The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-05-01

republicans The said; "Republican
eeoeeosseseosseseseseeeoesess
was for constitutional liberty and that It
was waged in a court Of justice and not
on field of carnage because, In entering
the Union Kentucky had surrendered its
right OF resistance. He came TO this
court on the basis Of the principle laid
down in a former opinion OF the court
that the arbitrary exercise of power of
government unrestraned by regard for
private rights and justice could not be
tolerated MIR. Bruce reviewed the case
at length upon its merits, contendlng that
after the issuance Of the certificate of
election Mr.. Taylor was as much the gov
ernor of Kentucky as any man who had
ever been inaugurated for that office.
He denied the legislative adjudication was
and adjudication at all, contending that
to GUST Mr.. Taylor by this process would
| be TO deprive him OF his office by des-
potic power and not by due process OF the
law.
The proceedings was not by due process
! of law as required by the constitution
Referring TO the contest before the Ken
lucky legislature he said that the report
Of she committee investigating presented
no evidence and stated no fact and 1t was
made to secret meeting Of the assembly
Of which no republican member had been
notihed.
In this Connection he referred at length
to the charge that the ballots used were
thinner than required by the law. II
this was true. he said, tho WRONG was OF
the State, il wrong had been committed
Surely one-third OF the voters OF the
State could not be deprived of the right
Of franchise on such a plea.
Mr. Bruce commended for the juris-ssss ~
ot the Bsdepal supreme 'ceart under she
constitution to review the case, quoting
many presidents in support OF this view.
The Kentucky legislature had been given
no commission to elect a governor Of Ken
lucky. Their power extended only to the
trial of a contest. Tho legislature had
tried to exercise the power OF appoint
ment Mr.. Bruce contended that even II
it were true that Taylor had forfeited his
right to notice OF the trial by prohibiting
the use Of the legislative hall, surely this
could not be said in the case OF MIR. Mar
shall in the lieutenant governorship case.
Mr.. Bruce contended that all but two OF
the grounds of contest had been practical
~ eliminated. The only two grounds re-
naming We're:
, The charges of thin ballots used in fort y
Counties, or third Of the State, end OF IN
timideti ton In the city of Louioville
with reference to the first point II
could not be contended that the Sta G
itself could deprive a portion of it's own
population OF the right of franchise with
out due process OF law. So also in Louis
vile. where It was sought to disfranchisf
26 600 voters, the wrong, II any had mo-
been due to he action OF the state exeeu
tive. This was another instance in whicf
il was sought to use the action Of on
branch Of the government to prevent IN
exercise Of q proper function. This was
unjust and could not be pleaded with ans
justice.
MIR. Bruce was followed by Hon. Law
renee l., Maxwell in Mr.. Beckham's inter
est He said that the constitution of Ken
lucky made the legislature the adjudicato
in contests for State officers Of that State
The proceeding in this case mao been il
accordance with the law under the consti
tuition There had been no authority, a
was claimed on the other side, Tor dis
solving the legislature by Govern y Taylor
Mr.. Maxwell contended that the cas-
presented no Federal question and tina
therefore the supreme court had no iuris
dlction The Kentucky State court OF ap
, peals had decided that Mr. Taylor ha'
never acquired title to the office OF gov
ernor under the constitution and laws 0
6 the State The decision was lihal and tn
National court had no part to play in tn
proceeding As TO the certificate OF cleo
2 ton from the State board of oanvassers
u was merely a writing showing the re
= turns of the election officers II was n
evidence OF validity OF title in view OF III
, conclusion reached by the constitutions
o authority which was the State Legislature
Mr. Maxwell quoted authorities on IN
point of Jurisdiction, among them MAJ
: Ohio cases He remarked that in Obi
the right to hold was held almost a
sacred as the right to pursuit Of happiness
T In view OF the fact that the case wa
! merely a State question Mr.. Maxwe
thought It necessary TO consider the az
, plication OF the fourteenth amendment I
the constitution concerning the taking {
property without due process OF law. tn
decision of the Kentucky court Shove
that Mr., Taylor had never held any III
to the office claimed by him.
Mr.. Louis McQuown also appeared Il
Mr. Beckham, going over all the points q
issue The contest he argued. was nc
only OF Interest to the people OF Ksntuck.
It but he was sure that the principle lal
& down In the case would receive the al
!, tention of the entire country He cor
Tended that even II Mr., Taylor's Claim
u office was 10 be considered as propert.
II he was allowed due process Of law" ur
der the Kentucky statutes which prrt
ideally, in their present form, had been
existence for almost century. The stat
u law required nofice OF contest TO cor
lie testee and reasonable opportunity 10
"a heard. In this connection Mt hrQuo~
= referred 10 the change made By the Goeh
" election law, requiring reports OF commit
tees In contest cases 10 be made 70 bcl
L.. t.st& fs ~