only to time when the general assembly is not in session. When in ses- sion it is a sovereign body and can take care of itself by adjourning when and where 1t pleases.
 Beside this 1t is insisted. that by sec tion fl of the constitution, 1t is provided that by consent of both houses the general assembly has the right to adjourn and fix on the time and place. If the governor has the same power conflict would result, if he should fix one time and place and the general assembly itself another time and place.
 It Is contended, moreover, that to allow the governor this power would be an in- vasion of the rights of the legislature. If he could adjourn it for six days, 1t is said, he could adjourn it for an indefinite length of time and remove 1t from place to place, and thereby prevent it from enacting law or discharging its duty