The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1898-10-18

I AlI IT IA IN junction NNNNA NAANitlE haAf Col
lection Of this (accordirg 10 Judge
! x aton) Illegal tax aud further on
says. "uad his honor taken the tr0ub
! lo to Investigate he wou 81 have found
tha' Tremendous power liable 10 abuse
which be thundeved against from the
tsupreme beuch, had raised one IN an
(Cros,isnd) from 81 $50 10 s2.6l4, etc. "
What did he expect Sudge kcatou 90
investigate? Does he expect The judici.
al officer 30 get down from Doe bench
and 60 out 10 catch abuses 61at.ug iu
street gossip and rumor2 80 p % lon
was ever filed i'm court on the part Of
Ci ossland or any person showing these
facts. The Senator might as we'll
abuse Kea'on for not couv.ctiug the
thief FOR stealing a horse tnat the
grand jury could not or did not indict
Judge keaton or any other upr Qht
judge tries his cases from the plead.
ings first aud proof introduced in
court aud not like The clat tiut demaEo-
que, through the columns Of
some ncwepaper Bot there
also littlet ruths in the Doom
article in referring 10 the
case presented to Judge Keatou hat
II could not be recognized as the case
actually tried. he facts are as fol
lows A number OF men filed "a petit
tion in the di trict court asking Judge
* atom to give them an injunction
against the taxes charged against
them on their property. whidn had
been largely raised by the board OF
county com missiuuees The petition
II hted showed that the county commls-
sioners had raised the eev r.l kinds of
property of all townships in the coun-
ty exc pit in about three towush ps;
and that they were taxpayers and re-
sided in fottawatomie county, bu
they did not whether or not they re-
sided in the townships affected by the
raise. The county attorney, repre-
senting the county, obtained the AS
sistance of the law Arm OF Cutlip ~
Blakeney to assist in the case. After
ssme conferenbe among the law ers
representing the county, aud consid-
erable investigation by the county
clerk, it was ascertained that a large
per cent Of the parties who had joined
as plaintiffs in this suit were'nOt tax
payers at all in Pottawatomic county,
or at least their names were not on
the X-roll AS an illustration, J, Z.
Doom was one OF the paroles, plain
titfs, who had comm need this sui tHnd
he was not n tax aver or on the tax
rolls of this county. The attorneys
representing the county finding that
really IA large per cent OF the plain
tiifs were not On the rolls, filed Il mo.
p ion n the case 80 require the plain !
I Hs to set out their property which !
was assessed, II any was SO assessed, !
and show whether their property was
situated in the townships raised or la
the townships not raised This motion |
was clearly rignt. IL j. Il Doom and |
Frank p. Stearnes were not tax |
payers the county ought not 10 be |
put to ;he cost Of a law suit with |
them. If the taxpayers on the petit |
tion were residents In township not |
raised they ought not TO be allowed 90 |
consume the time of a court when they |
were entitled TO no relief and could !
obtain none. In the argument Of this |
case g. b Blakeney, who preset ted il |
TO the court, also sugs e.ted to the |
court that there was misjoinder Of |
the pla ntiffs. The supreme court of
X Kansau has decided and thi statute |
allowing pa ties affected by an iliegal
tax to Join in suit o. enjain taxes |
was adopted from Kansas Judge |
Woods, who represented these plain |
III - W Ith AAlN NbNiANg AhNNt NY WI ffh
lahoma county, had before Justice |
Bierer, pre- entod o demurrer claiming |
in case exactly similar that there |
was a misjoiner Of plaintiff and 10 had |
been sustained by Judge Bierer. Aud |
Ju tice Ricrer was one OF the judges |
that held in the nupreme court tina, /
the raiee was Illegal JudR Woods |
is the lawyer OF Acknowledged ability |
and Of the highest standing as citi. |
zen referred 10 by Mr.. Doom. Was he !
when acting as the rworn otiic OF |
oklahoma county, merely petufog |
ging or was he acting as co scien- !
tious officer Since that time the SUI
preme court Of Oklahoma has had the !
same question before itsin d case from |
Lincoln couEty. and that court held IN |
a unanimous decision that there was
Ia misioinoer OF plaintiffs.
Now, what could Judge Keaton do
but follow the law which he had
$ worn To support? What did Judge
Keaton do? lie sustained the motion
making the plaintiffs state whether
they hed property that was assessed
and taxed ana whether they resided IN
. ne toWnsh p raised, aud incidentally
that be thought there was,
also, q misi Under Of y aintiffs. Van
Winkle aud Woods asked for few
minutes for consultation and walked
out into tho hall Of the court building
rnd consulted with Mr.. Doom and
other such farmOrs not on the tax
rolls, and they returned into court aud
Judge Van Wrinkle stated that he did
not believe that they could draw "a
petition with all these parsons as
plaintiffs aud that investigation
showed that the tax payers had not
been raised n certain per cent, but
each OF them had been rather raised
separately aud that he and Judg
Woods had decided % d smiss the case
aud J1d. Van WinKle hen aud there
dismissed the case.
In the clerks minutes docket, on
page l45, OF the district court Of Pot
towatomie county, may be found the
proceedings had in the case thatDOom
refers 20 and IL shows as follows:
" No. 500, apple 4tiOn for temporary
Injunction. motion 10 make the petit
ton more definite and certain aus-
tained. Dismissed ly plaintiffs VITA
out prejudice
Why aDuse keG on when they vol
unfairly dismissed thoir case But
Judge Keatou did not decide that
there vas a misjoiuder Of PLAINTIFF,
because the case was dismissed before
the question was raised, Not content
with 60 o.umns Il misrepresentation Of
the facts but the senator INDUCED ia
some absolutely false iDsinuatious. He
says 4" Ii is simply absurd 20 Suppose
fhare WAS urratar community 0. in