New-York tribune., 1900-05-01
KENTUCKY CASE ARGUED.
PLEAS FOR TAYLOR AND BECKHAM
MADE IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT

lucky Governorship was begun in the United
States Supreme Court to-day. The first address
made in behalf of Governor Taylor by Helm
Bruce. Mr. Bruce had large audience of well
known Kentuckians and the lobby of the court
room crowded All the members of the Court
were present. and gave close attention to MI
Bruce's plea.
He said that Taylors contention for consti-
tutonal liberty. and that 1t waged in court
of justice and not field of carnage because In
entering the Union Kentucky had surrendered It's
right of resistance. He came to this Court on the
basis of the principle laid down in former opinion
of the Court, to the effect that the arbitrary exer
else of power of government unrestrained by re-
gard for private rights and justice could not be
tolerated. Mr.. Bruce reviewed the case at length
on the merits, contending that after the issuance
of the certificate of election Taylor much
the Governor of Kentucky any who had
ever been inaugurated into that office He denied
that the legislative adjudication any adjudica-
ton at ALL contending that to oust Taylor by this
process would be to deprive him of his office by
despotc power and not by due process Of law
The proceeding was not by due process of law. as
required by the Constitution.
Referring to the contest before the Kentucky
Legislature, lie said that the report of the Com
mittee of Investiga ton presented evidence and
stated no fact, and that it made to a secret
meeting of the Assembly of which Republican
member had been informed He referred at length
to the charge that the ballots used were thinner
than required by the law. If this true
he said. the wrong that of the State, if wrong
had been committed. Surely one-third of the voters
of the State could not be deprived of the right
or franchise such plea.
Mr.. Bruce contended for the jurisdiction of the
Federal Supreme Court under the Constitution 10
review the case, quoting many precedents in sup
port of this view. The Kentucky Legislature had
no commission to elect Governor of Kentucky
Its power extended only to the trial of contest
The Legislature had tried to exercise the power
of appointment. This was tyranncal and not In
wise consistent with the prerOgatiVeS OF the
legislators.
Mr.. Bruce asserted that all but two of the
grounds of contest had been practically elimnat-
ed 1t had been confessed that there was no evil
denCe In five of the counts while of the
naming five three were so fimsy that they could
not be insisted upon. The only two grounds re-
manning the charges of thin ballots used in
forty counties, a third of the State and OF in
tmidation in the city of Louisville.
With reference to the first point. 1T could not be
contended that the State itself could deprive a por
tion of its population of the right OF franchise
without due process of law. SO also In Louisville
where 1t sought disfranchse thirty-six thou
sand voters, the wrong, If any had been done had
been due to the action of the State Executive This
was another instance in which II sought to
the action of one branch of the Government to pre-
vent the exercise of a proper function This was
unjust and could not be pleaded with any Justice.
BECKHAM'S COUNSEL HEARD
Mr. Bruce was followed by Lawrence n. Max
well, in Mr.. Beckham's interest. He said that the
Constitution of Kentucky made the Legislature the
adjudicaor in contests for State offices The pro-
ceeding in this had been In accordance with
the law under the Constitution. Mr.. Maxwell con-
tended that the presented nc Federal question
and therefore the Federal Supreme Court had no
Jurisdiction The Kentucky Court of Appeals had
office of Governor under the Constitution and laws
OF the State The decision final. and the Ma
As to tSe eesdap 9 par5 m TO een ey IN from the
ing the returns Of the election offcers It was no
evidence OF validity Of title in view of the con
which was the State Legislature.
jurisdiction among them MANY Ohio cases He re-
aTkfd mar 20 fhat In Ohio the right to hold office was
AS to the charge of corruption in the Kentucky
law to deny the right of counsel to charge it, as
this court to review case beeauss Of this dens
unless h st that right was conferred by the legislature
the case was merely State question; Mr.. Maxwell
OF the XVIII Amendment to the Constitution
cernlng the taking of property without due
could only be brought into reauisition in case
IN hs na had I con na that Of S Was 9 s
60 co1Tt 1T shaved that TAYLOR had never held any title
l., Louis MGQuown also appeared for Beckham, go
Taor eam to al oes @ be
hip hS prnpfgy y d4e process OF law Was aHoTed S 10
referred to the change made by the Cioebei LECTION
Law requiring m reports Of committees IT in Contested
and said this provision was not different from the
practice In fifteen twenty other States. If.
therefore the law should be held invalid in the
Kentucky case, the laws bearing on the question
in those States also would be affected II the State
had provided proper mode of procedure. If the
election law constitutional, there could be
legitimate criticism of the method of application.
and in that the Federal court clearly
devoid of jurisdiction. Error of that character
could not give this court jurisdiction.
Mr. MCQuown argued for the final and exclusive
jurisdiction of the Legislature in contests of this
character, and also contended that the Federal
court had right to investigate question the
motives of the Legislature in its decision of the
GovernOrship He said that hundred and
fifty witnesses had been heard by the Contest
Board. more than hundred of whom in
troduced in Tayor's behalf 1t therefore
10 be presumed that the Legislature had not only
acted In good faith, but on proper knowledge of
the facts in the
When Mr. McQuown closed his speech the court
adjourned for the day. Ex-Governor Bradley who
is TO make the final speech for Governor Taylor.