The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1907-05-31
THAT OF CONSTITUTIONAL CON
vENTloN SET OUT IN BRIEF.
DIVISION AND ELECTION
The Appeal from Paneoast-conven'
ton Leaders Take the Question
to the Oklahoma Supreme
Court FOR Adjudication.

Guthrie. o. r.. May 30.-A convinc.
ing statement Of the powers of the
constitutional convention with refer.
cnce 10 county division and Utehr mat.
ters and a strong argument in favor
of its authority to take such action
is furnished In the brief just filed
IN the oklahoma supreme court IN
the appeal from the decision Of Judge
Pancoast in the district court of
Woods county, wherein the holding
Of an election on the constitution was
permanently enioinod so long as It
contained the sections providing for
the division Of certain counties in
Oklanoma and the creation OF new
cOuaties therefrom. The brief was
prepared by W. \. Ledbetter of Ard.
more. chairman Of the judicial com
mittce of the constitutional cOnven.
tion: Judge Frank Dale Of Guthrie,
former chief justice of the Oklahoma
supreme court, and \. G. c. Bierer,
former associate justice.
The brief attacks, in the first place.
the authority of G. Il. Autrey, the
plaintiff in the case, 10 sue either as
private citizen or in his official ca
pacity as a member of the board of
county commissioners. In support of
this contention numerous court decis-
ions are cited, including some from
the Oklahoma supreme court.
The second proposition taken up is
that the constitutional convention had
the authority to submit to the people
of Oklahoma the provisions therein
with reference to the creation of new
counties out of the old counties in
Oklahoma, and to create counties and
define boundaries thereof in Indian
Territory. and for the election of of.
ficcrs and the organization of these
counties as a part of its authority
TO form n constitution and state gov.
crnment for said proposed state"
The third question taken up by the
brief is that the convention, then,
having power to create counties, what
was its duty with reference to provid
ing for the election brought in the
newly created counties where there
was no election machinery provided
for under the territorial election laws
for this constitutional election? In re.
gard to this the brief says:
I'VE have no objection TO a con.
struction OF the enabling act declar,
ing that the election laws of Oklaho.
ma are in force for the ensuing elec.
tion as far as applicable, but these
laws are not applicable and do not
provide for the election in the new
counties. We have seen that the con
yention had ample power to provide
for these new counties in the constitu.
ton If they had, they have also pow
er to provide for an election of Off.
GERS in order to organize these new
counties. These new counties are
thus tentative municipalities, and as
such, the constitutional convention in
its power TO provide for the election
had not only the power. but 1t was the
duty to provide the machinery so that
the people in those new counties
might vote upon the constitution and
for the officers who would serve them
Hereunder"
As its fourth contention the brief
claims that the constitutional conven.
tion had ample power to adjourn from
March 10 TO April l6, and upon April
Is No proceed To make further provi.
sions for submitting the constitution
TO the people TO provide for election OF
offic -rs for full state government.
H. regard to the powers OF the conven,
tion. the lawyers for the convention