The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-02-15
JUDGE TAFT
REFUSED THE
APPLICATION.
For Injunction IA KantuelEy Contest
Cases, Reviewed the dosbsl Law,
peolaEing 4 The
MOST INFAMOUS STATUTE
That HAD Ever Come Before a Court,
and Denounced Conditions Ex-
listing IN Kentucky.

CINCINNATI. o., Feb. Holding
that the federal court had no 1lirisdle-
tion in the contests in Kentucky, Judgs
Taft this afternoon refused to grant
the application for injpnctions against
the Kentucky state board Of elections
and the Democratic contestants for
state omceS, other than governor and
lieutenant governor.
Judge Taft finished reading his opin-
ion at $3.50 p. M, in which he denied the
applications for injunctlOns in both
cases in the Kentucky suits. After cit
ing the law showing that the federal
court had no Jurisdiction In such caseg,
he reviewed the Goebel election law as
the most infamous statute that had
ever come before the attention Of q
court, and also denounced in very vig-
orous terms the conditions that have
existed In Kentucky and that are cited
In the bilI Of facts. But he held that It
was merely a matter Of law with the
court, Notwithstanding the outrages
that are alleged in the undisputed
statement OF the facts Of the petltlOn-
ers. There was an immense crowd in
the federal building awaiting the decls-
ion of the court.
Substance Of the Decision.
The following Is the decision of Judge
Taft. in part:
'The injunctlve process Of the court
Is sought to prevent a removal from
office. 1t Is unnecessary to discuss the
question whether federal IS presented
upon the fece OF this bill or to consider
the correctness Of the claim Of coIn-
plalnaut that the rights and immunI-
ties secured TO him as a citizen Of the
United States by the fourteenth amend
ment to the federal constitution are In
fringed or are likely to be infringed by
the acts Of the defendants done or to be
done. 1t is sufficient to hold, as do,
that court OF equity cannot by process
of Injunction prevent the removal OF
an officer from his oftice. HIS remedy
must be at law by quo warranto or
other like proceedings It is conceded
that the laws Of Kentucky afford to the
complainant u remedy by quo war
ranto. also a remedy at law to prevent
usrpatlon in office. If in such proceed
ing any federal question can be raised,
complainant may carry 1t, II decided
against him by the state courts, by writ
of error. 10 the supreme court Of the
United States. He cannot Invoke the
action of e court OF equity TO protect
his right To- his ofice."
Referring to the claim that the Ken
lucky courts practically denied hear
ing. he said:
ut is said that there Is inadequats
remedy here because the courts Of Ken
lucky. in which this action would have
to be brought, are two years behind in
the disposition of their business, and a
decision would be long delayed. It is
hardly sumclent ground for appeal to
federal court of equity that state
courts of law are too busy to do JUS
tlee."
Nay be Taken to o.. s. Supreme Court,
While the court held that no intune-
tlons would issue under these bills. yet
lit also held that after the cases had
been heard In the state courts they
could get in, on error for review in the
United States supreme court. After
the decision was announced. former
Governor Bradley and his associate
counsel announced that they WIRE un-
able to state what would be the next
step Of the Republican state officers OF
Kentucky. Counsel for the plaintiffs
held a Ions consultation after the an
nouncement Of the decision. Governor
Bradley and his associate counsel, after
their consultation, said they had no
doubt either Of the ultimate possibility
OF a hearing of these cases in the United
States supreme court. as indicated by
Judge Tatt. or of the final result but At
present counsel could not say what
would be the next procedure,