The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-05-02
TAYLOR CASE ARGUED
Ex-Gov. Bradley Pleads With
the Supreme Court
TO DESTROY G0EBELISM
Under Which Kentucky Is a
Pure Despotism.

| Washington, May 1.-The supreme court
resumed its hearing today in the Ken
| tucy governorship case, Hon. W. o.
Bradley. former governor OF that state.
being the only speaker. He appeared for
Governor Taylor, taking up first the
claim of the opposition that Taylor had
never possessed any title to the office
He contended that Taylor's title was as
good as that OF any man who had ever
held the bfice. He argued that Taylor's
title was complete: that he was not only
de jure governor, but de facto governor
as well. and that every step that he had
taken as governor was legal
On the point OF Jurisdiction. he con-
tended that the pending case was very
similar TO that OF Taylor versus Boyd Of
Nebraska, in which Jurisdiction had been
assumed. He met the argument OF Gov
ernor Beckham's counsel that an office
was not property, by quoting authorities
to the contrary. Arguing hits point he
said that office was species of property
because it was right of value-a privi-
lege of citizenship of worth TO any man.
1t was one of the rights and privileges
coming under the protection guaranteed
b ythe Fourteenth amendment OF the
constitution and therefore subject to re-
view by the highest federal court. No
state could disregard the provisions of
this constitutional provision nor could
any state legislature assume to be
superior to it Not only was a state leg
isIature bound to grant due process Of
law, but state courts must administer
cases under the same authority. In a
case like this governorship there was no
such thing as an appeal 10 the people
The adjudication was necessary.
And why appeal?" Mr.. Bradley asked
IF we appeal to the ballot" he con-
tinued, sis not easier now to defy the
expressed will of the people than It has
been even in this case when there has
been such an open defiance OF the ex-
pressed desire Of the electors of the
state?"
Under the state constitution, the legis-
lature was nothing more than board
Of contest. This was a special power
and it was limited by the constitution.
If this limitation was transcribed the
act was tyrannicai and such the speaker
claimed the act of the legislature in this
case to be. He challenged the method
observed in drawing the board, as some
Of the members of it themselves had con-
tests pending while another had laid a
wager upon the result. In this account.
according TO precedents, the decision of
the board must be held void-the mem
bers of the board being jurors in their
own cases. Furthermore, there had been
not time for reasonable hearing nor suf-
fctent notice There had also been ir-
Irregularities in the trial and Taylor's
frineds had been refused the privilege Of
arguing the case Seventeen hundred
pages of testimony were taken but there
was not time allowed the legislature to
read a word of It. Therefore. the legfs-
lature had never really and legally de-
termined the case. All this. Mr.. Bradley
concluded, was denial of the due process
of law guaranteed by the constitution
The point was also made that the notice
of contest had failed to state the ground
of contest under the law. Hence the
legislature had assumed a jurisdiction *
did not have. Mr.. Bradley attacked the
finding of the legislature in the case as
irregular and therefore void. And they
have as much power" he said, ito bring
back to life the body of Mr. Goebel as
they have to put into transaction which
they have to put life into a transaction
which is void"
He closed with an appeal for recog-
milton by the court Instead Of bending
the knee 10 the legislatures. the court, he
said, should investigate their processes
and see that they were in accord with
the requirements of the constitution. The
occasion was a momentous one. he said.
for the people of Kentucky This was
the first fight which had been made south
OF the Ohio for the preservation OF civil
liberty by the process Of the courts.
And II we fall" he said. 1T is liable
to be the last. The same blighting influ-
ence Of arbitrary power is sure 10 go
farther and extend to other sta.es II
there IS not some supreme tribunal to
which the people can come with assur-
ance Of such recognition as viii guaran-
tee the preservation Of their privileges
and immunltIes. If we fail. our condition
IS pitia5le indeed, for an appeal 70 the
ballot box WI he. IN the face OF that
failure. more worthless IN the future
than & has been in the past Our bin %
rights. though written IN the blood OF
r-,a-s---u will ia -vo~- T7faSe n r1z - .ba