The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-02-22
HOPKINS CASE ARGUED
Decision Will Not Be An
nounced Before Thursday.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION
Is Made the IsSue---What
Facts are in Dispute.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION

Guthrie, o. IT, Feb. 21-(speciaL)-Tht
great interest, legislative. executive, jul
dicial and political, centered in the capita
city today in the hearing of the habeas
corpus case Of Auditor Hopkins before
Chief Justice Burford. It was to be the
climax in the controversy between the ad-
rninistration and the legislature, acting
through the Lexom committee, and arose
over the question whether the inVestigat-
ing committee should hold its sessions at
the various departments Of the territory
to be investigated rwhether 1t should
compel the various heads o departments
to move their offices or at least the books
and records, to the room assigned to the
committee for the work.
Oklahoma has established a reputation
for raising more new questions for courts
to decide than any other commonwealth,
and in this last movement IS breaking its
own record, for in the decision of this
case much precedent IS 10 be established
for future guidance. And the decision is
not to be announced Immediately. When
the case came up Judge Milford, realizing
its importance, the interests and questions
involved. and the comment. that would be
made, stated that he should devote at
least a fun day to an examination OF the
authorities, so that when he rendered his
opinion it would be one satisfactory TO
the court, regardless Of what the effect
might be 10 any Of the parties or interests
involved, and no decision may be looked
for until Thursday.
When court met at o'clock this morn
ing the room was filed with lawyers and
politicians interested, personally, politi-
cally and otherwise Petitioner Hopkins
was represented by Attorney General
Cunningham, Fred NJ Elkin and Assis-
tant United States Attorney Scothorn,
while Judge Geo. S. Green, Hon. Selwyn
Douglas, A. J. Biddison and County At
torney Jones lined up for the other side.
The entire forenoon was occupied in hear
ing the reading of the pleadings fled
the petition, return and traverse 10 the re-
turn. These contained a history of the
controversy, the action of the legislative
committee a record Of its proceedings
and those OF the council, and the various
corrections of the record and denials made
by Auditor Hopkins 20 all proceedings
had.
The variance between the contentious
Of each side made the admission Of parole
testimony necessary to establish actually
what happened to Hopkins. Senator Hut
10 related the proceedings had in the
council when the auditor was brought be-
fore that body charged With being in con-
tempt. From his evidence it appeared
that the auditor failed TO obG~ the sub
poena duces tectum served on MIN, in not
bringing the records mentioned in the
writ; that, however, when the committee
reported this violation the only action TAX
, en- by the council was TO make 4 written
request of the auditor to furnish the rec
ords TO the committee at its rooms. The
auditor had never REFUSED to furnish the
information asked, but insisted that, as
custodian OF the records, he could not re-
move them from his office and that his
action in the matter simply followed the
advice of the attorney general. When
the auditor was brought before the gar
of the council he asked for a copy of the
chaTges-report of the committeeman
time in which to make answer, and to be
represented in the matter by counsel. The
president consented TO his having coun-
sci 10 represent him, but the previous
question being called for on a resolution
conHcting him of contempt, debate was
cut off and the counsel for Mr.. Hopkins
fell under the rule and was not permit
ted to be heard.
Mr.. Hopkins on the witness stand pro-
tested that he had never refused and in