The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-13
A PRAYER FOR AN INJUNCTION
WAS SUBMITTED TO A. Federal
COURT III REPUBLICANS.
Bradley Argued AiopG the Line. of
/, Federal snp.r,isiqn nj state Eiec-
tions--Tnrt Asked Questions. ~

Cincinnati, February l2--In the United
States circuit court Judge w. H. TAFT
heard arguments for four hours on the ap.
plicatians for injunetions against tina Ken
lucky State board of election commission
ers and the contestants for the State offices
other than governor and lieutenant gov
ernor The large court room was unable
TO hold all who came to the Federal build
ing for admission Very many of the vis-
itors were from the Kentucky side. The
plaintiffs were represented by Bradley.
Wilson, Sweeney and Yost, all of Ken
lucky The defendants were represented
by Scott, Hendricks. Haager and Maxwell
the latter being a member Of the bar OF
Cincinnati. and the others OF Kentucky
Ex-GoveTnor Bradley for the plaintiff
began with a statement OF the ground on
which the action OF the court is invoked
After reciing the provisions by which the
State board az elections Is converted into
board OF contest, he declared that they
were entirely rspugnant TO a republican
form OF government, which provides for
three distinct departments He asserted
( that this board OF contest had been made
Judge Taft inquired whether the Goehel
law had been passed upon by the court OF
appeals.
Governor Bradley replied that It had. hut
his contention was that In case he conld
show the law TO be- in CONFIRMATION OF
the Federal constitution then this court
could be invoked.
Judge Taft replied that decision Of the
State court on the constltutionality OF the
law did not necessarily prevent iurisdlc-
tion by the United States court OF appeals,
where a proper case could be shown.
Governor Bradley then went on to show
in what respect the Goebel law deprives
citizens OF their rights In this Lac he
spoke Of the situation In Kentucky with
regard to these complalnsnts having been
given the certificates OF election by a vote
of two to one and that one now the only
member OF the beard which is about to
pass upon the contests. Instituted by the
candidates opposed to these plaintiffs.
That one he said, had already officially
declared that the board had the power
10 20 behind the returns and thus 10 exer-
else Judicial powers. The othsr two mem
bers had liKewise In advance OF their de-
cislcn, declared their intention 10 Gust
these plaintiffs. Going into the argument
for the jurisdiction Of this court he said
that this action had It's basis in the pro-
visions OF the fourteenth amendment to
the Constitution OF the United states. lie
quoted Chief Justice Harlan as saying that
the State may not disregard by any Of its
agents the provision OF this section by taxi
Ing life. liberty or properly without due
process OF law. lie went on TO define the
meaning OF liberty so as 10 Include In u
the right to vote. 10 have the vote cplnisd.
Judge Taft here created a diversion BY
asking II the right 20 vote granted by trr
fourteenth amendment was TO women
Governor Bradley admitted that, wniie
women had not the right to vote, u was
nevertheless true that authorized electors
are entitled to protection by the Federal
courts against any State agent which up-
dertakes to nuli,fy that vote.
Lawrence yaxwell or behalf OF the de-
\ fCndants. made brief argument on ths
two propositions that this court had no
Jurisdiction because the petitions do no.
present case IN equity and 40 not tall
under the provisions OF the fourteenth
amendment N the United States constl;u-
ton He ssje the situation was one n
J which the position Of these claimants "a
, in course CT settlement by State tribunal
He ridiculed the position Of the plaintiffs
who. sLin 10 the process Of ascsrtainins
whether or net they had been elected. pro.
posed to throw aside the provisions OF The
State isw and asked the power Of thil
court on their behalf.
MA. z. Wilson. Tor the plaintiffs. fol