The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-03-01

/ year the expenditures Of the department OF
/ justice for Oklahoma dropped TO Sle4 60. a
! decrease Of S274.0oJ as compared Tith the
/ yea preceding under the mileage 'and fee
/ system. This. in part. explains why Pres.-
dent Mckinley and Attorney General
+ Griggs recently told the Oklahomans tina,
II was useless 10 ask for Judge McAtee s
( place.
There was another reason for his reten-
/ ton. Years ago congress established a
/ law prohibiting any municipality IL terri
/ tories Of the United States from mourning
+ Indebtedness in excess Of ( per cent upon
( the last annua, assessment. The object
was plain. Before the legislation some
municipalities in territories had shown
great recklessness in plling Up bonded
debts. In Oklahoma. three or four years
ago a schem ewas devised 10 avoid this
limitation on indebtedness Under q form
Of equalization the attempt was made TO
increase largely the assessment in order
that the public Indebtedness might be
swollen proportiOnately.
in 1895 the counties OF the territory
returned their assessment at $2S ola 90.
The territorial board OF equalization COM
lists OF the governor. secretary OF state
and auditor. Equalization is supposed 20
be reached by a process OF averaging.
The Oklahoma board took that county re-
turning the largest increase OF valuation
and raised all the other counties 90 IT,
This made the assessable property SO. eQ.-
O00 instead OF $2S.c10.Oo0, the amount re-
turned BY counties. II such action was
legal, the effect was 20 authorize an in
crease OF public indebtedness In the
amount Of 81 $4,000.
I'm 1895 question Of the legality OF this
kind OF equalization came before the
supreme court OF Oklahoma Judge Tars-
ney had taken mis- seat on the bench a few
months before. The chief justice asked
Judge Tarsney 20 write the opinion OF
the majority, which sustained The power
Of the territorial board. Ths case was
Wallace Us. BulIen Jadge McAtee die
scented vigorously and filed an opinion.
in which he neld that equalization was
simply a power Of taking the average be-
tween the total assessed values OF each
county as returned by the county clerks
70 the auditor Of the territory. while the
amount of the sum taken together should
remain the same after the process Of
equalization with such slight variations
as were merely incidental 20 the process
Of calculation
IN 1891. a change having occurred In
the court with the incoming Of the Re
publican administration, Judge Tars1ey's
decision was reversed. Judge McAtee TINS
time writing the decision Of the majority.
Last summer. further change in the coudl
having occurred the majority went back
10 Judge Tarsney's view Of equalization
Now. strange 20 tell. this equalization
question is one which President Mckinley
70 personally familiar. Many years ago.
when the president was young lawyer IN
Ohio. a phase Of this question Developed
there. The presiden, became grounded IN
the view Of equalization upon which Judge
McAtee based his position; therefore when
the matter o: a change IN tho t1dgeshp
came up. Il was only natural that the
administration should feel confidence iH
Judge McAtee. Judge Burf3rJ. ~ Okla
h1ma, came hera about a week ago. re
went 20 The department Of justice and be-
gan an argument with the attorney general
for the removal u Judge McAtee Before
the chief justice had made mIcH progress.
Attorney General Griggs stopped t.n and
told him that the administration c11gld- .
ered the interests ~ the territory would
30 hes. -I5=eryed by the retention o. Judge .
McAtee"