Kansas City journal. [volume] (Kansas City, Mo.) 1897-1928, 1898-01-18
SUIT INVOLVING HALF A MILLION
ARGUED IN SUPREME COURT.
TOWNSHIP OF EAST GUTHRIE
Mr.. PAYNE CLAIMS IT UNDER HOME
STEAD ENTRY.
Was In Oklahoma as a Deputy Mar
shal on the Day of the Opening
Judge Harner Makes an
Able Argument for
Townsite.

Washington, JAM. 17.-(Special.) The case
of Ransom Payne VS.. the Townsite of East
Guthrie, O.. T., was argued and submitted
IN the supreme court of the United States
TO-DAY. This was a bill in equity brought
In the district court in the first judicial dis
trict of the territory of Oklahoma, Feb
ruary 2. 1s92, by Payne against the trustees
of townsite board No. 6. appointed by the
secretary of the interior for the purpose of
deciding lots to the various claimants to
the townsite. Payne brought suit to obtain
title to a quarter section of land within
SAID townSite, and the case involved the
validity of the patent Of the United States
issued to the trustees for the use and bene-
fit of the TOWNSHIP.
The case grew from the early settlement
Of Oklahoma and the TOWNSHIP of Guthrie.
1t appears that Payne was a deputy United
States marshal for the district of Kansas
prior to April %, 1889, to which district that
portion of the Indian Territory now known
as Oklahoma was attached. Payne was on
the present townsite of Guthrie before noon
OF April o., 1889. Immediately after IL
o'clock he settled upon what is now the
townsite of East Guthrie. About l o'clock
or the same day, vast numbers of people
arrived from the borders of the territory,
coming in on trains from both north and
south. The city grew as if by magic. and
within a few days contained over 10000
people.
A contest was instituted in the local land
office between the townsite settlers and
Payne. and the various land tribunals de-
ciGed in favor OF the townsite. A patent
was then issued by the United States to the
trustees to make conveyances to the right
fdl claimants. Payne brought suit in equity
to enjoin the trustees from issuing deeds to
the various lot claimants. and to compel
them tn fSCIIa dae6 IN hin, Tho farrifor{al
courts dismissed the bill, and Payne ap-
pealed to the supreme court of the United
States. His counsel commended that, as he
was lawfully within the territory, he had a
right to make settlement at the time and in
the manner he did; that it was not neces-
sary for him to wait until the people ar
rived from the borders, or for him to go out
of the territory and come in when the other
people did. in obedience to the act of con-
gress and the proclamation of the presi-
dent. His counsel further contends that
the members of the townsite board are the
proper parties to sue, and the fact that they
were removed from office does not work an
abatement of action.
Judge Hainer made a very able argument
in behalf of the TOWNSHIP. He commended in
his argument: First. that the title was
still in the United States until the trustees
had made c~onveyances to the rightful lot
claimants and until the undisposed of lots
or surplus lands were ascertained; that
TO the various occupants. the townsite was
still within the control of the executive de-
partment OF the government, and, there
fore, the courts had no equitable jurisdic-
ton in the matter under controversy, and
could not render a decree in advance of the
action OF the government, which would
the trustees were officers. of the United
States, and that, pending the appeal to the
supreme court, the trustees were removed,
and that. therefore, the action had abated.
These contentious were supported upon the
authority of the celebrated Boutwell, case.
and also by the recent case of the Warner
Valley Stock Company, which was a bill
in equity brought against Secretary Hoke
Smith and Commissioner Lamoreaux to re-
strain them from issuing patents to certain
swamp lands in the state of Oregon under
to the supreme court of the United States.
on motion the case was dismissed.
the court holding that the action had abat-
ed upon his resignation of office, and could
not afterward be maintained against the
commissioner alone. In his third PROPOSE
ton, Judge Hainer commended that Payne
land under controversy; that there was no
exception to the statute, whether the per-
son was In the territory lawfully or unlaw-
icised. The plain provisions of the statute
admitted of no such construction. that the
statute Is absolutely prohibitory in its
terms. and absolutely ~disquaiifes every per-
son who was within the prohibited country
1859.
The decision Of the court will be looked
for with much interest, owing to the fact
that this case involves half a million of
| dollars and many important questions of
law which will affect, a number Of other
bar, and in which the territory of Oklaho-
ma Is greatly concerned.