The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-02-16
RIGHT TO
ACT RAISED.
u. S. Courts Jurisdiction Ones
toned In Kentucky Case.
BRADLEY ARGUES AFEIRMATIvELY.
Maxwell and Others Say state Tribunal
Should Decide-Bradley Claimed Goe-
bel Law Made the Election Board q
Judicial Body.

w. H. Taft heard arguments for over
three hours on the applications for in
functions against the Kentucky state
board of election commissioners, and the
contestants for the state offices other
than governor and lieutenant governor.
The plaintiffs were represented by
Bradley, Wilson, Sweeny and Yost, all
of Kentucky. The defendants were
represented by Scott, Hendrick, Hager
and Maxwell, the latter being faember
of the bar of Cincinnati and the others
of Kentucky,
Ex-Governor Bradley made a plain
statement of the ground upon which the
action of the court is invoked. After
reciting the provisions by which the
state board of elections is converted into
board of contest, he declared that they
were entirely repugnant to the Repubh
can form of government, which pro.
vides for three distinct departments
He asserted that this board of contest
had been made judicial body by the
Goebel law.
At this point Judge Taft inquired
whether the Goebel law had been passed
upon by the court of appeals. Governor
Bradley replied that it had, but that his
contention was that nevertheless, in
case he could show the law to be in con-
travention of the federal constitution,
then this court could be invoked. Judge
Taft replied that decision of the state
court on the constitutionality Of the law
did not necessarily prevent jurisdiction
by the United States court of appeals
where proper case could be shown.
Governor Bradley then went on to
show i'll what respect the Gobel law de-
prives citizens of their rights. In this
line he spoke of the situation in Ken
lucky with regard to these complain
ants having been given certificates OF
election by a vote of two to one, and that
one now the only member of the board
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 to go behind the returns,
and thus to exercise judicial powers.
The other two members had likewise, in
advance of their decision, declared their
intention to GUST these plaintiffs.
Going into the argument for the juris-
diction of this court, he said that this
action had it's basis in the provision of
the fourteenth amendment of the con-
stitution of the United States. He quoted
Justice Harlan as saying that a state
may not disregard, by any of it's agents,
the provisions of this section by taking
life, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law. He went on to define the
meaning of liberty so as to include in it
the right to vote, to have the vote count
ed and the officers electd permitted to ex-
ercise the functions of their Office.
Judge Taft here created diversion by
asking if the right to vote was granted
by the fourteenth amendment to women.
Mr.. Bradley admitted that while
women had not the right to vote, it was
nevertheless true that authorized elect
ors are entitled to protection by the
federal courts against any state agent
which undertakes to nullify that vote.
Lawrence Maxwell, Jr., on behalf Of
the defendants, made brief argument
on the two propositions that this court
had no jurisdiction, because the peti-
tions do not present case of equity, and
do not fall under the provisions of the
fourteenth amendment TO the United
States constitution. He said the situa-
ton was one in which the position Of
these compliments is in course of settle
ment by state tribunal. Contest pro-
ceedings in their cases are pending. This
condition presents none Of the features
of an equity case.
Mr.. Maxwell then recited a number of
cases in which it had been held that the
court had no power to interfere in the
re moval of an officer, and that courts of
equity took cognizance only of civil and
property rights. This being true, he
claimed there was no ground whatever
for federal interference. Referring to
the claim under the fourteenth amend
ment, he said the right to hold an Office
in the state of Kentucky was not ore of
| 40 Y.iC,lotc a,,ta hxy hot
ment, whose offices are creations Of the
state of Kentucky, and the right to hold
. them cannot be construed into one of
the rights designated in the amendment
referred to.
Mr.. A. E. Wilson, for the plaintiffs,
followed i'll a brief argument, in which
he took much time in reading authori-
ties on the subject Of the jurisdiction of
court under the fourteenth amend
mept of the United States constitution.
He spoke feelingly Of the gravity Of the
situation in Kentucky. He character
lied this court as one free from the ex-
. eitement ana partisanship that existed
!, In Kentucky.
/ Mr.. j. A. Scott, for the defendants,
made the po.nt that the court could not
, interfere to nrevent the future action OF
the board of contest. He said the only
real attack which had been made on the
] Goebel law was that it provided that al
Q the election commissioners throughout
the state should be partisan Democrats
? He ridiculed the idea Of making this the
ground OF Interference of this court
. and insisted hat the right to hold Office
: was not one of the rights defined in tn,
fourteenth amendment Of the constitu
i ton. He argued against the Jurisdiction
o of this court.
Mr.. Bradley, in his closing argument
!. insisted thai the contest board beinl
{ made into court was repugnant to tht
l. constitution of Kentucky, which speci
c fies what courts shall be created. Tn,
y attempt to confer judicial authority OF
this board deprived these plaintiffs o.
their rights and gives this court jurisdic
ton.