Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-01
IN BECKHAM'S BEHALF
ARGUMENT IN THE KENTUCKY GU
BERNATORA DISPUTE.
Claimed That due Process of Law
Was Not Denied Taylor-Jurisdic-
ton of the Legislature.

Arguments before the United States Su-
prcme Court in the Kentucky goyernorship
case. were continued yesterday afternoon
after The Stars report closed
Mr. Bruce was followed by Lawrence n.
Maxwell in Mr. Bcckham's interest He
said that the constitution of Kentucky
made the legislature the adjudicator in con-
tests for state officers in that state The
proceeding in this case had been in accord
arce with the law under the constitution.
There had been. as was claimed the
other side. no authority for dissolving the
legislature by Gov. Taylor. Mr.. Maxwell
contcnded that the case presented no fed
eral question and that therefore the federal
Supreme Court had no jurisdiction. The
kentucky state court of appeals had de
cided that Mr. Taylor had never acquired
title to the Office of governor under the
constitution and laws of the state. The
decision was final and the national court
had no part to play in the proceeding. As
to the certificate of election from the state
board of canVaSsers, ii was merely a writing
showing the returns of the election officers.
/. was no evidence of validity of title in
View of the conclusion reached by the con-
stitutipnal authority, which was the state
legislature.
Ohio Cases Cited.
Mr.. Ma we'll quoted authorities the
point of jurisdiction among them many
ttllp CASTS ne TtIlldl htI lILdA III OiAlO tilc
right 20 hold office was held to be almost
as sacred as the right to the pursuit of
happiness.
As to the ground of corruption in the
kentucky legislature. it was no denial of
due process Of law to deny the right of
counsel to charge it, as the state court had
done. There was no right of this court 10
review case because of this denial unless
that right was conferred by the legislature,
ard this was not the case. In view of the
fact that the case was merely a state ques-
ton. MIR. Maxwell thought it unnecessary
To consider the application of the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution concerning
the taking of property without due process
o law As matter Of TACT, that amend
ment Cout be brought into rCquisition only
IL a case where right had accrued and
that was not true in this instance. The de-
Cisi1n If The Kentucky court showed that
9Ir. Taylor had never held any title 10 the
office claimed by him.
Allowed Dne Process of Law.
Mr. Louis McQuown also appeared for MIR.
BecEharH. going over all the points at issue
The contest. he argued. was not only Of
interest To- the people IF Kentucky. but he
was sure that the principle laid down in ihe
cGse would receive the attention OF the en-
tire country He contended that even If Mr..
TaylpT'- claim 10 office to he considered
as property he was allowed due process of
law under the Kentucky statutes. which
pf1rTlNltlF N tAc'T present form lat deem
in exislerce for almost a cetnury. The state
law reuu+- / notice of a contest to the con
tyStev sIl @ reasonable opportunity to be
heard In Ills connection Mr. MCQuoEn
referred the change made Ivy the GOehcl
election laT. requiring reports Of commit
tees III contest cases to be made 20 both
uses Of the legislature. but this provision
was not different from the practice in fif-
teen Or twenty other states. If. therefore.
the Law should b. held invalid in the Ken
tGehY case the laws bearing upon the ques-
ton N those states also would he affected.
y the state had provided a proper mode
Of procedure. if the election law was con-
St.tut.gEal, there could he no legitimate
criticism of the method Of application. and
in Thai case the federal court was clearly
devoid of Jurisdiction Error OF that char
acter could not give this court jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction of the Legislature.
Mr.. McQuown argued for the final and ex-
elusive Jurisdiction of the legislature in con-
tests Of this character. This was the rule
and II was intended that n should be when
the constitution was adopted and the laws
enacted 1t would be possible in view of
this fact 10 give the courts only concurrent
jurisdiction.
Mr.. MCQUown also cOntended that the fed
eral court had right to investigate or
question the motives of the legislature in
its decision of the governorship case-uu
more right than it would have to inquire
into the motives of Congress in the enact
mcnt Of any statute
He said that 80 witnesses had been heard
by the contest board. more than 100 of
whom were introduced in Taylor's behalf
II vas. therefore. to be presumed that the
legislature had not only acted in good faith
put upon proper knowledge Of tha facts in
the case
The supreme Court had in other cases de-
cided that in case Of abuses by the Isa,sla-
ture of such trusts that imposed in this
Instance the only resort was to the ballot
ana NOT TO the courts He also Considered
al some length Gov Taylor's action in adj
Jourhiis the legislature to meet Ut London
c1ntending that il was not competent for
MN 10 lake this responsibility upon himself
When Mr.. McQu0wn concluded the court
adjourned for the day.