Show TAYLOR I PLEAOS FOR I Gov Bradley Addresses the I U S Supreme Court I i WHAT HIS CONTENTIOUS ARE I 1 I Claimed that Gov Taylors Title Was I as Good as That of Any Man WhoEver i Who-Ever Held the Ofllce That He Was I Not Only the DC Jure Governor but I 13c Facto Governor He Closed with I a Strong Appeal for Recognition by tho Court Which Took a Recess Until the Mth Instant j Washington MJUV IThe 1 Supreme court resumed Its hearing today In thin Kenjuxky Governorship case Hon V O Erhdlpy former Governor of that State being the only speaker lie appeared ap-peared for Hov Taylor taking up firpt the claim of the opposition that Taylor had ncr posessod any liilo I to he I office Jle contended that Taylors title I tie was as good af that of any mini who had ever held the olllce He argued that Taylors title was complete that hu was not only de jure Governor but dc facto Governor as well nnd that every stop that he had taken us Governor was legal AS TO JURISDICTION jOn j-On the point oC jurisdiction he contended con-tended thai the pending case Is very II I similar to that of Thayer vs Boyd of i i had I Nebraska in hleh jurisdiction been assumed lie met the aigumenl 1 I of Coy Heekhams rouiibul thai an counse I office was not properly by quoting iu IhontkS lo the ontrary Arguing this ll01ites ollllY I i point he said thai ollice was a species of property because It was a right of i Aaluc a prh liege of citizenship of I worth to any man I was one of the I rights or pilvileges coming under the I protection guaranteed by the fourteenth four-teenth amendment of the Constitution and therefore subject to review by the highest Federal courts No Stale could disregard the provisions provi-sions of this constitutional I provision nor could any Slate Legislature assume to be superior to It nor is a State Legislature Leg-islature bound to grant cue process of law but State courts must administer cases under this authority WHY APPEAL In the case of the Governorship there was no such thing I as an appeal I An adjudication ad-judication was necessary And why appeal Mr Bradley asked If we appeal to the ballot is it not easier now to defy the expressed will of the r < vnle than II has been even In this case when there has been such an open defiance of lie electors of lie State v eel0 o under me state onsiituuon inc Legislature was nothing more than aboard a-board of contest This was a special I power and It was limited by the Constitution Con-stitution J this limitation was transcended I trans-cended the act was tyrannical and such the speaker claimed lie art of the Legislature In this case lo hr He I challenged the method observed In drawing the board as some of the members mem-bers of It themselves had contests pending while another had laid a wager upon the result On this account ac-count according lo precedents the decision de-cision of the board must bo held void the members of the board being judges In their on cases Furthermore there hat been no lime for reasonable hearing hear-ing nor sufficient notice IRREGULARITIES IN TRIAL There had also been irregularities In the trial and Taylors friends had been refused the privilege of arguing the I case Seventeen hundred pacjcs of testimony tes-timony were taken but theio was not time allowed the Legislature I to read a word of 11 Therefore the Legislature had never really and legally determined the case All this Mr Bradley concluded con-cluded was donlal of the Due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution I Constitu-tion The point was also made that the notice no-tice of contest had failed to state the ground of contest under the law Hence the Legislature had assumed a Jurisdiction Juris-diction it 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 to bring back to life the body of Mr Goebel as It has to put life Into a transaction which Is void APPEAL FOR RECOGNITION He closed with an appeal for recognition recog-nition bv the court Instead of bending the knee to the Legislature tIme court he said should Investigate their processes pro-cesses and see that they were In accord with the requirements of thin Constitution Constitu-tion The occasion vas a momentous one he said for the people of Ken tuckv This was the first light which had been made son Ii of the I Ohio for 10l the preservation of civil liberty by l the process of the courts And If we fall he said It Is liable to be the last The same blighting Influence of arbitrary power is sure to go farther and extend to other States if I there not a supreme tribunal to which the people can come with assurance of such recognition as will guarantee the piesorvatlon of their privileges and Immunities If J we fall here our condition I Is pitiable able IndoiHl for it I appeal lo I the ballot box will hi > in tIme faeo o that failure more worthless in thin future than it has been III the past Oui bill I of rights though rllten III the blood of martyrs will bo worihlrss lo us if the agencies given for our protection turn upon and betray us We make oui last appeal to you hu tin I so doing we look beyond to that eternal principle of Justice which we know should and docs regulate regu-late the mm lairs of len reru When Mr Bradley closed the court took a recess until the llth lust |