The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1900-04-12
The Kentucky Democrats Come Out
Winners.
REPUBLICANS WILL APPEAL CASE.
Will Ask for Writ OF Error, and Garry
the Matter to the Supreme Court
of the United States.

in the governorship in favor Of the
Democrats. Ex-Governor Bradley,
chief counsel for Taylor authorized the
statement that an appeal on behalf of
Governor Taylor and Lieut.. Governor
Marshall Will be carried to the Supreme
Court OF the United States. Mr.. Brad
ley and w. H. Yost, counsel for the
Republican State officers, were in con-
sultation with Governor Taylor for
several hours and the above statement
was made at the close Of the confer
ence. 1t is stated that Col. w. G.. P.
Breckinridge and Republican leaders
meet Governor Taylor in conference
here. Ex-Governor Bradley said:
I'VE will not take advantage of any
technicalities to delay the progress OF
the case. The decision Of the Court OF
Appeals Is not disheartening to us. We
will ask for a writ Of error to the Su-
preme Court at once, and these con-
tests will now be at an end in very
short time"
The Court Of Appeals hands down its
decision in the gubernatorial contest in
ldfOI VI DCShudLI, OudED Du1eSRiS eA9
senting. The other two Republican
judges, Burnam and Guffey, banded
down a different opinion, which differ
fered in its reasons from the opinion OF
the Democratic judges, but agreed with
them in its conclusion. Judge Hobson,
one Of the four Democratic judges.
wrote the opinion Of the majority Of
the court, affirming the decision OF
Judge Field, Of Louisville. 1t recites
the work Of the State canvassing board
and contests before the legislature, and
continues:
I'VE have no more right to supervise
the decisions of the General Assembly
in determining the result Of this cleo
ton than we have to supervise the ac-
ticn of the Governor in calling special
session Of the legislature, or in pardon
ing a criminal, or the action OK the
legislature in contracting debts or de-
termining upon the election OF its men,
bers, or doing any other act authorized
by the constitution. There is no con-
fict between the action of the Stats
canvassing board and that OF the leSis-
lature in these cases. The State CAN
vassing board was without power to
90 behind the returns. They were not
authorized to hear evidence and deter
mine who was in truth elected, but
were required to give certificate OF
|. election to those who, on the face oi
the returns, had received the highest
number of votes. For the State boarG
to have received evidence to impeach
,rr>1rtl
been for them, in effect, to act as
board contesting the election, and j.
they: had.done this they would have
usurped the poweTvested in the gen
eral assembly. by the constitution, for
by its exprssed terms, only the general
assembly can determine 4 contested
election for governor and lieutenant
governor. But the certificate Of the
State board of canvassers is no evil
dence as to who was in truth elected.
Their certificate entities the recipient
to exercise the office until the regular
constitutionality shall determine who
is the de jure officer. The rigat OF the
de lure officer attached when he was
elected, although the result wa.
unknown until it WAS declared By
the proper constitutional authority.
When it was so declared il waS simply
the aceertainment of a.faGt hitherto in
doubt or unsettled. Tho rights Of the
de facto officer under mis- certificate
from the canvassing board were provis-
ional or temporary until the de,ermlna-
ton OF the result Of the election as
provided in the constitution and upon
that determination, if adverse to him.
they ceased altogether. Such deter
mination OF the result or the election
by the proper tribunal did not take
from him any existing right shrdlu q
from him any pre-eXiStinS right for, il
not in fact elected. he mad only Z right
10 act until the result Of the election
could be determined. We are therefore
unable to see how this case can be de-
termined from any ether legislative
action taken il the matter over which
the constitution has given the legisla-
ture exclusive jurisdiction, and we are.
therefore, of the opinion That the court
Is without jurisdiction to go behind the
record made by the legislature under
the constitution. Such a record seems
10 us entitled to every presumption in
its favor which the records OF this
: court, kept under its supervision, would
! he entitled to receive 1t the hands Of
the legislature in matter before it. It
is also argued that the contest board
was not fairly drawn by lot; that GER
tain members OF the board we've liable
to objection on the score Of partiali.y
and that. therefore, This board was nc;
properly constituted. II any Of these
objections We're we'll founded, tie gen-l
eral assembly had full power to take
such action as was proper in the prem
| ises. It does not appear that any Of
tbo nbierti0nS nrpnd were nreSentei TO