The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-02
PLEADING TAYLOR'S CASE.
Arguments of Former Governor
Bradley in the Supreme Court.

Bradley in the Supreme Court.
w. o. Bradley. former Governor Of Ken
tuo%y. addressed the Supreme Court OF tn
United States yesterday. concluding thu
argument in behalf Of W. s Taylor in tn
Kentucky contest.
Referring to the claim Of opposing
counsel, that Taylor never possessed tn,
officer Of Governor Of Kentucky, ac-
cording to the decision Of the Court o.
| Appeals, he said that Taylor had exactly
the same title as that by which every
Governor for 100 years had held the office
/ for there had never before been a contest
over the office, and there doubtless would
| have been none at this time had it moi
| been for the election law now prevailing In
| Kentucky. It might as well be said that a
| man holding land by a title of record
! whose title was attacked by another claim
| ing superior title, never had possession
| OF the land Taylor was Governor de facto
and de jure; his title was good as to third
parties and it was good as to himself
1t has been said. he continued, Il at
office was not property, and the Court Of
Appeals in this case had decided that Of
fee was not property. But that was a
question to be reviewed by the Supreme
Court.
An office. when it is not property per
Sc, said Mr.. Bradley. "partakes of the ma
ture Of property and liberty; it is a priv
iege a citizen may exercise because and
as a part of his liberty. And the Court
of Appeals had so held for half a century.
In that decision the Court OF Appeals re-
cited the language Of the Supreme Court"
The Office Of Governor. he went on, was
valuable privilege and right which, ac-
cording to the fourteenth amendment,
could not be taken from the citizen with
out due process of law.
But they tell US" said Mr.. Bradley,
that all that is necessary is for the
State to pass law providing due process
OF law. and that it makes no difference
how the law is executed. Whatever that
may be, the citizen is bound by the action
of the State
The case turned at last upon the no.
tice of contest in the case. BY the law
OF the State the notice must state the
grounds of contest upon which the con-
testant relies and no other grounds will
thereafter be heard from him. The only
ground upon which the Legislature c1u'd
act would be the claim that Goebel had
received the greatest number of legal
votes cast. But the notice now here
made that statement; but it asserts that
the election was vcid. II was somewhere
claimed in the notice that Goebel was
elected. but that was a conclusion OF law
ana not a statement as required by law"
II the Legislature decided the contest
upon evidence. which he doubted. Mr.
Bradley said it decided it upon a ground
over which it had no jurisdiction. 1t was /
also said, continued Mr.. Bradley that the |
decision of the Legislature was final But 1
the Supreme Court. in the maximum |
freight rate cases. recently decided said |
Otherwise. In case Of this kind there !
was no power among the people to provide /
relief An appeal to the people. Mr.. Brad |
ley said, would afford the same opportunity 4
to override their will as was done in the |
present case. And under present condi- |
tons we feel that in the future We shall |
continue TO be deprived Of our rights"
Year ago, he said. the Court of Appeals \
decided exactly for the contention made l
by the counsel for Taylor that if a court /
which went outside of the law to count
votes. its action was null and void It had
further decided that where a court or a
tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine
4 case. its judgment was void. and could
properly be so treated by all men. That"
iaid the former Governor. lis what we con-
end, that the judgment in this case was
20 judgment at all
1T has been said all through the argu-
nent Of opposing counsel that the Legis-
ature was the final and ultimate authority
or determining the contest.
Il deny it," said Mr. Bradley "The
.c,ion Of the Legislature TO be binding
must be in accordance with the laws. And
il did not so act their decision must b.
pVipWpd Gx he iuTipiary Tho hon-T to /
the contest must be fairly
rawn. Two Of the members OF the board
lad contests similar to the one they we're
allied on to decide. and one OF them had
vet on the result suspended until the de-
isi1n Of the board was reached. Another
member he said. was resting under an
Indictment for felony"
At the conclusion OF the argument the
curt took a recess. to recOnvene on May H. |